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.

I know that there is no "hard" ruling for what base size a model must be on. Without referencing previous edition rules (like use the base it came on), it seems that GW wants to allow us to use whatever base we want, within reason. The "within reason" part is up to opponents or the community consensus.

So I guess my question is whether the Dakka community has consensus specifically regarding conversions.
I have a specific example in mind: Seekers of Slaanesh

I am brainstorming some ideas for cheaper Seekers, either by using Daemottes with snake bodies, Lizardmen Saurus with clawed hands, Chaos warhounds, etc.
Whatever I decide to go with, the 75mm x 25mm long bike bases just doesn't look right (and they don't look right for the actual Seeker models either)
So could I use either 32mm rounds or the small oval 60mm x 35mm bases and be fine?
Seekers are T3, 1W models and should not be on large bases, but because of their speed, 25mm bases would be too small, but I think even the smallest Oval base is too big

What about custom bases? I like that the Seekers are on long bases. I think all Cavalry and Bikes should be on long bases.
Since the 75mm x 25mm base is what is used to the Seekers, but is too long for the conversion ideas I have, what about custom making 50mm x 25mm round bases.
This would be a simple task of cutting a 25mm round base in half, and placing each half on the ends of a 25mm square base. Then use greenstuff to smooth the gaps


--
TL;DR:
How do you feel about using alternate base sizes for conversions?
How do you feel about custom made bases that are do not match anything GW offers?

-

Personally? So long as it looks good, I'm fine with it. having tiny models on huge bases feels just as wrong as having huge models on tiny bases.

That said, I don't think this is going to be an issue much longer. I'm 90% sure GW is going to use the AoS system of just measuring from model to model, rather than base to base. Once that point comes, your bases won't be an issue anyways.

I am uncertain anymore what I could do with a base size to "model for advantage": bigger or smaller still translates into different advantages and drawbacks.
Other than the old rule of using the base provided (or bigger??) I see little room for much argument.
Plus rule of cool can apply that if it all reasonably fits the model size to base.

 Yarium wrote:
Personally? So long as it looks good, I'm fine with it. having tiny models on huge bases feels just as wrong as having huge models on tiny bases.

That said, I don't think this is going to be an issue much longer. I'm 90% sure GW is going to use the AoS system of just measuring from model to model, rather than base to base. Once that point comes, your bases won't be an issue anyways.

I really hope that is not the case. I convert about 90% of the models I have ever owned. I've relied on base size as the consistent size factor to allow for fairly divergent conversions. Although I always strive for my conversions to have roughly the same "volume" as to balance out any advantages or disadvantages of having a different model, going to an AoS system would make most of my armies function differently than if they were the boring standard models everyone else has.

For the specific example I am brainstorming, I am leaning heavily towards getting a box of Saurus (20 for $40) and just leaving them on the 32mm rounds they now come with.
Replace their hands with Deamonette claws, paint them light purple and call it a day. Although custom making 50x25mm round bases would look cool and give them more of an Cavalry feel.

-

 Yarium wrote:
Personally? So long as it looks good, I'm fine with it. having tiny models on huge bases feels just as wrong as having huge models on tiny bases.

That said, I don't think this is going to be an issue much longer. I'm 90% sure GW is going to use the AoS system of just measuring from model to model, rather than base to base. Once that point comes, your bases won't be an issue anyways.

I'd doubt that. One of the first things in the Generals Handbook for Matched Play basically said it would be better to house rule using base to base instead of model to model.

As to changing bases, I think it's fine to go with what fits the model, as already noted there are different advantages and disadvantages to going either way.

Any conversions i do i try to use the correct sized base. Look it my p&m thread on my sig, in particular the exocrine and tyranid prime. Both use the correct size base even though the prime is much bigger than a warrior and the exocrine has a lot of overhang. For the exocrine i am sure to specify with my opponents that only the parts of the model over the base count for targetting. Both him shooting me and me drawing line of sight. I have never had anyone have a problem with it. In fact its all been compliments and "that is completely fair".

If I absolutely have to base a model on a larger base than is standard, I make sure the correct base size is marked somehow within the basing scheme, for reference purposes.

I'd use either 40mm rounds or the small ovals. 32mm feels rather small.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I'd use either 40mm rounds or the small ovals. 32mm feels rather small.

I don't wanna live in a world in which 32mm bases "feel rather small" for a 1 wound T3 model.
Why did GW have to make the models so darn big. The old metal Seekers were much more size appropriate.

I just got a Slaanesh Herald on Steed (just eBay'd a plastic Seeker and added extra stuff). I'm planning on joining her to a large unit of Daemonettes.
I'll be keeping her on the long base she came with, mainly because the stupid steed is so freakin long, but also because the long base and extra movement should give my unit about 5" extra for assault moves.

