Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Meh I have a fully painted, based, and very nice look daemon army... On square bases.

I have never had anyone say anything other than nice looking army in my games.

I do carry the round bases in a baggie tho, just in case I need to put one down where the unit was for any reason.

I am so surprised by this thread. People are quoting as fact yet later own up to not having the codex, (which is very noble, I must admit), people inferring that if 2 bases are provided you MUST use the round one. etc, etc. What utter nonsense.

There is no basis in fact that anything has to go on any specific type of base other than it has to have a base. Page 3, current rules; "Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game."

It even goes one step further "Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this."

Which means you use whatever GW gives you to use, any type that is given and as a bonus gift they say you can use anythng else you want as long as the opponent does not mind. Even in tournaments there is nothing to say which bases you need to use.

So, there's a storm in a teacup from people, not necessarily OP, who have decided to have mood swings over rules in own head. (RIOH) If anyone can make a pop up for that, similar to LOS or RAW I'd be grateful, it might come in useful.

I swear, this is the strangest place at times.

BloodQuest wrote:
Really? So, 99% of 40K bases are round, but they really meant for you to use one randomly selected from the two they supplied. If it really didn't matter, why don't they just supply one base?

Even the previously rectangular bike bases have been replaced with what amounts to a stretched circular base.

Previously they didnt come with ANY base. I have bikes still from that time.

So, I wouldn't for a moment expect someone that played the same models in both game systems to jury rig some bizarre multi-format base. It would seem prefectly reasonable to me, however, for them to use one shape or the other consistently.

BUT someone playing only 40K should, to my mind, use the round bases and to argue otherwise is specious.

Really? People like you really tempt me to build a marine army on nothing but square bases to see what would happen.

carmachu wrote:

BloodQuest wrote:


BUT someone playing only 40K should, to my mind, use the round bases and to argue otherwise is specious.

Really? People like you really tempt me to build a marine army on nothing but square bases to see what would happen.

Carmachu don't be a square, man!

So I hear you have a problem with polygons...

BloodQuest wrote:Really? So, 99% of 40K bases are round, but they really meant for you to use one randomly selected from the two they supplied. If it really didn't matter, why don't they just supply one base?

Where are you getting 'randomly' from? Clearly, by putting two bases in the package, they intended to give the purchaser a choice about which base to use based on their preference. Some people might like the look of round, some might like square, some might want round to look more similar to other 40k models, some might want square to work with fantasy. By crafting a rule that says 'use whatever base comes with it' and putting two bases in the package, they foolishly assumed that this would allow the model buyer to make the choice without condemnation. They didn't count on the power of Angry Base Controller Man, though, who's ire rises when someone else makes a legal choice of base that he personally wouldn't make.

The people in your gaming store clearly need to get their hands on some old bikes, drednoughts, sentinals, and war walkers with square bases and build lists with as many as possible just to drive you into a frenzy so you'll get over this base-based anger.

I'd buy tickets to that dance.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:But before my point gets muddled, All I'm really trying to say is GW intends for you to put daemons on round bases for 40k and square for fantasy. it also would not surprise me to see some of the more hardcore tournaments require basing to be as GW intends. perhaps some one who goes to tournament regularly could confirm or deny?

If GW intends for you to put daemons on round bases for 40k, why did they write the rule on basing to explicitly allow square bases in 40k? How did you manage to determine GW's intent without any statement by them of this intent and actions that clearly indicate that they have the opposite intent?

I don't think I'd regard a tournament as 'hardcore' if they make their rules the exact opposite of what GW wrote in the book, and clearly the exact opposite of what GW intends. It's just some kind of 'heavy house rules because we can' event.

daedalus wrote:
Wait... so you belittled him, were overall rude, If someone is a smarta$$ to me I will respond in kind and then it turns out that you didn't even have the codex Do you own every codex? to confirm the incorrect theory you had about 40k? I originally was referring to models on 25mm round bases, knowing that my claim was accurate at least on that point. he assumed I meant the rules type infantry . Amazing. Also, that the set contains three square and three round bases doesn't tell me which ones I'm supposed to use. Suppose I'm starting Daemons. I'm a new player. I purchase and assemble my stuff, but then I have these two bases, which one do I use? Well, of my two friends that play, one has an old-school SM bike army that has rectangular bases, and then the other has an Eldar army, which has mostly round bases except for that big Avatar guy. My avatar came with a round base I guess I'll just use the square bases. It probably doesn't matter much anyway and they look really cool when they're all lined up in a row. That's called a mistake.

You don't have to be very observant or intelligent to notice that in fantasy troops fight in ranks requiring square bases and all other 40k armies only come with round bases. Who buys a 40k army without ever having seen an army-or more likely two- on the table top? With the game the way it is it's unlikely that army is a daemon army (It'd probably be a SM) so it would be on round bases. I would contend that the new players friend would inform him that 40k armies are on round bases. The way I see it your scenario is so unlikely that its possibility approaches negligibility.

Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

Mordoskul wrote:Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

No clue, some people are irked visually.

Just like I am, with this thread.

Mordoskul wrote:Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

Because 40K is seriously only about winning and only serious winners should play 40K.

carmachu wrote:Previously they didnt come with ANY base. I have bikes still from that time.

As do I, but I had to stick a little brass rod prop in the sodding things to keep them from falling over.

carmachu wrote:People like you really tempt me to build a marine army on nothing but square bases to see what would happen.

