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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, whatevs. just don't expect any sportsmanship points.

So it's cool for you to base on square bases, but not for us to do the exact same thing with different sized bases. Good to know you'll dock me for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The advantage is so miniscule its practically non-existant.

That's factually incorrect, as Mannahnin pointed out earlier.

If you want to use your daemons in both games, then you should use round bases. Square bases in 40K offer and advantage, round bases in Fantasy do not.

 Crimson wrote:
If you want to use your daemons in both games, then you should use round bases. Square bases in 40K offer and advantage, round bases in Fantasy do not.

No, but they're a royal pain in the butt that makes the game unplayable.

You can't tell exactly where the base ends and the next begins, which is VERY important in fantasy.

The model needs to be exactly where it is.


Round bases don't work in Fantasy, page 5 says a model/units facing is determined by the corners of the unit/model.

If you are on a round base those don't exist, so you must(by inference) use square bases.

Duh. You use the corners of the movement tray.

 pretre wrote:
So it's cool for you to base on square bases, but not for us to do the exact same thing with different sized bases. Good to know you'll dock me for that.

I find it difficult to believe that you seriously don't see the difference between using one of the two optional bases supplied for the model, and using a base for a different model that just happens to come in the same box.


Ultimately, yes, we know that 40K is currently designed with round bases. But it's not that long ago that daemons only came with squares. So did monstrous creatures, swarms and dreadnoughts, and the pill-shaped bike and cavalry bases are an even more recent development again.

It would be really simple for GW to stipulate round bases in the current rules, and even to stipulate specific base sizes for each model. They don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but they're a royal pain in the butt that makes the game unplayable.

You can't tell exactly where the base ends and the next begins, which is VERY important in fantasy.

I already addressed that...

 insaniak wrote:
I find it difficult to believe that you seriously don't see the difference between using one of the two optional bases supplied for the model, and using a base for a different model that just happens to come in the same box.

As you should. I was being a bit absurd in an effort to show him where the absurdity of his point was (that because it comes with it, it's all good).

Ultimately, yes, we know that 40K is currently designed with round bases. But it's not that long ago that daemons only came with squares. So did monstrous creatures, swarms and dreadnoughts, and the pill-shaped bike and cavalry bases are an even more recent development again.

Yep, I even have some of the hex shaped dome bases for my jetbikes that I ended up swapping out. Those were weird.

It would be really simple for GW to stipulate round bases in the current rules, and even to stipulate specific base sizes for each model. They don't.

Oh man, that would have been awesome. They could have put it into the appendix that already had rules for every single unit in the damn game. 25/40/60/B/V/Oval. Done.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but they're a royal pain in the butt that makes the game unplayable.

You can't tell exactly where the base ends and the next begins, which is VERY important in fantasy.

I already addressed that...

And I say bull, until I see it myself I say it won't work. I'm happy to be wrong, but I need to see it.

 pretre wrote:

It would be really simple for GW to stipulate round bases in the current rules, and even to stipulate specific base sizes for each model. They don't.

Oh man, that would have been awesome. They could have put it into the appendix that already had rules for every single unit in the damn game. 25/40/60/B/V/Oval. Done.

If they don't do it anymore for Fantasy, a game that's very reliant on models being on the correct base yet they alter what base models are on frequently, why would they do it for 40K?

 Platuan4th wrote:
If they don't do it anymore for Fantasy, a game that's very reliant on models being on the correct base yet they alter what base models are on frequently, why would they do it for 40K?

Oh they wouldn't. It would just be awesome if they did.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And I say bull, until I see it myself I say it won't work. I'm happy to be wrong, but I need to see it.

How is having 25mm increments on the tray any different to marking out 25mm increments with a row of 25mm bases?

Because I don't want to inturrupt a game to make sure they are actually the proper increments. I have no idea if someone has made them just a wee bit smaller.

Do you break out the calipers and check that they haven't shaved down the edges of their bases as well?

No, but I will trust the actual GW bases rather than trust someone who has incentive to cheat.

I've magnetized my bases for daemons, so if I want squared or rounded ones, I just change it. But I wouldn't care if someone want to play with rectangle bases.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but I will trust the actual GW bases rather than trust someone who has incentive to cheat.