I'm still toying around with ideas for a unit of Seekers, but since I have no plans to actually use any Seekers, these ideas will probably stay on the drawing board.

-

I keep looking at drop pods and how the hatches can be used to deploy from, then a 32mm base with about 2" I think deploy distance from the pod: that is an enormous footprint (nevermind dreadnaught)

I think any large bases that deploy from a transport model would give a strong advantage in distance.

A little more on topic, you can always build a spot for the "correct" base into a larger diorama base so you can have the best of both worlds.

 Talizvar wrote:
I keep looking at drop pods and how the hatches can be used to deploy from, then a 32mm base with about 2" I think deploy distance from the pod: that is an enormous footprint (nevermind dreadnaught)

I think any large bases that deploy from a transport model would give a strong advantage in distance.

A little more on topic, you can always build a spot for the "correct" base into a larger diorama base so you can have the best of both worlds.

Disembarking means moving from the door/exit as far as permitted, usually 6" od D6". Since no part of the base may move further than this distance, the base has to be placed entirely within the movement distance. As such, a bigger base does not provide more movement when disembarking, just like it doesn't when moving.

When embarking, with the requirement for all models of the embarking unit to be within a certain distance of the access point, a smaller base size may be helpful to fit units with more models.

GW doens't really seem to mind the base size you are using as long as it looks great, they are switching base sizes all the time.
Most competitive players do mind and like to you to use the base the correct model came with.

I personally do care about bases when they deviate too much. Seekers are cav and I do like them to be based on cav / bike sized bases. I also do mind it if your conversions are significantly smaller than than the original. Seekers are quite big models, and hard to get into cover.

Galef wrote: Whatever I decide to go with, the 75mm x 25mm long bike bases just doesn't look right (and they don't look right for the actual Seeker models either)
So could I use either 32mm rounds or the small oval 60mm x 35mm bases and be fine?

This is how seekers look like. I am having a hard time how they look too small for their base and would look better on 32mm bases.



here is a picture how they look like on the new bigger GW cav / bike bases. If I was to rebase them I would go for that size. Basing them on 32 mm, or your reduced size bike base base feels out of place and your conversions would be clearly modelled for advantage when they don't look out of place on a 32mm base if you ask me.

 oldzoggy wrote:

Galef wrote: Whatever I decide to go with, the 75mm x 25mm long bike bases just doesn't look right (and they don't look right for the actual Seeker models either)
So could I use either 32mm rounds or the small oval 60mm x 35mm bases and be fine?

This is how seekers look like. I am having a hard time how they look too small for their base and would look better on 32mm bases.

You misunderstand. I don't say the actual models look to small for the 75x25mm long base, but I think the actual model is too big for a T3, 1W profile. I also think that the long thin base seems out of place now that small ovals exist. Previously those bases were used for bikes, but alwayls looked too skinny
The Seekers look much better in the second picture you posted, but I still think the models as a whole are too big.

If I ever get around to doing this conversion, it will most likely be using Lizardmen Saurus with Deamonette claws. I would model about half of them "leaping" off terrain to give the same rough height as the Seeker models. Since the Saurus will look better on the 32mm bases, those would be what I would use. Putting models on smaller bases comes with a few disadvantages, so I don't think anyone would say I was modeling for advantage.

-

This makes it a what is an accepted conversion question rather than a what is the correct base size question really. I don't really think that downsizing models because you think that they look too big is accepted in most places. My guess is that it would be immediately be called out as modelling for advantage in the more competitive crowds.

I don't care what people use.

After I saw GW's preliminary test-FAQ-thing, I put Ahriman on a 50mm base and hobby'd the heck out of it to make it look cool.

Since he hides in a big unit of terminators, it only hurts him when the unit is target with blasts.

 oldzoggy wrote:
My guess is that it would be immediately be called out as modelling for advantage in the more competitive crowds.

That has yet to happen to me and 90% of every army I have even owned have been HEAVILY converted. Since I started Daemons back when most of the range was metal, I started converting my army out of various plastic Fantasy kits (or in some cases, Nids + green stuff). I am no stranger to making sure my conversion fit the "volume" of the actual model, even if they do not match the silhouette.
One trick is to use terrain on the base to match the height of the actual model. Smaller models do not actually = advantage. If the body of the model is high enough, it may receive cover saves less often than those of the actual model, in which part of it may be obscured form low terrain. Plus, being in the terrain or behind intervening units doesn't care how much of you is "obscured", so a cm shorter won't make any difference

::Edit:: Now that I think about it, I do not have to match the size of the current Seekers, just as long as they are as big as the Juan Diaz metal seekers (which are smaller than a Saurus, but longer), since those older models are still viable units. If I could get ahold of them, I'd be set, but alas if they are ever on eBay they sell for the price of your firstborn child. ::end edit::

I'll have to get a few of the small oval bases to see if Saurus look ok on them. It they do, than this will be a non-issue. I just don't want tons of empty space on the base.
At the end of the day, I have always used the same bases as the actual model came with, so I may just stick with that method. I only brought up this thread since recently GW hasn't given a pickle about basing consistency.

