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.

The real question is what else is considered similar... and how similar is similar enough? A power armoured Marine Captain is obviously similar to a power armoured Tactical Marine, who is on a 25mm or 32mm base, depending on the kit. He's also similar to Wolf Lord Krom, who is a Space Marine "Captain" of sorts and comes on a 40mm base. In that sense, you could easily use anything between 25 and 40mm.

Similar models - how much similar can you get to an assassin than an out of print one?

What if they started printing castellan creed on 32mm bases. Would you abide to that? How about a commisar? Guardsmen?

Point is, the assassin is a spindly model, its old one was on a 25mm base. it is SIMILAR to the new assassin if not a copy in a new pose. I am ruling this case/thread closed on account of that point quoted above. Model of a similar base. Says in the rule book. An OOP assassin is as similar as you can physically and dimensional get.

You can get as similar as the appropriate base the model came with.

Yes there are assassins that were on 25mm bases.

If you bought the current model, the appropriate base for it is the 32mm base as those are the bases the models come with.

If you have an old assassin that should have come with a 25mm base then the 25mm base would be the appropriate base.

If you have an old creed that came with a 25mm base, that would be the appropriate base.

If you bought a new creed that came with a 32mm base then the base in the pack with creed which is 32mm is the appropriate base.

Point is the model came with a base, OP wants to take it out and put a different sized one on that is not what the model came with or was supposed to come with. They are not asking if its okay to mount it on a 100mm monster base, but its still not the appropriate base.

Is it reasonable to put it on the 25mm base? Sure. Its not a huge difference.

Would the OP be justified in saying no one has a right to complain about the base? nope.

 Cieged wrote:

Belly wrote:

I had some guy pull me up at a tournament about using the larger bases for my jetbikes models. Tried to tell me I was modelling for advantage, by giving my Seer council larger bases. I then informed him that when I purchased the jetbike models, in 1996, they came with the large size.

I find this curious. In 1996 there was no Farseer or Warlock on a Jetbike model. Therefore if you made a Jetbike into one of these, it was a conversion. Or you're using a Jetbike as a Skyrunner now, and it's therefore a proxy.

For me, I find the argument shifts when we're no longer discussing a previous version of a model. Now that there is a model available, your conversion/proxy should match as it is the only criteria to compare to should it not?

Yes, this was before the current model. So at present, I would be obliged to use the same base size as the new model.

blaktoof wrote:Would the OP be justified in saying no one has a right to complain about the base? nope.

This is plain wrong. The rules explicitly say where models have unusually modeled bases (which is invoked when you choose to base with a base not supplied with the model) players should feel free to mount them on an appropriately sized base, using models of a similar type as guidance.

Unless someone wishes to argue an OOP assassin is not a model of a similar type to a new plastic assassin they've got no rules basis for complaint.

Belly wrote:Yes, this was before the current model. So at present, I would be obliged to use the same base size as the new model.

Assumed to be using, but not actually obliged.

unusually modeled base, does not mean a different sized base.

Unusually modeled base is the base has something unusual on it, like the models base has cover on it from basing effects that were added.

blaktoof wrote:
unusually modeled base, does not mean a different sized base.

Unusually modeled base is the base has something unusual on it, like the models base has cover on it from basing effects that were added.

No. The rules simply say unusual. Unusual means not usual, or not ordinary. A 25mm base for a new plastic assassin is not ordinary, so is unusual. End of story.

blaktoof wrote:
unusually modeled base, does not mean a different sized base.

Unusually modeled base is the base has something unusual on it, like the models base has cover on it from basing effects that were added.

In accordance to th post above this, it does come with unusal scenery, he's standing on a rock. I don't want to use said rock. Therefore it's unusual and discarded.

As well, if I just got the assassin in a trade and it came wth no base, I would then have the choice of 25 or 32. Basing off the rules opposing sides this argument have presented, I would then be able to pick a base off appropriate size. Which, for oop assassin would be 25mm

This isn't that hard really.