Do you realize that the round bases are still 25mm wide?

Just a quick check on the markings to see if they match up with the bases should be sufficient.

 Crimson wrote:
Duh. You use the corners of the movement tray.

That's not how fantasy works. And you need to know the exact edge of the unit, not the tray.

You really can't use round bases in fantasy unless your opponent is very forgiving (willing to pretend) or you don't mind a distinct disadvantge in charging.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but I will trust the actual GW bases rather than trust someone who has incentive to cheat.

Do you realize that the round bases are still 25mm wide?

Just a quick check on the markings to see if they match up with the bases should be sufficient.

Yes, but you need corners to play fantasy. Round bases don't have corners, thus they don't work.

If only there were some clever way of determining 25mm increments without having a straight base edge...

I still have my bikes on square bases, never had a problem. My second edition metal dreadnought didnt come with a base at all, does that mean I need one? (its on one, just creating discussion)

For reference, the circles-into-squares movement trays are generally not a good solution, as they add additional width to the unit (the bases aren't actually touching each other when ranked up, as each hole is wholly surrounded by wood/plastic).

I thought we were talking about just ranking up 25mm round in a square base and having 25mm increments inscribed in the sides of the base for reference.

That's what I would be doing. I don't like the circle-cut trays for exactly the reason Janthkin mentioned.

I’m not buying two separate armies just to have them based differently. If the TO says that my square bases are not legal at his tournament, that’s fine, I'll drop out. So far there have been no issues.

Folks in general are very tolerant of old models on old bases.

What I oppose in these discussions is the mistaken idea that the squares are interchangeable with circles, and that there's no impact on the game. Neither of those is true. There are several mathematically, objectively verifiable advantages to fielding models on squares in 40k instead of their intended rounds. I finally got up the motivation to re-base my Daemonettes after the bases made the difference in who won a tournament. IMO using the squares is functionally modeling for advantage. While I recognize that most players seem to do it out of ignorance of the advantages and a mistaken idea that it's the best option for interchangeability between systems, rather than intentionally trying to garner an unintended advantage, I know from experience and from doing some simple math and measurements that the advantages are there.

Folks who argue that the squares are incontrovertably, explicitly legal for 40k are misrepresenting the rules as presented, particularly by ignoring the context presented by the actual model kits and the pictures in the rulebook.

 pretre wrote:
I thought we were talking about just ranking up 25mm round in a square base and having 25mm increments inscribed in the sides of the base for reference.

Exactly. That's what folks do.

In WHFB, you play with your guys on movement trays, except for lone monsters. On a movement tray, it doesn’t matter what shape the base is. A 25mm round fits in the space of a 25mm square.

In WHFB, you don’t need to precisely measure the frontage of your guys to figure out base contact. You just do simple arithmetic. I have a formation eight wide of guys on 25mm bases. You have a formation 5 wide on 20mm bases. 5x20=100. 100mm covers my middle four models, and makes corner to corner contact with the two models on either side, so your 5 are in contact with my 6. It’s really that simple. If terrain or other units prevent us from maximizing frontage the way we’re supposed to, it’s equally easy to tell at a glance how much offset the guys are and if I lose a model in contact.

There seriously is only an issue with models that are on 50mm squares in WHFB as opposed to 40mm or 60mm rounds in 40k. But those are few enough in number that it's not much work to make those swappable. Or that big a deal to just dedicate them to one game.

most people will let you play. imo you don't really want to play the people who you won't let you play.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Folks in general are very tolerant of old models on old bases.

What I oppose in these discussions is the mistaken idea that the squares are interchangeable with circles, and that there's no impact on the game. Neither of those is true. There are several mathematically, objectively verifiable advantages to fielding models on squares in 40k instead of their intended rounds. I finally got up the motivation to re-base my Daemonettes after the bases made the difference in who won a tournament. IMO using the squares is functionally modeling for advantage. While I recognize that most players seem to do it out of ignorance of the advantages and a mistaken idea that it's the best option for interchangeability between systems, rather than intentionally trying to garner an unintended advantage, I know from experience and from doing some simple math and measurements that the advantages are there.

