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.

 orkcommander wrote:

 6^ wrote:
I wouldn't care if my opponent had square bases.

edit: as long as he were playing Daemons that is.

Just curious I don't play deamons but a lot of my orks came with square bases, so would you have a problem with that?

yes, sorry. But it wouldn't be anything personal.

Elric Greywolf wrote:
I tend to agree with Manny. It might be harder to see the advantages with the infantry. For cavalry there's a significant difference in actual base size.

I based my cavalry to be usable in both games. (See below picture.) I put rare earth magnets on the bottom of my round infantry bases and then use a metal sheet in the bottom of a movement tray, so that they can't move around or tip over.

For MCs, I put them on the square base, with magnets on the bottom. I can then stick the square to a round base when playing 40k. The square base hangs over the lips a tiny bit at the corners, but it's very easy to see who is in base contact with the round base when playing 40k.

(Also, I'm not fabulous at taking pictures. Ignore the glare and poor lighting.)

Do the seekers come with the oval bases now.?? I really don't know as I havn't gotten any.

Camarodragon wrote:


Do the seekers come with the oval bases now.?? I really don't know as I havn't gotten any.

Yeah, "oval." They're more like rectangles with rounded corners. But they are about 1-2" longer than the square fantasy bases, so using the square bases definitely changes the footprint dramatically. The picture I posted utilises both the bases that were included in the box.

 Goat wrote:
It's actually a disadvantage for yourself to use the square bases. It's easier for your opponent to get into B2B with a square based models "points" than it would be a circle base. Granted, it's very very minimul but its there. Go for it.

For Seekers (or any model that uses the same base), the rectangular base is smaller than, and will fit entirely within, the rounded base.

Round bases don't work in fantasy because you need to know the left and right corners for measuring charge ranges to anything that isn't directly in front of the unit.

 mauleed wrote:
Round bases don't work in fantasy because you need to know the left and right corners for measuring charge ranges to anything that isn't directly in front of the unit.

Movement tray?

 pretre wrote:

 mauleed wrote:
Round bases don't work in fantasy because you need to know the left and right corners for measuring charge ranges to anything that isn't directly in front of the unit.

Movement tray?

Again, the movement tray doesn't have the same dimensions. Its wider than the unit(it has to be)

 Grey Templar wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 mauleed wrote:
Round bases don't work in fantasy because you need to know the left and right corners for measuring charge ranges to anything that isn't directly in front of the unit.

Movement tray?

Again, the movement tray doesn't have the same dimensions. Its wider than the unit(it has to be)

edit: misunderstood point.

And if only there were a way to know increments of 25mm on the tray... Like inscribing lines.

That's an excellent idea. It's amazing that it hadn't been suggested before.

 insaniak wrote:
That's an excellent idea. It's amazing that it hadn't been suggested before.

I thought it had been suggested before. Must not have been important enough. That or the poster was somebody nobody pays attention to .

The square bases are technically legal.

as for GW or "common sense" issues, I think no one really felt players should care THAT much over which base the player chooses to use as long as it is not modelling for advantage (i.e. using a terminator base for a regular troop.)

6th edition states that models must be on the "apporpriate" size base for that model, so take that as you will

its in the first few pages, dont have BRB right in front of me, but its first 10 pgs or so, one of the grey highlighted boxes

Square bases would be appropriate, of course this is a subjective measure.

easysauce wrote:
6th edition states that models must be on the "apporpriate" size base for that model, so take that as you will

its in the first few pages, dont have BRB right in front of me, but its first 10 pgs or so, one of the grey highlighted boxes

Define appropriate sized.

Models and Base Sizes
The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base
they are supplied with. Sometimes, a player may have models in
his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't
supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness,
relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to
mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using
models of a similar type as guidance.

I'm assuming you are referring to page 3, where it says the rules assume you are basing the models on the base they come with. It then states that if the model is not supplied with a base, you can mount the model on a base of appropriate size, using similarly sized models as guidance.

As I stated earlier, I have a number of old Tyranids (I'm also getting some more) that are on square bases. In regards to Daemons while there are some problems with square bases in 40K...I haven't played the new codex yet and when your entire army has to DS that gives me more models to hit with blast markers and templates.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

Where is the confusion?

With square bases, when Deep Striking you can pack 8 around the centre model, as opposed to 6 with rounds.

For squad coherency, because the bases are wider across the corners than the faces, you can align the models corner to corner to increase their spread.

He wasn't saying that they could be packed in tighter and spread out at the same time. Different situations.

Exactly.

