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 much disputed 'Tallarn' infiltrate stratagem can _only_ be used on units with the Tallarn Keyword. No Ogryns hiding in transports, I'm afraid.

Models must be based on their current GW basing size, no using old marines on old bases.


Thought it might help everyone to know! [And the basing issue may be a forshadowing of things to come.]

stares at 50 Bloodletters on old bases

weeps

The basing thing is interesting...because they have never attempted that before, and has lots of legacy implications. I certainly have zero intention of ever rebasing any of my minis to adhere to a rule like that. The cost in money and time (especially painting time) is 0% worth it.

Nor did I.

But now I've paid the entry fee, it's either rebase, or write off the money I spent on tickets, hotel and train.
Kinda wish something that significant had been mentioned in the pack.

Also means no funky conversions. For example I have some Imperial Guard officers mounted on horseback, because Napoleonics, but these are obviously on cavalry bases, so that's a big no no.
Cool senic bases are also well out.

Blue tack them onto 32s and remove them when they die for display between rounds.

Unpainted bases are a big no no. If I'm going to have to go to the effort of remounting them on based and painted 32's, then I might as well do it properly.

When competitive players took the game so seriously that they kill the original intent of all of this thing.

 Galas wrote:
When competitive players took the game so seriously that they kill the original intent of all of this thing.

Well remember, this is a tournament, so it's not like these restrictions apply to casual tables, and also, this isn't a rule for ITC/nova/adepticon, right?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galas wrote:
When competitive players took the game so seriously that they kill the original intent of all of this thing.

Well remember, this is a tournament, so it's not like these restrictions apply to casual tables, and also, this isn't a rule for ITC/nova/adepticon, right?

You and I know that when this kind of thing start in tournaments it leaks over. Personally, I don't think it will end that way because GW isn't PP. I can understand the desire to have some homogeneization, to ensure a "fair" tournament scene. If thats keep in the high end tournaments, thats fine by me.

 Galas wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galas wrote:
When competitive players took the game so seriously that they kill the original intent of all of this thing.

Well remember, this is a tournament, so it's not like these restrictions apply to casual tables, and also, this isn't a rule for ITC/nova/adepticon, right?

You and I know that when this kind of thing start in tournaments it leaks over. Personally, I don't think it will end that way because GW isn't PP. I can understand the desire to have some homogeneization, to ensure a "fair" tournament scene. If thats keep in the high end tournaments, thats fine by me.

Well individual rogue traders can set any rules they want really. It might affect you, it might not. In truth there's always a line about "modeling for advantage." So if you see a marine on a base the size of a Titan, that's not going to fly.

Where were these announced, as they're not in the most recent Gaming Pack Update?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vintage Models are allowed however the current model’s dimensions and base size should be used for game play decisions.

Ooof, the rebasing thing is rough. I don’t think I’d do that. That’s a lot of time and effort. Is it really some sort of issue? There aren’t even templates anymore. If anything I find the larger bases just make the table too crowded.

They're not announced, they're the results of my discussion with the officals via email at the offical email address enclosed within the pack.

Current basing sizes? Tell them to go feth themselves. Seriously.

dosiere wrote:
Ooof, the rebasing thing is rough. I don’t think I’d do that. That’s a lot of time and effort. Is it really some sort of issue? There aren’t even templates anymore. If anything I find the larger bases just make the table too crowded.

In general, I don't think base sizes us of huge importance. But there are some instances where it really matters. For example, if you are trying to block disembarkation from a transport, then 32 mm bases is a big advantage over 25 mm bases. But if you are trying to get as many models in to CC in a tight gap, then 25 bases is a huge advantage (more than 2x as many)

'Dear officals. While I respect your attempt to run the largest war hammer event in Europe, and though having spent hundreds of pounds on hotel accommodation already, and prepurchased tickets for the event, I would like you to go feth yourselves for your basing restrictions.'

... As much as I really would like to do that, it is less hassle to rebase a hundred models than it is to throw away half a grand. Frustrating, though.

Which is why I made this thread largely, not so much to whine, but to give everyone else as much forwarning as possible about basing requirements.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Current basing sizes? Tell them to go feth themselves. Seriously.

You could send them an email with the proposition?

 Galas wrote:
When competitive players took the game so seriously that they kill the original intent of all of this thing.

STOP LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!

Some people enjoy playing competitively. Who are you to deride them for their hobby?

Anyone playing competitively should either re-base their army or shell out for base adaptors. That's the cost of the hobby.

I mean what are you looking at rebasing? Going to 32 from 25 on marines? There are extenders for bases that you can buy.

I personally give all my hqs larger bases to fit more scenery on and give them more of a place on the feild. I never use them in tournaments (I refuse to play competitively) but I can tell you that only being half than less a inch larger does not effect the games in anyway. I've never had any advantage from a cm or more buff circles (as my guys tend to be always close to the lts, ect...) and I've had more issue with using terrain (fitting them on and hiding)!

 lolman1c wrote:
I personally give all my hqs larger bases to fit more scenery on and give them more of a place on the feild. I never use them in tournaments (I refuse to play competitively) but I can tell you that only being half than less a inch larger does not effect the games in anyway. I've never had any advantage from a cm or more buff circles (as my guys tend to be always close to the lts, ect...) and I've had more issue with using terrain (fitting them on and hiding)!