-

How about measuring from the geometric center point of the base. It is a bit of a pain, but we "hover measure" all the time for scatter and other things already. It creates a set point on the model for measuring, and base size and dimensions no longer matter.

WaughGoff wrote:
How about measuring from the geometric center point of the base. It is a bit of a pain, but we "hover measure" all the time for scatter and other things already. It creates a set point on the model for measuring, and base size and dimensions no longer matter.

That changes distances a lot compared to measuring from closest base edge, especially considering there are different base sizes available. You are adding distance that wasn't added before. Also, you'd have to modify some rules - not getting within 1" of an enemy model you're not charging doesn't work when you're measuring from center of the base to center of the base - you can still have their bases touching in that case.

 Stephanius wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I keep looking at drop pods and how the hatches can be used to deploy from, then a 32mm base with about 2" I think deploy distance from the pod: that is an enormous footprint (nevermind dreadnaught)

I think any large bases that deploy from a transport model would give a strong advantage in distance.

A little more on topic, you can always build a spot for the "correct" base into a larger diorama base so you can have the best of both worlds.

Disembarking means moving from the door/exit as far as permitted, usually 6" od D6". Since no part of the base may move further than this distance, the base has to be placed entirely within the movement distance. As such, a bigger base does not provide more movement when disembarking, just like it doesn't when moving.

When embarking, with the requirement for all models of the embarking unit to be within a certain distance of the access point, a smaller base size may be helpful to fit units with more models.

Doesint open top transport allow you to exit from any spot on the vehicle?


Also OP some would argue that by having a cavalry unit smaller bases it would be easier to get more hammer of wrath hits for the squad. But really just ask who you play against they probably wont care.

Actually having thinner bases gets you more HoWs. In this case, Seekers come on bases that are only 25mm wide. By modeling them on 32mm wide bases, it prevents as many models from "squeezing in" and thus may fail to get into B2B.

If I were to model them on the bases that gave the best possible in-game advantage, it would be the 70x25mm long bases that the models already come with. Those get the most HoWs, keep the most models engaged, and allow for the least amount of models to be hit by blasts (by moving up "side ways" at max coherency).
Really by using the 32mm rounds, I would be at a slight disadvantage.

-

32mm ist to small, at least here at tournaments replacing the old bike base is accepted but it need to be at least 40mm (with the Hounds now having 50mm bases the discussion is up for bikes as well to use them) round or one of the two small oval bases.

If you want to be in the save side, use 25mm round flat plastic bases or plastic card, put magnets on them and use the base size the tournament you gonna play would allow.

 doctortom wrote:

WaughGoff wrote:
How about measuring from the geometric center point of the base. It is a bit of a pain, but we "hover measure" all the time for scatter and other things already. It creates a set point on the model for measuring, and base size and dimensions no longer matter.

That changes distances a lot compared to measuring from closest base edge, especially considering there are different base sizes available. You are adding distance that wasn't added before. Also, you'd have to modify some rules - not getting within 1" of an enemy model you're not charging doesn't work when you're measuring from center of the base to center of the base - you can still have their bases touching in that case.

It would be easy to add rules for "Point Blank" by just giving each model a size value (according to the current used base, like 20-30mm = 1, 40-50mm = 2, 60-70mm = 3 etc) and this would be the range in Inch for everything regarding base size
eg: stay away 1" from base = stay away 1" from Point Blank range, unit coherency = 2 times Point Blank Range, base to base contact = Point Blank range etc

It is less complicated than having so many different bases (and no rules which unit use which base at all)

 kodos wrote:
32mm ist to small, at least here at tournaments replacing the old bike base is accepted but it need to be at least 40mm (with the Hounds now having 50mm bases the discussion is up for bikes as well to use them) round or one of the two small oval bases.

If you want to be in the save side, use 25mm round flat plastic bases or plastic card, put magnets on them and use the base size the tournament you gonna play would allow.

 doctortom wrote:

WaughGoff wrote:
How about measuring from the geometric center point of the base. It is a bit of a pain, but we "hover measure" all the time for scatter and other things already. It creates a set point on the model for measuring, and base size and dimensions no longer matter.