Old model came with base X
New model comes with base Y

Things that are ok to do
Old model on X or Y. New model on Y

Things that are dubious / not ok at all.
New model on X. New or old model on base Z



Why ?
- New models on current base is ok
- You don't have to rebase old models
- Rebasing new models to the old base is modelling for advantage.

I've currently got 12 Assassins; all three sculpts of each of the four types. Apparently it's better to field two Vindicares on 25mm bases and one on a 32mm base than to put all three on the same sized base?

Also, the official bases aren't always the most suitable; If a model sticks off the dge of its base, I'd say it's unsuitable, and that's exactly the case for several models I own (so I rebased them onto something larger).

.

 oldzoggy wrote:
This isn't that hard really.

Old model came with base X
New model comes with base Y

Things that are ok to do
Old model on X or Y. New model on Y

Things that are dubious / not ok at all.
New model on X.

100% agreed.

There are degrees of similarity. The MOST similar model to a Vindicare Assassin (which is obviously a currently available Vindicare Assassin) uses a 32mm base. It's the MOST appropriate base to use. The old, out of print Vindicare Assassin is LESS similar and uses a 25mm base. A Space Marine Dreadnought is even LESS similar and uses a 60mm base.

So, do we use the MOST similar models as a guide, or do we accept LESS similar models? If we accept LESS similar models, what's the cutoff? My argument is that we should use the MOST similar models as a guide. The MOST similar model would obviously be the BEST guideline to use when picking a base for your model if your model doesn't have a base or if you'd like to use something unusual.

My large (and only) issue with 32mm bases is that they're more difficult to place in tight quarters doorways, alleys, dense forests, rocky ground and undergrowth. This will be a particular issue if playing cityfight or other game modes that have dense amounts of terrain. Whether models look better on 32mm or not, I don't want that headache, so I'm sticking with 25mm.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I've currently got 12 Assassins; all three sculpts of each of the four types. Apparently it's better to field two Vindicares on 25mm bases and one on a 32mm base than to put all three on the same sized base?

Also, the official bases aren't always the most suitable; If a model sticks off the dge of its base, I'd say it's unsuitable, and that's exactly the case for several models I own (so I rebased them onto something larger).

Well, the rules literally assume that you're using the bases that come with your models. So, yes, if your intention is to stick with core rule book assumptions, it is best to field two Vindicares on 25mm bases and one on a 32mm base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
My large (and only) issue with 32mm bases is that they're more difficult to place in tight quarters doorways, alleys, dense forests, rocky ground and undergrowth. This will be a particular issue if playing cityfight or other game modes that have dense amounts of terrain. Whether models look better on 32mm or not, I don't want that headache, so I'm sticking with 25mm.

This is the literal definition of modelling for advantage. You're intentionally changing something about the shape/size of your model to gain an in game advantage. This is almost universally considered to be bad form and poor sportsmanship.

 Kriswall wrote:


This is the literal definition of modelling for advantage. You're intentionally changing something about the shape/size of your model to gain an in game advantage. This is almost universally considered to be bad form and poor sportsmanship.

Emm...no I'm not.

For a start I'm not changing anything -I'm sticking with the bases that were supplied with 90% of the kits I bought. I'm hardly obligated to go pulling 50 models off their existing bases. And it would look pretty odd if the other 10% were on different sized bases, wouldn't you agree? More importantly if I did so, a lot of the scenery which I've purposely designed to be wide enough to fit a model, or 2 models abreast would now be too narrow to do so. Even if I had the time to spare, which I don't, I don't feel compelled to go overhaul my scenery and models just because GW made what I consider a whimsical and inconsiderate decision. So even if I were as you say "intentionally changing something about the shape/ size" of my model I would be doing so in order that I can have fun games where models can utilise the terrain as I intended it to be utilised, i.e. for the sake of enjoying the game, not for any kind of advantage.

Thankfully have yet so read anything from the company that says that is breaking the rules, or is frowned upon, so tbh I'm puzzled as to why you'd take it upon yourself to make a statement like that! In short I dislike the 25mm to 32mm change, solely for reasons of simple practicality. If you're an advocate for that change that's all well and fine, and I'm happy to debate it, just kindly don't go assuming a negative opinion of someone when you don't know their reasons.