People like me? Apparently daring to put forward a perfectly reasonable argument in a "Discussions" topic makes me what? Oh, yes, a control freak. I'll amend my rank immediately.

And go ahead. Really. You can mount your minis on Coconut Macaroons for all I care.

Someone raised a question. I gave my view in a reasoned manner. If you really can't see the point I was trying to make then I'm not going to spend the rest of my life restating it endlessly.

is the issue that he uses mixed bases or that he doesn't have the models attached to a base and uses sticki-tack so he can swip-swap them?

Mordoskul wrote:Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

This man is a genius, I hope to model all of my mannerisms after this idol of greatness!

Aren't the square bases smaller than the round bases anyway?

As in, they will fit *inside* a round base, so there wouldn't be any trouble with gaining extra movement, and its a difference of millimitres, so the extra distance required for charging should be minimal (They'd also be slightly more bunched up for template/blast weapons.)

I fail to see why its such a big problem.

del'Vhar wrote:Aren't the square bases smaller than the round bases anyway?

A 25mm square base is the same width, but larger diagonally, than a 25mm round base.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: I originally was referring to models on 25mm round bases, knowing that my claim was accurate at least on that point. he assumed I meant the rules type infantry

Yes, what is defined by the rules as infantry. The only description that matters.

And even then, it's 'bigger' by a few millimeters, nothing ridiculously significant. I'm willing to bet that the bayonets on my Guardsmen cause me more problems with putting units in place than that. Besides....who has a sharp enough eye to notice that the tape measure is 1 millimeter away, and you therefore can't charge? I know I wouldn't.

BloodQuest wrote:People like me? Apparently daring to put forward a perfectly reasonable argument in a "Discussions" topic makes me what? Oh, yes, a control freak. I'll amend my rank immediately.

Arguing that the "intent" of the rules is the direct opposite of what the rules say is not really what most would call 'perfectly reasonable'.

In summary then:

Me: I noticed that [some of] your [whatever] are on square bases - any reason for that?

Reasonable Answers:

- I mostly play fantasy, so I decided to stick with the square bases.
- I had a brain fart and glued them to the square bases before I realised that round bases were more appropriate.
- I use varying shape bases to differentiate units.
- I actually think the square bases look cooler? I hope that's okay?
- Back in the day these only came with square bases.

Not a reasonable answer:
I realised that by putting them on square bases I could gain nearly a quarter of an inch of extra space between models so that even a large blast can't get more than one guy. I'm so intent on winning that I use rules as written to justify it. If you challenge me on it, I'll accuse you of being an angry control freak.

Quarter of an inch?

Wha?

The models still have to be in coherency, there is no way to make a large blast marker only hit one guy that I can think of...

Che-Vito wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: I originally was referring to models on 25mm round bases, knowing that my claim was accurate at least on that point. he assumed I meant the rules type infantry

Yes, what is defined by the rules as infantry. The only description that matters.

Okay, congratulations you got me on the bloodcrusher thing. I don't own a daemon codex, the only guy around here that plays a daemon army in 40k doesn't use them, and from looking at the model I would have never guessed it was an infantry model. So kudos you got me on a technicality.
My argument that GW intends for players to put 40k models on round bases where supplied has yet to be refuted.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:My argument that GW intends for players to put 40k models on round bases where supplied has yet to be refuted.

You're arguing that the intent of the rule is the exact opposite of what is stated, you're refuted by the rulebook. If GW intended for players to be required to put 40k models on round bases, they wouldn't have written the rule that says to base models on the base they come with, they would have specified a base like they do in fantasy.

"Oh, whoa, I want to be a control freak and make some guy rebase models for no reason other than I can, If I declare that the intent of a rule is the exact opposite of what it says I can say he's breaking the intended rules!"

Models spaced like so:

X---X
--X--
X---X

2 inches corner to corner(square bases) Large Blast Marker doesn't touch outer models.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:My argument that GW intends for players to put 40k models on round bases where supplied has yet to be refuted.

You're arguing that the intent of the rule is the exact opposite of what is stated, you're refuted by the rulebook. If GW intended for players to be required to put 40k models on round bases, they wouldn't have written the rule that says to base models on the base they come with, they would have specified a base like they do in fantasy.

"Oh, whoa, I want to be a control freak and make some guy rebase models for no reason other than I can, If I declare that the intent of a rule is the exact opposite of what it says I can say he's breaking the intended rules!"

No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square.

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

I'm trying to remember whether or not my Greater Daemon of Slaanesh model on its medium square base would be old enough to buy liquor, or just buy cigarettes if it had been born the day I bought it.

In that entire time, I have never had anyone complain about my models being on square bases.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square.

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

I did. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/320234.page#1992557 you can put a model on either base and it's legal.

Elmodiddly wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square.

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

I did. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/320234.page#1992557 you can put a model on either base and it's legal.

This is another conflict of RAW vs. RAI.

You are arguing that GW said you are supposed to use the base(s) provided. I am not arguing that. I am taking the next logical step and explaining why GW provides two different kinds of bases.
In regard to your post: putting a model on a square base when it should be round does not qualify as a "scenic base" any more than a really nice car qualifies as a truck.

Devastator wrote:yes the OP annoys me with his post

+1 And no I dont see the problem