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.

Nope. Infantry model. 25mm base.
http://www.solegends.com/citcat1995-6/cat19956p098-02.jpg

The Lifta Droppa was an Epic Ork vehicle. Maybe you mean one of their artillery pieces like the Smasha Gun, but those had no bases, just two gretchen gunners on 25mm round bases.

Like I said, if it fit on a 25mm round base, it has always come with one. The only exception was the daemons, because in the old days WHFB was still the bigger game in GW's eyes, and they didn't double package them for use in 40K.

But daemons also weren't as popular back then either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BairdEC wrote:
I'd be surprised at the older metal bikes having bases. None of my old two-wheel Squat bikes had bases.

There's a bit of disconnect between younger players who only know recent editions of the rules, are used to the very regimented structure of contemporary 40K. Where models need to be put together the same way by everyone because otherwise the Internet will spread the latest way to cheat. In the old days, putting bikes on bases was done because they were more stable that way. It had nothing to do with the rules. If your bikes needed to be in contact with the other models, you put them there.

It wasn't until later editions, when 40K turned into a dice rolling and model removal exercise in assault, where there was such a big deal about having bases. That's why bikes didn't need bases. There were no "pile in moves" and such to create big fast-resolving combats that were usually over in one turn. The models that touched, fought. The models that didn't, didn't. If the bike survived, he could fight on, or he could zoom off because he was... on a motorcycle.

Bikes didn't originally 'need' bases, but every bike kit I have bought, right back to 2nd edition, has included a base in the box.

GW frequently didn't picture them on the models, but they've always been in the box.

Having said that, it's possible that this is one of those weird packaging differences between regions/sets... like Eldar bikes coming with large flight bases in some sets and small bases in others, or the Monolith sometimes having a flight base and sometimes not.

Well, that bike squad has been sitting in a box in my garage for 14 years or so. I never played fantasy, never traded to get any bases for the bikes or anything like that. They were just in the set when purchased.

To the original point about the Daemons and round bases, I think the unofficial official reason is so that people have to buy two boxes of Daemons if you play 40k and Fantasy (one box for each). My frustration with this is that it doesn't tell you in the codex what sort of base the model is meant to be on so if you have old models or if you are converting your own then you have to ask around to see what base the models are on. This is exacerbated by the fact that not every entry on the 40k website even tells you which type of base the model comes with.

One example of this frustration in contemporary 40k is the Wraithguard. The old models came with 25mm bases and the new ones come with 40mm bases. Are Eldar players expected to change their bases because the new box set has different bases? Also there have been some reports that some new boxes are coming with 25mm even though they're meant to have 40mm. Also all my jetbikes have large flying bases but I've seen a lot of new jetbikes with small flying bases, which am I supposed to use?

As a long-time player, I've only found out in the last couple months that the biker base has changed. Are marines meant to upgrade from the rectangular bases to long rounded ones?

I think the key will be to reach some kind of resolution with your gaming community because the policy seems to be deliberately vague. Until GW puts the size of the base in the codex entry, then any size base should be accepted imo.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Because they've always been round. Because everything else in 40K uses a round base.
(...)
Stop making stuff up guys.

BairdEC wrote:
I'd be surprised at the older metal bikes having bases. None of my old two-wheel Squat bikes had bases.

I could be wrong. I don't recall ever having purchased rectangular bases for the bikes I bought. And they certainly don't look like they would stay upright very well, the wheels are narrow and the models (especially with the marine on it) are not well balanced. But I did buy these well over .... 15..... years ago ... damned.
. .

I remember the old metal walker models being mounted on square bases.

I have been buying plastic Space marine bikes since the debuted, and I am quite sure they have all come with rectangular plastic bases, until the last few years when it went to rounded lozenges. Although bikes are a non-issue, as square bases or lozenge bases makes almost no difference at all.

I frankly can't see how there's enough of a difference between round and square plastic bases. I am completely convinced that 40K got round bases entirely for the reason that it would make them "different" than Warhammer fantasy.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I have been buying plastic Space marine bikes since the debuted, and I am quite sure they have all come with rectangular plastic bases, until the last few years when it went to rounded lozenges. Although bikes are a non-issue, as square bases or lozenge bases makes almost no difference at all.

I frankly can't see how there's enough of a difference between round and square plastic bases. I am completely convinced that 40K got round bases entirely for the reason that it would make them "different" than Warhammer fantasy.

Somewhat true, with fantasy they need the square bases because most units fight in ranks and blocks. But 40k used unit cohesion distance. They certainly could have used square bases in 40k as well, and we have seen enough examples of square bases. But the round bases look a bit nicer to me.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Used to see these guys on 25mm squares as well, as that's what they came with in Advanced Space Crusade/Tyranid Attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I am completely convinced that 40K got round bases entirely for the reason that it would make them "different" than Warhammer fantasy.

In a game that doesn't have everything ranked up, and works of distances between models in any direction, round bases work better than squares.

As a personal preference, they also look better. Squares look fine when ranked up, but individually the rounds look more spiffy.

Used to see these guys on 25mm squares as well, as that's what they came with in Advanced Space Crusade/Tyranid Attack.

I actually have those from Tyranid Attack!