Peace out

P.S. Terminators come on 40mm bases and I have never had an issue with that, as it's nicely fitting that such a bulky suit should restrict where models can go.

In a day and age where GW has basically thrown out all semblance of balance in the game both within individual codexes and surely by combining the best elements of multiple formations and armies- are people really worried about someone getting an extra 7mm through a base? To the OP, in the past, base size was more an issue, but nowadays I think if you have models on different base sizes, no one should really care- certainly not in the basement and after taking a look in the Army Lists forum- not in the competitive scene either. Now, if you are using an eldar scat bike host and all your bikes are on non standard bases, or TWC are on larger than normal bases- yeah someone might call you out on it- but an assassin, surely not. Because of Yriel's size, I have him on a 40mm base, if people think he is on there for an advantage, they should consider the fact if I am playing him, I'm not using the broken stuff in the codex, which is a good thing.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


This is the literal definition of modelling for advantage. You're intentionally changing something about the shape/size of your model to gain an in game advantage. This is almost universally considered to be bad form and poor sportsmanship.

Emm...no I'm not.

Your reasoning shows otherwise. You're only changing the bases for a (perceived) in-game advantage. That is the definition of modeling for advantage.

 Ghaz wrote:

Your reasoning shows otherwise. You're only changing the bases for a (perceived) in-game advantage. That is the definition of modeling for advantage.

That's your opinion. Mine would be that you're too much of a stickler for the rules. And I genuinely don't mean that offensively, just that myself and a lot of other people have a very different philosophy on 40k: Play fairly, keep it enjoyable and be tolerant of how others want to model their miniatures. Unless of someone is clearly taking the p**s, i.e. plying for an advantage in their modelling, e.g. Having 2 heavy weapons squads where every model is lying prone.

Being able to use scenery that I've built and paid good money for is what I would consider "a basic right" of a player, just as I'd consider it a player's right to field old Ork trukks or 2nd ed Rhinos if that's what they'd paid for, even thought those models have a much more advantageous profile than the current models.

Also have you cosidered there are gaming advantages as well as disadvantages to 32mm bases. e.g. being able to space a squad out further to cover more ground, and get them in base contact with the enemy a bit easier. All pros and cons considered, I don't believe it will make a big difference in terms of effectiveness on the board. Certainly far less than posing tau battlesuiits on rocks or land speeders on stands barely 5mm off the ground, both of which players are free to do from what I can see...

No, that's not my opinion it is what you literally wrote.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
My large (and only) issue with 32mm bases is that they're more difficult to place in tight quarters doorways, alleys, dense forests, rocky ground and undergrowth. This will be a particular issue if playing cityfight or other game modes that have dense amounts of terrain. Whether models look better on 32mm or not, I don't want that headache, so I'm sticking with 25mm.

The entire reason you yourself gave was to provide yourself an in-game advantage.

 Ghaz wrote:
No, that's not my opinion it is what you literally wrote.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
My large (and only) issue with 32mm bases is that they're more difficult to place in tight quarters doorways, alleys, dense forests, rocky ground and undergrowth. This will be a particular issue if playing cityfight or other game modes that have dense amounts of terrain. Whether models look better on 32mm or not, I don't want that headache, so I'm sticking with 25mm.

The entire reason you yourself gave was to provide yourself an in-game advantage.

Actually ironically I'm not changing them. I'm leaving them as they are, if that makes any difference to you.

Where I differ to you in my thinking is this: As I've always understood the term "modelling for advantage" is wherein somebody alters the design of something for the purpose of gaining an advantage over their opponent.

Therefore if a model is modified for the purposes of a different aesthetic, making it stronger or more stable, or for reasons of practicality I gave, it isn't modelling for advantage. I'm not saying that it can't result in an in game advantage, or that any such issue should be ignored by default, just that that was never the intent of the modification, so it shouldn't be branded as such.

