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.

If you are using older models that have smaller bases than newer models (e.g. Broadsides) would you rebase them or leave them as they are? I'm leaning more towards rebasing but I don't want to have to buy more bases, thoughts?

Also, what about using older (and smaller) vehicle model (such as an old Rhino)?

Edit - Great responses guys, now how about this question: I bought a squad of the old Broadsides as they were both cheaper and I prefered the shoulder-mounted HRR, so due to this, does this change your opinion on whether they should be rebased?

I would (and indeed, have already) re-based some models as the 'expected' base size changed, but by the same token, the majority of my friends play with models still on the 'original' size and I have absolutely no problem with it.

I'm also fine with older vehicles (although, again, I will use newer if I have one available. Partly to avoid arguments, partly because I like the look better). I'm patiently waiting for someone to complain that my FW Avatar gives me unfair LoS or something (or complain it's "not GW") so I can bring out my original RT Avatar

Poll needs a 'maybe' option.

I've rebased some older models to fit in with newer armies. Others I haven't bothered. My Chaos Termies are still on 25mm bases. If I add more Terminators into the army at some point, that may change.

I've got a single box jetbike and the more recent 3 packs, both unbuilt. The single came with a 50mm base, the newer 3 pack came with 31mm bases, both round. Does a blast hit the 30mm base, the 50mm base, the 60+mm rounded rectangle of the ground bikers? The model? The wings on the bike? Whichever my opponent needs to get the win? I'm not looking forward to that inevitable T7 discussion so I try to preface it before the game that they are "on" the 30mm round bases the newest ones ship with and explicitly point out the wings and tail/nose are not valid targets for templates to hit.

Just remember to use consistency between max cohesion and what can be hit by a blast when spacing stuff out.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
Does a blast hit the 30mm base, the 50mm base, the 60+mm rounded rectangle of the ground bikers? The model? The wings on the bike?

The base will be whichever one you put on there.

Although yes, being over any part of the model is also sufficient in this edition, regardless of what base they are on.

...so I try to preface it before the game that they are "on" the 30mm round bases the newest ones ship with and explicitly point out the wings and tail/nose are not valid targets for templates to hit.

Treating models as being on a different sized base to what they actually have is just irritating, unless you have the 'other' base size clearly marked on there for reference. I've seen character models, for example, mounted onto bigger bases for visual effect, but with the original 25mm base slotted in on top for reference.

The second part is wrong. Last edition you had to get the blast or template over the model's base. This edition it just has to be over the model. Clipping the wings is enough to score a hit.

 insaniak wrote:

The second part is wrong. Last edition you had to get the blast or template over the model's base. This edition it just has to be over the model. Clipping the wings is enough to score a hit.

The wing of a jetbike? As in NOT a vehicle? What about the outstretched rifle of a sniper, should that count as being hit too in your games?

As pet the current rules, yes, any part of the model under the marker is sufficient.

 insaniak wrote:
As pet the current rules, yes, any part of the model under the marker is sufficient.

Is there any rules verbiage for that, beyond this?

Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above – each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker, even if those models are not within the firer’s line of sight.

Especially given the verbiage from Line of Sight:

Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.

I've never seen anyone hit a (non-vehicle) model just because something hung off the base, but I also don't play in an ultra-competitive environment. We just assume "under the marker" refers to the base, not rifles, wings cloaks or banners which stick out...

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
Is there any rules verbiage for that, beyond this?

Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above – each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker, even if those models are not within the firer’s line of sight.

No, there is no rule that covers it, other than that rule, which covers it.

LOS is irrelevant. You're not checking for LOS, you're checking if the model is partially under the marker. There are no rules that tell us to ignore specific parts of the model for the purposes of that action.

We just assume "under the marker" refers to the base, not rifles, wings cloaks or banners which stick out...

And in previous editions you would have been correct to do so, as they checked for bases under the marker rather than just the model.

I voted yes because I will be rebasing my wraithlord, however I'm not in a big rush to do it and no body really seems to care

I would rebase it but I also wouldn't have a problem if someone brought a model with a different base size, as long as he wouldn't give me a hard time about BtB and the sort.

