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.

Not surprising though, they likely already had thousands of manuals printed before they even made the decision as to which bases would be changed.

 BlackTalos wrote:
No i'd say "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with." is the hard rule, while what follows is "just examples", but IMHO "examples" are also rules, because they are written as part of them, and in this case cover all the options.

A) "on the base they are supplied with"
B) "on unusually modelled bases"
C) "aren't supplied with a base at all"

Do you think there is a D) ? I can't think of one, and would say "A" is the norm...

Yeah it is the norm. And then it lists a few exceptions, immediately. Then you're supplied with guidelines for alternative basing.

Examples never cover every conceivable answer. That's the point. It's to get your mind rolling to go "Oh there are exceptions, cool." I would say wanting to put your regular marines on 32mm bases because the newest space marine chapter is doing qualifies. It'd be future-proofing it if nothing else because you know whenever the next SM box comes out, it'll be on 32mm bases. Obviously that's speculation on my part.

Sure, but that's still part of "section A)" as any box of marines you buy will come with 25mm. Unless you buy a BA Tactical Squad, for which GW gives you the option in writing (in the box) to put on 25 or 32mm.

As said, if you can find an option D) that is not A), B), or C) then i would probably agree with you. But i'm almost certain those are the only 3 possible answers.

 SRSFACE wrote:
Yeah it is the norm. And then it lists a few exceptions, immediately. Then you're supplied with guidelines for alternative basing.

Examples never cover every conceivable answer. That's the point. It's to get your mind rolling to go "Oh there are exceptions, cool." I would say wanting to put your regular marines on 32mm bases because the newest space marine chapter is doing qualifies. It'd be future-proofing it if nothing else because you know whenever the next SM box comes out, it'll be on 32mm bases. Obviously that's speculation on my part.

The thing is, they're not written as examples.

The text gives you the normal situation - models are assumed to be on their own base.

Then it lists two specific situations where they might not be on their own base, and tells you what you can do in those situations.

Nowhere in that rule does it suggest that those two situations are just examples, nor does it suggest that 'I want to use a different base to the one supplied with the model' is a valid reason for changing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FratHammer wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Are you confusing models with Units?
Metal terminator models were only ever supplied with 25mm bases.

No. Would you please help me understand your meaning behind this question?

The point he was making was that the old metal terminators were only ever sold with 25mm bases. You will not find that model in a pack anywhere with a 40mm base.

You can buy a plastic terminator model with a 40mm base... but that's not the same model. A unit of metal terminators represents the same unit as a unit of plastic terminators... but they're different models. The former are metal models sold with 25mm bases. The latter are plastic models sold with a 40mm base.

Putting the metal terminator onto a 40mm base would not be putting it onto the base that the model is 'currently' supplied with under your definition, because that specific model is not sold with a 40mm base. A different model, that represents the same unit on the table, is.

This is regardless of it creating a numerical advantage to players. I get that in the case of blast templates larger bases lower wounds, but we are talking about close combat units who will gain a numerical advantage in close combat...

No, you're talking about close combat units. Everyone else is talking about the game as a whole, on the understanding that while some units might be better off than others on smaller bases, it swings the other way for other units.

This is where you're going to keep running into disagreement. You've got this idea that smaller bases are automatically better (because you're looking at one specific instance and judging that the benefit in that case outweighs the negatives) and most everyone else is saying that's not the case, but even if it is this is a situation that is perfectly acceptable within the rules. It's not different to the kneeling guardsman having a different LOS profile to a standing one... yes, in certain situations, it's going to be better for the guy to be kneeling. That doesn't make it cheating, or automatically a good idea, to use all kneeling models.

Isnak I believe you don't understand what modeling for advantage means. It too implies intent. Regardless of if intent can be ascertained by another player. If you model for advantage, even by gw standards of loose rulings and poor writing, you're a cheat.