I hope that explains my point of view better

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, that's not my opinion it is what you literally wrote.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
My large (and only) issue with 32mm bases is that they're more difficult to place in tight quarters doorways, alleys, dense forests, rocky ground and undergrowth. This will be a particular issue if playing cityfight or other game modes that have dense amounts of terrain. Whether models look better on 32mm or not, I don't want that headache, so I'm sticking with 25mm.

The entire reason you yourself gave was to provide yourself an in-game advantage.

Actually ironically I'm not changing them. I'm leaving them as they are, if that makes any difference to you.

Where I differ to you in my thinking is this: As I've always understood the term "modelling for advantage" is wherein somebody alters the design of something for the purpose of gaining an advantage over their opponent.

Therefore if a model is modified for the purposes of a different aesthetic, making it stronger or more stable, or for reasons of practicality I gave, it isn't modelling for advantage. I'm not saying that it can't result in an in game advantage, or that any such issue should be ignored by default, just that that was never the intent of the modification, so it shouldn't be branded as such.

I hope that explains my point of view better

Keeping an older model you purchased that came with a 25mm base on a 25mm base is totally fine. Everyone tends to agree with this.

Taking a newer model you purchased that came with a 32mm base and using a 25mm base because it makes it easer to place your models in spots they otherwise wouldn't be able to fit is modelling for advantage and is almost universally frowned upon.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I modelled my assassins on 25mm because I thought the 32mm bases looked too big (yes, I am nitpicking 7mm). The scenic part of the vindicare model fits perfectly on a 25mm base anyway. Not sure about the Culexes or the Eversor.

My deepstriking termies just look better on 25 mm.

 Kriswall wrote:


Keeping an older model you purchased that came with a 25mm base on a 25mm base is totally fine. Everyone tends to agree with this.

Taking a newer model you purchased that came with a 32mm base and using a 25mm base because it makes it easer to place your models in spots they otherwise wouldn't be able to fit is modelling for advantage and is almost universally frowned upon.

I can see where you're getting that reasoning from Kris, but I can't agree.

If we went with that proposal then you end up with a situation where anyone who's been fortunate enough to complete their space marine army before 2015 enjoys a special privelage. Granted this situation already exists in the case of players running outdated models like said 2nd ed rhinos, but that can't be helped, beyond the extreme measure of throwing out your old models, which I wouldn't expect anyone to do any more than I should throw out my existing scenery.

As far as I can see there are as many in-game advantages to using the larger bases as disadvantages. I decided on keeping 25mm bases because I want models, both mine, and my opponents,' to be able to use scenery. I did not do it to gain advantage but so that I could use gaming assets that I've spent months and hundreds of euros making. So by definition I haven't modelled them for advantage, I've modelled them for practicality. Modelling for advantage is where you modify a model for the purpose of getting an advantage. I've already stated several times that that wasn't my motive, so while you and Ghaz are of course entitled to criticise my decision, I'd appreciate if you can get past using that term.

Now I will obviously agree that against an opponent using 32mm bases will unintentionally result in situations to my advantage. As far as I'm concerned that's GW's fault for being inconsiderate, not mine. What I'd do in those cases as they arose is suggest to my opponent that they proxy placement of their minis in tight places using a 25mm base. And likewise I'd make an appropriate allowance if a model on a 60mm base wanted to go through a gap that the model clearly could fit into, but the base couldn't. If it's pretty obvious a model should be able to fit in a gap, then that is only logical that it be allowed to. If you agree that's a fair solution, then all I'm doing it bypassing all that hassle by keeping infantry on the appropriate sized bases.

If you take what you are proposing to its conclusion, you will get equally valid demands by other players that crouching or leaping models, or those posed on rocks be disallowed. This is further complicated by the fact that some kits come in such poses. Should these be allowed and other not? Ork players commonly use WW2 tank kits as a basis for their vehicles. Some of these undoubtadly result in more advantageous profiles than others. Should this be banned, or should just Orks be allowed to do this? None of this is the direction I'd like to see the game go at all. In short if someone has improved or augmented a model for reasons other than improving their chances of winning, then I believe we should be tolerant of this.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


Keeping an older model you purchased that came with a 25mm base on a 25mm base is totally fine. Everyone tends to agree with this.