Folks who argue that the squares are incontrovertably, explicitly legal for 40k are misrepresenting the rules as presented, particularly by ignoring the context presented by the actual model kits and the pictures in the rulebook.

 pretre wrote:
I thought we were talking about just ranking up 25mm round in a square base and having 25mm increments inscribed in the sides of the base for reference.

Exactly. That's what folks do.

In WHFB, you play with your guys on movement trays, except for lone monsters. On a movement tray, it doesn’t matter what shape the base is. A 25mm round fits in the space of a 25mm square.

In WHFB, you don’t need to precisely measure the frontage of your guys to figure out base contact. You just do simple arithmetic. I have a formation eight wide of guys on 25mm bases. You have a formation 5 wide on 20mm bases. 5x20=100. 100mm covers my middle four models, and makes corner to corner contact with the two models on either side, so your 5 are in contact with my 6. It’s really that simple. If terrain or other units prevent us from maximizing frontage the way we’re supposed to, it’s equally easy to tell at a glance how much offset the guys are and if I lose a model in contact.

There seriously is only an issue with models that are on 50mm squares in WHFB as opposed to 40mm or 60mm rounds in 40k. But those are few enough in number that it's not much work to make those swappable. Or that big a deal to just dedicate them to one game.

It doesn't always work that way.

You can get a position to where you cannot get the theoretical maximum of models in base contact, especially if other models and terrain are in inconvenient places.

Therefore, the exact position of the model is crucial.

If you say so. My several hundred games of experience have never shown such an issue. The widths of the bases are known, so once you establish where the edges of the units are, everything else is just math.

most people will let you play. imo you don't really want to play the people who you won't let you play.

feth, man. There ARE NO PEOPLE WHO WON'T LET YOU PLAY. Everyone is tolerant and accepting of old models on squares.

What I'm pointing out is that we, as guys who own these models, should be cognizant of the advantage we are (likely inadvertently) taking, and take steps to avoid gaining an unfair advantage. Whether by re-basing or just being really careful not to DS in 8-around-1 formations or to disperse in corner-to-corner coherency.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whether by re-basing or just being really careful not to DS in 8-around-1 formations or to disperse in corner-to-corner coherency.

This is just as much an advantage as it is a disadvantage. All of my horrors are on square bases. I tried removing one and it destroyed the model, so I said "Looks like my horrors are gonna play on squares." (I bought these used, so I had no choice)

When I would deep strike in, I would use the 8 around 1 formation mainly out of convenience (it is just easier to line the squares up neatly). At one point, I was really close to mishapping and I tried placing them corner to edge (of the original deepstriker). My friend called me out on it and said you need to place them like you were before. I agreed that was the fairest way and took the mishap. After that game, we placed a circle model down and counted how many fit around it. The answer was 6. So, from that point on, when using squares, we just went with no more than 6 can be around the initial deepstriker.

Just because square bases have the potential to cheat, does not mean you have to.

 Green is Best! wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whether by re-basing or just being really careful not to DS in 8-around-1 formations or to disperse in corner-to-corner coherency.

This is just as much an advantage as it is a disadvantage. All of my horrors are on square bases. I tried removing one and it destroyed the model, so I said "Looks like my horrors are gonna play on squares." (I bought these used, so I had no choice)

When I would deep strike in, I would use the 8 around 1 formation mainly out of convenience (it is just easier to line the squares up neatly). At one point, I was really close to mishapping and I tried placing them corner to edge (of the original deepstriker). My friend called me out on it and said you need to place them like you were before. I agreed that was the fairest way and took the mishap. After that game, we placed a circle model down and counted how many fit around it. The answer was 6. So, from that point on, when using squares, we just went with no more than 6 can be around the initial deepstriker.

There are no disadvantages to being on squares. Deliberately placing six around one instead of eight around one is one of the things I've been talking about (and in the last couple of threads on this); unless you consciously choose to place the models in a way which deliberately doesn't take advantage of the square shape. And when I was using them, that was a PitA, so I finally rebased them when a corner wound up holding a game (and tournament)-winning objective despite my not trying to maximize their abuse.

And there's no way it has to destroy your model (fragile though old metal horrors can be) to re-base it. I did have to cut my last batch of re-based models out of their old bases using clippers, but it wasn't exactly difficult.

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.)