For example, person A) buys a helldrake and modifies it to be upright batman symbol style with its necks tilted downward and out. Looks rad right? Lots of work went into it and it looks beautiful. He ran 2 helldrakes in the tournament I played with, and I asked him to swap in the normal one when I fired my salamanders at it, because... Well even in base to base contact with it I could not have hit it with the melta special rule. Where from several inches away I could had it been modeled appropriately. He said he'd love to, swapped them a


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Isnak I believe you don't understand what modeling for advantage means. It too implies intent. Regardless of if intent can be ascertained by another player. If you model for advantage, even by gw standards of loose rulings and poor writing, you're a cheat.

For example, person A) buys a helldrake and modifies it to be upright batman symbol style with its necks tilted downward and out. Looks rad right? Lots of work went into it and it looks beautiful. He ran 2 helldrakes in the tournament I played with, and I asked him to swap in the normal one when I fired my salamanders at it, because... Well even in base to base contact with it I could not have hit it with the melta special rule. Where from several inches away I could had it been modeled appropriately. He said he'd love to, swapped them and the game continued. No complaining, no whining, no judges needed to be present. Why? Because he modeled him that way for the rule of cool.

Now hypothetical player B) beings the same helldrakes and has modeled it that way for the advantage of "you have to measure to my hull, so you'll never get melta or heck any rapid fire from any real distance" that person, is cheating. He would probably say, but my model is that way cuz its cooler. Not want to swap then for measuring and a judge would need to get involved.

This forum post is about a close combat army isnak. Not tau or centurion star hop up in my fortress of redemption space Marines. It's about Blood Angels. That's why I single out close combat units like terminators and mega nobs. You make it about bikes and random other things. I am trying to help the og poster and anyone looking here because they read the forum title.

Also I see what Hawaii is saying now, thank you isnak. It's a good point you bring up. They are two separate things. I'll take some time and contemplate your question then let you know what I think


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps mob can you fix this post, my phone messed up the first half sending it twice

 insaniak wrote:

The thing is, they're not written as examples.

Yes, it is. Hence the word "Sometimes."

How is "Sometimes players have models on unusually modeled bases" not an example, that's an explicit permission to have models on bases not default? If some players are a subset of all Warhammer 40k players assumed to be playing by the rules, why do some people have unusually sized/modeled bases despite their being an assumption of using what came in the box?

It doesn't say "Some people are cheating, but you can still legally play them if X," which is the argument you're making.

 SRSFACE wrote:
How is "Sometimes players have models on unusually modeled bases" not an example, that's an explicit permission to have models on bases not default?

Given that it's in the middle of a rule telling you that you can put them back onto the proper bases, it's an awful long way from permission to have models on non-standard bases.


It says that sometimes these things exist, not that you're allowed to do it. Similarly, the statement 'Sometimes people drive faster than the speed limit' is not permission to break the speed limit.


And it's not an example because it's not an example. It's a statement that sometimes players have models on unusually modelled bases.

We already addressed why they might be on unusually modelled bases earlier.

I'm afraid to call you out on your crap right now under penalty of being banned as you've already threatened me with.

I'm out of this conversation as a result.

 SRSFACE wrote:
I'm afraid to call you out on your crap right now under penalty of being banned as you've already threatened me with.

I'm out of this conversation as a result.

That's one approach.

Alternatively, you could try just making your argument without being rude about it. Having a different opinion isn't the issue, just your chosen approach to presenting it.

I would have to agree on the statement being able to be denoted as an example.
'Sometimes people drive faster than the speed limit' is an occurrence, an "example" of what is sometimes done.

Most example are still RaW though, so making assertions that "examples exists, which means the norm is not set in stone" is a bit of a stretch...
If the rule quoted above had "Sometimes, players use much larger bases than those provided. These rules assume those much larger bases are *fine*", then i would class it both as an "example" and as a permission to do so.
Unfortunately, the rule only describes the 3 situations i listed, and we are never out of those boundaries. (Are we? )

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40k-Tyranid-Warriors-Plastic-Oop-X3-Games-Workshop-W-Origional-Box-/261824546533?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cf5f586e5
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40k-Shield-of-Baal-Deathstorm-Tyranid-Warriors-New-On-Sprue-/181699524805?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a4e22b8c5

Another good example of differing base sizes over time.