Taking a newer model you purchased that came with a 32mm base and using a 25mm base because it makes it easer to place your models in spots they otherwise wouldn't be able to fit is modelling for advantage and is almost universally frowned upon.

I can see where you're getting that reasoning from Kris, but I can't agree.

If we went with that proposal then you end up with a situation where anyone who's been fortunate enough to complete their space marine army before 2015 enjoys a special privelage. Granted this situation already exists in the case of players running outdated models like said 2nd ed rhinos, but that can't be helped, beyond the extreme measure of throwing out your old models, which I wouldn't expect anyone to do any more than I should throw out my existing scenery.

As far as I can see there are as many in-game advantages to using the larger bases as disadvantages. I decided on keeping 25mm bases because I want models, both mine, and my opponents,' to be able to use scenery. I did not do it to gain advantage but so that I could use gaming assets that I've spent months and hundreds of euros making. So by definition I haven't modelled them for advantage, I've modelled them for practicality. Modelling for advantage is where you modify a model for the purpose of getting an advantage. I've already stated several times that that wasn't my motive, so while you're entitled to criticise my decision, I'd appreciate if you can get past using that term.

Now I will obviously agree that against an opponent using 32mm bases will unintentionally result in situations to my advantage. As far as I'm concerned that's GW's fault for being inconsiderate, not mine. What I'd do in those cases as they arose is suggest to my opponent that they proxy placement of their minis in tight places using a 25mm base. And likewise I'd make an appropriate allowance if a model on a 60mm base wanted to go through a gap that the model clearly could fit into, but the base couldn't. If it's pretty obvious a model should be able to fit in a gap, then that is only logical that it be allowed to. If you agree that's a fair solution, then all I'm doing it bypassing all that hassle by keeping infantry on the appropriate sized bases.

If you take what you are proposing to its conclusion, you will get equally valid demands by other players that crouching or leaping models, or those posed on rocks be disallowed. This is further complicated by the fact that some kits come in such poses. Should these be allowed and other not? Ork players commonly use WW2 tank kits as a basis for their vehicles. Some of these undoubtadly result in more advantageous profiles than others. Should this be banned, or should just Orks be allowed to do this? None of this is the direction I'd like to see the game go at all. In short if someone has improved or augmented a model for reasons other than improving their chances of winning, then I believe we should be tolerant of this.

I'm mostly arguing from a competitive standpoint. Intent doesn't matter so much when a clear in-game advantage is gained due to a non-standard modeling decision. If I were a TO, I would require that all models be based using the most recently available bases possible. This prevents the sort of shenanigans you get when one player has old models on smaller bases versus another player with recent models on larger bases. I know this isn't always a popular choice as it creates an expectation that people should "destroy their models by ripping them off the base and re-basing them". In reality, there are multiple companies that sell inexpensive little clip-on circular rings to turn 25mm bases into 32mm bases. Compared to the cost of an army, you're talking pennies on the dollar to update your models to the current standard. Also, this doesn't actually change your models. You can still use them as the smaller size in your local group if it's allowed there.

From a casual, or "HIWPI" standpoint, I tend to go for the Rule of Cool over anything else. Intent absolutely matters in a casual environment. If you have a cool conversion, or have well painted old models, keep them as is. If you have models that aren't painted and have no conversion work, you should probably glue them to the newer sized bases if that's something your group does. If your group doesn't care, it doesn't matter.

okay so many people live given the argument of putting this thing, in this case an assassin, on a 25mm instead of a 32mm base as modeling for advantage. Please tell me in what way does one gain an advantage for this? Where does the advantage come from that was not there before?

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:
okay so many people live given the argument of putting this thing, in this case an assassin, on a 25mm instead of a 32mm base as modeling for advantage. Please tell me in what way does one gain an advantage for this? Where does the advantage come from that was not there before?