That changes distances a lot compared to measuring from closest base edge, especially considering there are different base sizes available. You are adding distance that wasn't added before. Also, you'd have to modify some rules - not getting within 1" of an enemy model you're not charging doesn't work when you're measuring from center of the base to center of the base - you can still have their bases touching in that case.

It would be easy to add rules for "Point Blank" by just giving each model a size value (according to the current used base, like 20-30mm = 1, 40-50mm = 2, 60-70mm = 3 etc) and this would be the range in Inch for everything regarding base size
eg: stay away 1" from base = stay away 1" from Point Blank range, unit coherency = 2 times Point Blank Range, base to base contact = Point Blank range etc

It is less complicated than having so many different bases (and no rules which unit use which base at all)

Actually it sounds a lot more complicated than just using the base edges, which you can see and measure to just as easily. And, you do have rules, use the base size the model came with.

 doctortom wrote:

Actually it sounds a lot more complicated than just using the base edges, which you can see and measure to just as easily. And, you do have rules, use the base size the model came with.

It just sounds more complicated, but solves some problems and this is not a rule. First you don't know if the bvase size change without buying new models, you don't know if the current one is correct or will change soon and using it RAW means havin 3 different base size for the same model type or that Terminators having smaller basses than marines (and not forget that MC using 40mm square bases for those who play since 2nd edi)

Bases are easier, if the unit entry would state what base is used and all models (and all rules) would use bases.

 kodos wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Actually it sounds a lot more complicated than just using the base edges, which you can see and measure to just as easily. And, you do have rules, use the base size the model came with.

It just sounds more complicated, but solves some problems and this is not a rule. First you don't know if the bvase size change without buying new models, you don't know if the current one is correct or will change soon and using it RAW means havin 3 different base size for the same model type or that Terminators having smaller basses than marines (and not forget that MC using 40mm square bases for those who play since 2nd edi)

Bases are easier, if the unit entry would state what base is used and all models (and all rules) would use bases.

The rule said the base size that the model came with, not the base size the current versions of the models have. People won't mind if you update to current base sizes, but the rule means you don't have to sweat changing out the bases on the older models you bought, as you have them on the bases they came with.

I think they don't bother saying what base size is used with the unit entries because they don't want to force people to rebase their entire army if they change the bases they use.

 doctortom wrote:

The rule said the base size that the model came with, not the base size the current versions of the models have. People won't mind if you update to current base sizes, but the rule means you don't have to sweat changing out the bases on the older models you bought, as you have them on the bases they came with.

Which would also mean that the 50x25mm rectangle base would be perfectly legal for a Seeker conversion, since Seekers at one time came with those bases (not that you would want to use those ugly squared bases).

It would also mean that you could use 40mm bases for Daemon Princes.
If Joe can use a 40mm base for his old metal DP, than there is no reason that Sam can't put his new plastic DP onto the same size base, even though his model came on the 60mm
To say otherwise is to penalize Sam for not playing for as long as Joe. The model "once" came on a 40mm, therefore all subsequent models may also use that size.
Plus, how do you "know" what base a model came with since GW doesn't really document this. What if you get a model from eBay that has no base, or the "incorrect" base. If you bought it with the "incorrect" base, then isn't it now the "correct" base since it is the base the model came with when you bought it?

I guess my point is that my original views on basing are starting to reverse. I was once very adamant about using the "current" approved base for every model. But now that GW has changed so many "current" bases and introduced so many new bases that "fit" models better, I don't really see the point in trying to stay "current"


-

I agree, GW just use the base size that fits the model, no matter waht other models of the same types are using or if it has an advantage or disadvantage in the game

I will not starting rebasing my Bloodhounds and keep them on 40mm round, and will take those bases for Seekers that look best, which are either the 70x25 or the 60x35 oval bases (there are shops which are selling the new base size in MDF for half the GW price so no problem to get a lot of them)

 doctortom wrote:

The rule said the base size that the model came with, not the base size the current versions of the models have.

This is what I am talking about,
CSM have Terminators with 25mm Bases or 40mm Bases, Demon Prince with 40mm Square or 40mm to 60mm round Base, Marines with 25 or 32mm Base, Bikes with 50x25, 70x25 or 75x46mm Oval Base

 doctortom wrote:

I think they don't bother saying what base size is used with the unit entries because they don't want to force people to rebase their entire army if they change the bases they use .

they don't care, because than they would not change the base size of an army in steps over 2 years sou that you have to buy additional extra bases to get your new models of one box with the same base size that the models of another box