Ah, the squares I was thinking about!
These are what I picture when I read the words unusually modelled bases, given how rounded bases is by far the normal for this game. Given that Game Workshop had a time where they clearly where progressing into round bases for all their models, such a Rule would clearly make sense to allow re-basing into the new standard. Given that they 'hack and paste' many of their Rules between editions, such a Rule could exist long after the progression period is over.

JinxDragon wrote:
Ah, the squares I was thinking about!
These are what I picture when I read the words unusually modelled bases, given how rounded bases is by far the normal for this game. Given that Game Workshop had a time where they clearly where progressing into round bases for all their models, such a Rule would clearly make sense to allow re-basing into the new standard. Given that they 'hack and paste' many of their Rules between editions, such a Rule could exist long after the progression period is over.

Your comment actually crystallized something in my head. The rules text in the BRB ALLOWS for us to re-base models to another appropriately sized base, but does not require it.

Yeah, it did seem you missed the meaning Insaniak was trying to show to you as early as page 1

 insaniak wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm reading an acknowledgement that players sometimes have models with unusually modelled bases. The correct course of action in these cases is to "feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size..."..

Yes, that was my point.

Your previous post seemed to be suggesting that the rule was giving permission to model stuff on unusual bases, which it isn't. It's just giving permission to replace those unusual bases with 'correct' bases.

This is out of left field, but with so many people following the rules to the letter like a lawyer.... If GW printed on their rule book "Warhammer 40K games must be played with models and scenary supplied by Games Workshop". Will the fanboys still argue against people playing against the rules?

As to OP's comment. I would accept both 32mm and 28mm on tactical squads. In friendly or tournament play.

wufai wrote:
This is out of left field, but with so many people following the rules to the letter like a lawyer.... If GW printed on their rule book "Warhammer 40K games must be played with models and scenary supplied by Games Workshop". Will the fanboys still argue against people playing against the rules?

As to OP's comment. I would accept both 32mm and 28mm on tactical squads. In friendly or tournament play.

You seem to have totally missed what this forum is for. It's for answering what the rules actually say, and not necessarily how we would play it in our own games.

I have a question. Say I buy the Blood Angels tactical box and decide that these guys would work better as Sternguard with all of their bling. And, I decide to mix in some Sternguard box models and bits for both looks and combi weapons. How would I base these extra models? I gave them 32mm to match the rest of the squads. Would, RAW, I have to base the Sternguard box guys in 25mm bases and play with squads with mixed base sizes? What if I mixed the parts together and had a guy with half BA tac parts and half Sternguard parts? What base would I give him?

There are no rules covering conversions.

Okay, so that leads me to my next question: To GW, what is a model? Is a model the bit of plastic representing a tactical marine or the more abstract rules concept of a tactical marine that is represented by the bit of plastic?

I would argue that, given the way GW writes it's rules, the term "model" does not actually refer to the bit of plastic on the table. Many rules state something like "X number of models suffer a y". Obviously, the piece of plastic is not actually suffering these hits but rather the more abstract idea it represents. The term "model", in GW's rules, refers to a playing piece.

This would mean that that yes, you would have to rebase all of your Blood Angel stuff to have 32mm since the playing pieces are now based as such RAW.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Okay, so that leads me to my next question: To GW, what is a model?

Models are 'The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40000...'

(from 'Models & Units', right at the front of the rulebook.)


A Blood Angels Space Marine model is the model of a Blood Angels Space Marine, not the abstract concept of that model.

bs
You dont have to rebase.. When a model has to use the base it is coming with then old blood Angel stuff is allowed to stand on the old bases cuz it was coming with em at the time

Huh...isnak did you just give me justification for my arguments to be revalidated? Yes you did. And I thought Hawaii had me.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Okay, so that leads me to my next question: To GW, what is a model?

Models are 'The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40000...'

(from 'Models & Units', right at the front of the rulebook.)


A Blood Angels Space Marine model is the model of a Blood Angels Space Marine, not the abstract concept of that model.