You have 3mm to avoid a Blast or Template with. Deep Strike and Infiltrate allows 3mm slack to work with. 3mm less room for other models to get B2B with them and potentially reducing the incoming number of Attacks (by what, 1 out of 20?).

Charistoph wrote:

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:
okay so many people live given the argument of putting this thing, in this case an assassin, on a 25mm instead of a 32mm base as modeling for advantage. Please tell me in what way does one gain an advantage for this? Where does the advantage come from that was not there before?

You have 3mm to avoid a Blast or Template with. Deep Strike and Infiltrate allows 3mm slack to work with. 3mm less room for other models to get B2B with them and potentially reducing the incoming number of Attacks (by what, 1 out of 20?).

Also, as mentioned, a 25mm base can fit in places that a 32mm base would be too large for.

It's not a HUGE advantage, but there are plenty of reasons why having a smaller base is better.

I agree with Kriswall here. Most tournaments these days stipulate that models must be on the most current base.

The tournaments that don't generally have a rule that says if you're using an OOP model with a base or size different from the current, official model, any time there is a questionable case as to whether you'd be able to do something that could be changed by using the official model (ie get cover, line of sight, hit by a template, etc), you default to whatever is most advantageous to your opponent.

By using the second rule, they ensure people who are truly most interested in the asthetics of the model are able to do what they want while ensuring there is no way that they gain advantage by doing so. Either of these tournament rules is acceptable, imo.

As a tournament player, I couldn't in good conscience suggest that someone place a model on a base other than the one they were supplied with, except in the case of OOP models, which should be placed on the latest, official base size.

 Kriswall wrote:


I'm mostly arguing from a competitive standpoint. Intent doesn't matter so much when a clear in-game advantage is gained due to a non-standard modeling decision.

Ah right. Apologies if I got the wrong message from your original comment.

 Kriswall wrote:

There are multiple companies that sell inexpensive little clip-on circular rings to turn 25mm bases into 32mm bases. Compared to the cost of an army, you're talking pennies on the dollar to update your models to the current standard. Also, this doesn't actually change your models. You can still use them as the smaller size in your local group if it's allowed there.

That's ideal -I certainly would have no objection to investing in something I can take on and off at will, for the sake of tournament play.

 Kriswall wrote:

It's not a HUGE advantage, but there are plenty of reasons why having a smaller base is better.

And there are just as many reasons why having a larger base is better.

Which base size is more advantageous is not an objective fact that can be determined in a vacuum. It can only be determined when you're actually experiencing one of the situations in-game where it makes a difference.

If you're changing a model's base during a game, that's an issue, but once it's glued on there, it hardly matters any more as it continually be in a state of suffering all of the advantages and disadvantages of its base size.

In summation, pick a base the model came on at some point in its life cycle. Use that. Nothing else matters.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

It's not a HUGE advantage, but there are plenty of reasons why having a smaller base is better.

And there are just as many reasons why having a larger base is better.

Which base size is more advantageous is not an objective fact that can be determined in a vacuum. It can only be determined when you're actually experiencing one of the situations in-game where it makes a difference.

If you're changing a model's base during a game, that's an issue, but once it's glued on there, it hardly matters any more as it continually be in a state of suffering all of the advantages and disadvantages of its base size.

In summation, pick a base the model came on at some point in its life cycle. Use that. Nothing else matters.

We're concerned about gaining in-game advantages. We're not concerned about gaining in-game disadvantages. If you change your base size and gain a single small advantage plus numerous disadvantages... you've still changed a model from the default with the result of gaining in-game advantage.

Also, I do agree with your last comment. For any given model, pick a base the model came on at some point in its life cycle. The newer Assassin models have only ever come with 32mm bases, so the 32mm base is the only thing you should really be using. For the older sculpts, they only ever came with 25mm bases, so the 25mm base is the only thing you should really be using. If a tournament you've chosen to attend requires you to re-base models to the latest iteration's size, do so if you want to attend. As has been mentioned, there are ways of doing this that don't damage your models or paint jobs and are temporary.