I have a chaplain on bike and three ravenwing with the old, rectangular, "cavalry" bases and a 5-men squad of terminators on 25mm bases (secondhand, they look like older space hulk termies).
I cannot remove the bases from the bikes without risking them ruined, so I'll leave them that way..
The terminators, I'm thinking of painting them as blood angels, so they will not see the board (unless I manage to "rebuild" space hulk around them... as a very future project, but who knows).

Anyhow, I voted no: the models are still mouted on the bases they came with, so they are technically legal.

On a whim, I could add some "ambiance" to the termies' bases, which may (but probably not) lead to a size change.

Re-based my Metal Terminators from 25mm up when i bought a new box of them. Glued Plastic Arms to metal torsos and vice-versa to a pretty good result.
They needed a bit of a re-vamp anyway so it did them some good, and i made much better bases for them...

If you are just worried about Rule/Legality and Gameplay, not looks, then there is no issue, both are legal as both sizes came in the box.

 Quanar wrote:
I would (and indeed, have already) re-based some models as the 'expected' base size changed, but by the same token, the majority of my friends play with models still on the 'original' size and I have absolutely no problem with it.

I'm also fine with older vehicles (although, again, I will use newer if I have one available. Partly to avoid arguments, partly because I like the look better). I'm patiently waiting for someone to complain that my FW Avatar gives me unfair LoS or something (or complain it's "not GW") so I can bring out my original RT Avatar

This I have rebased my bikes only cause the didn't come with bases and they kept falling down. My 45 termies are still on 28mm and my 56 nobs are still on small bases. Clipping of the slotted metal piece of all those models and then filing down the metal feet to fit the bases is waaaaaay to much work. I do see both sides of the argument though.

Generally speaking, using the base the model came on is always acceptable. If you own old terminators, using 25mm bases is fine.

There is no reason to change your base unless you choose to do so, and increasing the base size is generally not a big deal in most cases.

Were it gets murky is people trying to adjust base sizes for an advantage. While it's true that 25mm terminators have advantages over 40mm bases, the reverse is true as well.

Long story short: if you're doing it for a game advantage, don't do it.

Great responses guys, now how about this question: I bought a squad of the old Broadsides as they were both cheaper and I prefered the shoulder-mounted HRR, so due to this, does this change your opinion on whether they should be rebased?

We'd be a bit hypocritical if we changed our answer based on what unit the question was about surely?

Broadsides were one of the units I was referring to when I made my initial response - my regular Tau opponent has 'old-style' Broadsides on 40mm bases.

Here's another odd thing, similar to the OP. I ordered Be'lakor a few months back. When it arrived, it had the correct square base, but a 40mm round. Didn't even blink until someone at my FLGS called me a cheater. The owner had luckily watched me open it the day I picked it up.

Do I have to put it on a 60mm even though it was supplied with a 40mm? I don't usually have too many big bases just sitting around. The owner was kind enough to give me one from the store, but I just rigged a pin out of a flight stand for the 40 to sit on. If someone complains about the small base now, I explain what happened. If they really feel disadvantaged I'll pop on the base.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Do I have to put it on a 60mm even though it was supplied with a 40mm?

Daemon Princes have been variously supplied with 40mm or 60mm bases previously. Not sure if they've changed it yet, but for a while there the regular 40K Daemon Prince came with a 40mm, while the Nurgle Prince had a 60mm.

Sort of like the Eldar Jetbikes, which have been supplied with 3 different flight stands over their lifespan, and at one point the size you got depended on whether you bought a single bike or a squadron...

It shouldn't really be a big deal which it is on, precisely because it's always been so inconsistent and GW refuse to specify the 'correct' bases sizes for the current edition.

My eldar are in-between on this one.

My old original wraithlords/dreadnoughts are still on 40mm bases and my wraith guard are still on 25mm bases.
This will not change though as im not hacking them off of their bases any time soon.

My newer edition eldar are on the new sized bases however, and i have also up-scaled the Avatars base onto a 60mm as he does struggle on the 40mm (scenic bases anyway)

SGTPozy wrote:
Great responses guys, now how about this question: I bought a squad of the old Broadsides as they were both cheaper and I prefered the shoulder-mounted HRR, so due to this, does this change your opinion on whether they should be rebased?

I'd just put the 40mm base on top of a 60mm base, and build up the area with basing material to make a small hill. The extra 3mm in height will help bring the smaller 3rd edition Broadsides into the same silhouette as the 6th Edition ones.