On the turn you deep strike, square bases allow you to place 8 models around and in base contact with 1, thus creating a substantially smaller unit footprint and reducing the odds of mishap correspondingly.

Now, if the squares are the same width as the rounds (like 25mm or 40mm) you can compensate for this by deliberately placing the squares in basically the same formation as if they were rounds (6 around 1), and for the first seven models or so that is around the same size. But in subsequent concentric circles it gets a bit trickier to maintain the pattern, and the ability to tuck one square into the right-angle corner of two other squares winds up shrinking the overall formation, by eliminating some empty space from inside the group.

You can compensate that way with 25 and 40mm squares vs. round, although it’s imperfect. But when it comes to cavalry models and Bloodcrushers, OTOH, you can’t compensate. No matter how you position them, the 50x25mm rectangular cav bases are substantially shorter (same width, but close to an inch less length) than the newer rounded-end cavalry/bike bases. Likewise a 50mm square (which Juggers get for WHFB) is always going to take up less space on the table than a 60mm round. So even if you place your models in a 6 around 1 formation with these bases, it’s still going to be a smaller formation and reduced chance of mishap. With these two types of bases the difference in unit footprint is especially noticeable.

----------------------

The second advantage is dispersion, and obviously for that we’re talking about normal moves, or a Run after a Deep Strike. With a HtH army, especially, it’s often important to be able to spread your units to cover a large amount of real estate, thus allowing your units to threaten a larger area of the table with possible assault, and block off larger areas of the table from being moved into safely (or at all, like when blocking Flyers or enemy Deep Strikers or the like) by your opponent’s units. In late turns covering a wider area allows you to reach and contest or hold more objectives. And at any point during the game, wider dispersion allows you to reduce the number of hits you suffer from templates and blasts.

Now, a 25mm round base is just a tiny bit less than an inch (1 inch= 2.54cm) wide, and a 25mm square base is the same width measured side to side, but using simple geometry (or just a ruler) we can see that the square is about 1.4” (36mm) measured corner to corner. So if I arrange three models on round bases in a row at max coherency, the total width of the formation is just under 7”, with just under 5” between the inside edges of the two outside models. A 5” large blast centered on the middle model hits all three on a hit. Whereas if I take three models on 25mm squares, orient them with the corners pointing toward one another, and spread out at max coherency, the total width of the formation is ~8.2”, with ~5.4” between the inside edges of the two outside models. A large blast centered on the middle model hits only one model; you can hit two if it’s off center. Just with three models we can see the math, although obviously for blocking and table-threat-width purposes, the more models there are in the unit, the greater the advantage gets. A 10 model unit on 25mm circles covers a maximum line around ~28” long. On squares they can be spread to 32”. Even Bloodcrushers gain a little bit of distance this way, despite the 50mm squares being narrower across the sides than the 60mm rounds. From corner to corner a 50mm square is ~70mm. Cavalry models, OTOH, don’t get increased dispersion from using the old rectangular bases, because the newer pill-shaped are so much longer. They can get wider dispersal with the rounded bases.

Now, this is not to say that daemon players using square bases normally maximize their advantage by turning corner to corner, but some may, and more reasonably, unless you’re spending the whole game keeping your guys perfectly square to one another in a perfect grid, you’re always gaining at least a little bit of increased dispersion and board coverage. Even if you kept your guys in a perfect grid, if your opponent happens to move any unit so that it’s approaching your formation from a 45” degree angle, you’ve gained a little bit of charge range from the corners on the base if you’re trying to reach them. Now depending on your formation that distance may only be a fraction of an inch, but those small distances can be (and certainly are, in many games) the difference between a failed charge and a successful, or between being within 3” of an objective to win the game or being just out.

After doing the math and seeing it actually come up and be a game-deciding factor in games I played, I finally decided that best practices definitely called for using the round bases intended for use in 40k. It avoids garnering any inadvertent or deliberate advantages, and doesn’t require me to make a special effort NOT to gain an advantage.

At this point it’s become a minor crusade of mine to spread awareness when the subject comes up, and encourage folks to use the round bases for 40k*. Especially because many folks mistakenly choose to use the squares (as I did) due to the misapprehension that they’re the better choice for cross-system interchangeability, when in fact, due to the use of movement trays in WHFB, it’s the opposite.

(*Which on reflection I do think is definitely GW's intent. The basing rules are just written the way they are to be open to people with older models and not force them to re-base.)

 mauleed wrote:
Round bases don't work in fantasy because you need to know the left and right corners for measuring charge ranges to anything that isn't directly in front of the unit.