Round bases is purely aesthetics, I say.

Eldercaveman wrote:

 aapch45 wrote:
I don't see why the bases need to be round.. each base, round or square (from gw for basic infantry) is 25mm... so why does it absolutely need to be round?

I can't find anywhere in the rulebook where it says the bases need to be round, but people at the FLGS raise a stink if some daemon models are mounted on squares.

Help appreciated. thanks guys

The footprint of a unit on round bases is a lot larger than that of square bases, so it makes a big difference for deep striking and assualt.

I think you got that backwards. You can fit the entire 20mm round base on the 25mm square base easily with each corner of the square base sticking out.

 Chris_P wrote:
I really don't see why they "have" to be round as long as they meet the millimeter spec. It sort of sounds like your FLGS people are just being "snobs".

Because a round base has the same diameter from all angles, and a square base doesn't. In a game where every model is its own agent unlike in Fantasy, there is an advantage (and potential disadvantage) to be had from protruding corners.

Rumbleguts wrote:

BairdEC wrote:
I'd be surprised at the older metal bikes having bases. None of my old two-wheel Squat bikes had bases.

I could be wrong. I don't recall ever having purchased rectangular bases for the bikes I bought. And they certainly don't look like they would stay upright very well, the wheels are narrow and the models (especially with the marine on it) are not well balanced. But I did buy these well over .... 15..... years ago ... damned.
. .

I could be wrong, too. As you said, it's been better than 15 years. The mind tends to go foggy on minutiae over that time span. I'm fairly certain my bikes didn't have bases, but it's possible they got mixed in with the bases for the 50 or so gobbo wolfriders I never got around to assembling.

I don't remember ever having to get bases for my bikes from any source other than the boxes they came in, and I have bought about about 15-20 of them, all the way back to Chaos bikes with the old metal front ends. The only bikes I remember not having any kind of base at all with them were attack bikes. Those I always had to make custom jobs for, otherwise they'd look off next to the bikers with bases.

Is there actually a square base that will fit attack bikes nowadays, without overhanging out form under it too far? I bought my last attack bike about 10 years ago, and I would love to replace the homemade base with something stronger.

This has become quite the nostalgia thread.

x13rads wrote:
I think you got that backwards. You can fit the entire 20mm round base on the 25mm square base easily with each corner of the square base sticking out.

The round base is 25mm, not 20...

Other than that, your point is correct

Note the deamon models on square bases, unbased dreadnoughts and unbased bikes.

Those are from the first of the two 3rd edition Chaos Space Marine codices, in case of insufficient nostalgia.

AegisGrimm wrote:I am completely convinced that 40K got round bases entirely for the reason that it would make them "different" than Warhammer fantasy.

Right, and this, in my opinion at least, is why the OP doesn't NEED to put them on square bases, but why he probably should.

Square bases just look weird in 40k. Regardless of if they came with square bases or not, it still looks strange, like you're playing the wrong game, or like you're proxying fantasy models for the "real" ones.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
So they can't fall into the sewer.

Because they've always been round.

Not so.
Models in the first three editions used round, square, rectangular and hexagonal bases depending on edition and model.
So they haven't ALWAYS been round.

Up until they brought out the lozenge bike base for the marine scout bikes, bikes had either a standard 25x50 cavalry base OR NONE at all (because the plastic bikes don't quite fit on them).
Eldar (and marine and guard - when they had models) jetbikes came on hexagonal based stands.
So did landspeeders in the original 2 editions.

Wraithlords and dreadnoughts came with 40mm square "large monster" bases up until the 2nd ed walking outhouse design (which came with no base, often).

To the OP. If the model came with square base you are supposed to mount it on the square base RAW. However if it is not going to damage a nicely painted and modelled mini, just change it to a round if it makes your group happy.

Back in the day I had the old Rouge Trader- metal Chaos Dreadnought, Space Marine Dreadnought(Short legs) and Metal Chaplain on a bike. The two dreads came with square bases and the bike had no base.
The system was. Any model that could not fit on a round 25mm and needed a base would have a square/rectangle base. LOL- This even spilled over into the Space Crusade game

Vim

 aapch45 wrote:
I don't see why the bases need to be round.. each base, round or square (from gw for basic infantry) is 25mm... so why does it absolutely need to be round?

I can't find anywhere in the rulebook where it says the bases need to be round, but people at the FLGS raise a stink if some daemon models are mounted on squares.

Help appreciated. thanks guys

The folks at the FLGS are being jerks...it shouldn't matter as long as the base is the correct size for the model so that it works properly in play. The change came about to first differentiate 40k minis with a slightly different look, but also because 40k minis don't need to rank up so square bases weren't a necessity. I have a lot of models in my armies on squad bases, especially those converted from fantasy chaos champions and many chaos daemons. I have yet to have anyone care in the slightest about the bases.

Just politely tell you FLGS people raising a stink that the bases is a correct size and that the square/circle base does not change the way the game plays at all. After that they can get over it or you can play someone else who doesn't give you grief about it instead. There are some TFGs who would rather buy double the minis to build chaos daemons in WFB and 40k on the "proper" bases, though in my book if you want a double duty army just mount everything on square bases and you can use them for both just fine.

Skriker