Oh, GW, in your effort to cast 40k as a tool for creating stories between collections of miniatures rather than a game you have created stupid RAW. So, basically, RAW third-party miniatures are invalid as gaming pieces since models, as defined in the 40k rulebook, are Citadel miniatures.

To answer the OP's question, it would be against RAW to rebase your miniatures in larger base size since the rules say to use the bases they came with. Just use whatever came in the box at the time and you'll be good rules wise.

HIWPI: Power armored Marines (Including artificer armor) can be either 25mm and 42mm. It's really more of an aesthetic choice than anything else.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, basically, RAW third-party miniatures are invalid as gaming pieces since models, as defined in the 40k rulebook, are Citadel miniatures.

Yes. It's been that way for some time now. GW don't want you using 3rd party miniatures. You're only supposed to be using Citadel miniatures, with Citadel terrain on Citadel Realm of Battle boards, all painted with Citadel paint and assembled with Citadel glue.


Hell, from 6th edition onwards, they stopped even encouraging conversions, never mind subbing in completely different models. Have a look through any of the current crop of codexes and see how many converted models you can find.

FratHammer wrote:
Huh...isnak did you just give me justification for my arguments to be revalidated? Yes you did. And I thought Hawaii had me.

Your arguments are invalid because RAW you are supposed to use the base the miniatures came with. Rebasing old models is against the rules.

Insaniak,
I disagree about Citadel Scenery due to the Scratch-built Terrain Rule, but they "bestow" us that simply so they don't have to do Terrain Rules properly.
Still ponder if one could use that Rule to make Terrain Datasheets with point costs and 'choice or a Codex:XXX' Rule, but that is for other times.

JinxDragon wrote:
Insaniak,
I disagree about Citadel Scenery due to the Scratch-built Terrain Rule, but they "bestow" us that simply so they don't have to do Terrain Rules properly.

Well, that and the fact that their terrain range is still somewhat limited. I suspect that sometime in the next couple of editions any reference to using other terrain will disappear.

JinxDragon wrote:
Insaniak,
I disagree about Citadel Scenery due to the Scratch-built Terrain Rule, but they "bestow" us that simply so they don't have to do Terrain Rules properly.
Still ponder if one could use that Rule to make Terrain Datasheets with point costs and 'choice or a Codex:XXX' Rule, but that is for other times.

"The Battlefield Terrain section describes how to incorporate Citadel terrain..."

That means that all of the rules in the Battlefield Terrain section only applies to Citadel terrain kits.

"Many players enjoy making their own terrain... Players that do so will need to devise their own datasheets for the terrain models they have created".

RAW, you need to make up your own rules for scratch-built stuff. They could be exactly the same as the Ruins rules. But they wouldn't be "Ruins" for rules purposes.

Insaniak,
A possibility but I am not overly convinced given how long Game Workshop has been in business and how many opportunities they have failed to take. Stronghold Assault could have done for Terrain what Escalation had done for Lords of Wars, but was nothing more then a few Rule tweaks and a place to store the imperial Data-slates they had already created. What few additions they did add to the book where also, not surprisingly, imperial themed. Regardless of what occurs in the future, Scratch-built Terrain literally gives us permission to use every day objects as terrain, so the Authors clearly want us to use more then Citadel Scenery when it comes to terrain... for the time being at least.

Thecustomlime,
The Datasheet could have a Rule which states that it counts as Ruins, what then?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

FratHammer wrote:
Huh...isnak did you just give me justification for my arguments to be revalidated? Yes you did. And I thought Hawaii had me.

Your arguments are invalid because RAW you are supposed to use the base the miniatures came with. Rebasing old models is against the rules.

Not true if you take into account the validation from isnak just now... So I'm back on my band wagon of being right. Read all the back pages and provide evidence, don't say "RAW you're wrong" because I can't refute an incorrect statement without knowing the evidence you're claiming to stand on. I've proven the rules state what I have said. The only evidence against me was that I might be taking model as unit, but as isnak has worded beautifully any problems with that theory. So...rebase your models. And qq to gw.