Except that, of course, the inside edges of the tray will be exactly the width you need. If you've got (e.g.) a tray for 5 wide 25mm infantry, the inside space within the rims is going to be exactly 125mm wide, and you can just measure from the inside corners. All trays of course add the width of the rims to the width of the unit, but of course we've known that for years, and that's why we make critical measurements from/to the inside dimensions of the tray/base edges if we're playing strictly and not just measuring to/from the trays.

Couldn't you just make a ferrous metal movement tray for fantasy, mark it with the appropriate sized squares, and then put magnets on the bottom of the round bases?

That way, you wouldn't have the movement tray edges confusing the issue, nor would you have any confusion about where each individual square base corner ended up (which, I would like to point out, can happen even if you just use regular square bases, unless you have them perfectly neatened up every time).

The models would just need to be plonked down on the metal tray in such a way that you could clearly see which model went on which square, but wouldn't even need to be perfectly ranked up or anything (which is nice for Bloodletters, who are a pain to rank up anyway with those big poky swords).

Heck, I cut movement trays out of sheets of tin for this purpose myself, but I never played with round bases and thought about marking them this way before this thread. It just made my models easier to deploy and move around.

If you were REALLY worried about perfection, you could put magnets under square bases, and then glue them down to a tray first, actually showing precisely where each base was, and then another magnet on each round base, to stick them down to the underlying bases.

I've known plenty of people who do/have done exactly what you're suggesting. You just need to be a bit careful with the sheet metal, and possibly file it a bit, so it's not too sharp.

And just to reinforce a point: What may be technically legal under one rule may still be disallowed by a tourney director as modelling for advantage.

If you are going to play in a tournement, talk to the director. Explain why you are using different bases, and mention that you will not be abusing the differences to skate the rules and it should be ok. If you are abusing the size/ shape of the bases then expect to get called on it.

My old tourney rule sheet included a line about modelling for advantage that was very vague simply to stop people who were trying to cheat. If a person had a unit on unusual bases but was trying their best to play fair...that was no problem. But people learned quickly that a unit could have a TD "mishap" if they had stretched the rules.

TDs are trying to run a good, fun and fair event. People who are trying to get around the system unfairly will NOT like the result.

I would say you can model your daemons on square bases. All you need to tell them is that you also want to play Fantasy, so you wouldn't have to buy identical sets to have them mounted on circular bases. I can only imagine a WAAC TFG having a problem with it, since your army can play two games thats cool.

Tournament wise, you should clear it up with the TO, like the last person said it could be considered MFA by some.

Ace, are you trying to troll? It's been explained how using round bases is actually BETTER for cross-system functionality.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Likewise a 50mm square (which Juggers get for WHFB)

Juggers are mounted on 50x75 now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Ace, are you trying to troll? It's been explained how using round bases is actually BETTER for cross-system functionality.

Only for infantry and Monstrous Infantry. Once you get to Monsters, Cav, Mounstrous Cav, Chariots and anything that uses a base size and shape that doesn't exist in 40K, basing on Rectangular is better from cross-system.

For uniformity basing across the army, you're incorrect.

Thanks for the update!

Hmm. It's clearly trickier now with the wider variety of bases they've started to employ in WHFB.

I still think the better approach with the larger models is to dedicate the models to one system or make the models swappable. For the models which go on 25mm or 40mm bases, round is definitely the better choice, as movement trays allow them to be used fine in WHFB without swapping.

No problem. It was one of those stealth changes. I believe the boxes with the new bases started showing in November when the WoC Jugger Knights were released, but it may have been when the WD update was released and the Herald on Jugger was swapped to Finecast.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Exactly.

On the turn you deep strike, square bases allow you to place 8 models around and in base contact with 1, thus creating a substantially smaller unit footprint and reducing the odds of mishap correspondingly.

This goes both ways.

If you have to place 8 around the original model, you have a large, uniform footprint.

However, if you only place 6 around the original model, you can place the other 2 on the next outer ring wherever you want, thus potentially avoiding the mishap. This becomes boot if you have like a 20 man unit.

Again, I think the situation where this becomes an issue are pretty few and far between. When in doubt, I usually try to give the advantage to my opponent so as to avoid issues of fairness.

In my personal experience using the squares, I found that it inadvertently became an issue enough times that I started getting really annoyed at having to fudge things so I didn't gain an inappropriate advantage.

So rebasing to rounds, to me, was the best solution because it avoided any actual or appearance of impropriety, and saved me the effort and annoyance of compensating for the squares.

Does model height matter as much in FB?

More than it used to. WHFB LOS rules used to be more abstract, or at least were interpreted to be in competitive settings. In 8th they went to a much more true-LOS version.