Again, it becomes an issue when you have base to base contact as a requirement for combat.

I could get more 25mm models eligible to fight against your bigger base. Likewise, I would get less models around a 25mm base.

Or, perhaps i put a Trygon on the base of a Titan. That way, i can get a lot of models within 3". As an example.

beast_gts wrote:
Where were these announced, as they're not in the most recent Gaming Pack Update?

Vintage Models are allowed however the current model’s dimensions and base size should be used for game play decisions.

So... old models on old bases are allowed, but have a current base ready to use for gameplay decisions?

Seems reasonable enough.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galas wrote:
When competitive players took the game so seriously that they kill the original intent of all of this thing.

STOP LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!

Some people enjoy playing competitively. Who are you to deride them for their hobby?

Anyone playing competitively should either re-base their army or shell out for base adaptors. That's the cost of the hobby.

You sound like one of those villains in kids shows during the apocalypse.

"You either get the cash or I will cut off all water supply and let you all die! That's the cost of living in my territory!"

But jokes aside! I think people need to use common sense here. If you have the older models that were sold with those bases then that's fine but if you have new models on bases that are clearly there to win thr tournaments then that's bad. For example normal models on titan based or primaris marines on the older small bases.

How does this rule work for other factions thta havnt upgraded yet then?

 lolman1c wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galas wrote:
When competitive players took the game so seriously that they kill the original intent of all of this thing.

STOP LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!

Some people enjoy playing competitively. Who are you to deride them for their hobby?

Anyone playing competitively should either re-base their army or shell out for base adaptors. That's the cost of the hobby.

You sound like one of those villains in kids shows during the apocalypse.

"You either get the cash or I will cut off all water supply and let you all die! That's the cost of living in my territory!"

But jokes aside! I think people need to use common sense here. If you have the older models that were sold with those bases then that's fine but if you have new models on bases that are clearly there to win thr tournaments then that's bad. For example normal models on titan based or primaris marines on the older small bases.

How does this rule work for other factions thta havnt upgraded yet then?

No no no.
The officals were clear. The model has to be on the base it is _Currently Sold With_

Not the model must be treated as though it was on. Not if you have an old model on an old base because that's what you brought it on back then.
If the models base size has been updated the model must be currently based on whatever that base size is. No larger, no smaller.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galas wrote:
When competitive players took the game so seriously that they kill the original intent of all of this thing.

STOP LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!

Some people enjoy playing competitively. Who are you to deride them for their hobby?

Anyone playing competitively should either re-base their army or shell out for base adaptors. That's the cost of the hobby.

I play competitively too. But as it appears I have a different opinion than the ones running this event. I suppose competitive players aren't a hive mind?
That the original intent of Warhammer was to do cool things with your little metalic dudes isn't an opinion, is a fact. Now, obviously it has evolved and mature and now theres many different forms of enjoying this hobby. But refrain from painting me as some kind of hobbist gatekeeper because I'm not.
Kinda the contrary, they are the ones gatekeeping people out for not doing things their way. Of course is their event and they have that right. But I'm free to say that I disagree with them.

And haven said this, I have actually rebased all my old marines from 25mm to 32mm 1 year and a half ago. But that was my choice, made by me without external pressure. A very different case from the one OP is in.

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean what are you looking at rebasing? Going to 32 from 25 on marines? There are extenders for bases that you can buy.

Which seems to often leave gap, requires work, doesn't look neccessarily as good and heaven forbid if you have resin base at which point it's by default not going to look good as the extensions don't come with equilavent resin basing that fits the original...Plus even if there were such that would be more money.

GW is already doing rules for cash grab. Why players just enforce it even more? Players are GW's best marketing tools as they make them more expensive than it could be.

If the TOs paid for everyone changing their bases, I'd happily do it!

 Vector Strike wrote:
If the TOs paid for everyone changing their bases, I'd happily do it!

I'm not sure how that would work given they charge you to enter...

My slight concern here is that it seems this is a ruling you have gained in a one on one email discussion with the TO, right?

So presumably you have sought clarification that your weirdly-based units are OK and disappointingly been told no, they're not.

If that's true thenI would say that unless they publish this as a rules change somewhere, then it doesn't apply to anyone else. You discovering this ruling doesn't necessarily mean that others showing up with unusual base sizes will be turned away or asked to remove models.

This is where the saying "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission" arises

 Silentz wrote:
My slight concern here is that it seems this is a ruling you have gained in a one on one email discussion with the TO, right?

So presumably you have sought clarification that your weirdly-based units are OK and disappointingly been told no, they're not.

If that's true thenI would say that unless they publish this as a rules change somewhere, then it doesn't apply to anyone else. You discovering this ruling doesn't necessarily mean that others showing up with unusual base sizes will be turned away or asked to remove models.

This is where the saying "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission" arises

I saught general rules clarification with open ended questions about models based on the bases they were sold with vs the bases they are sold with now. I included several generic examples, [Such as old marines vs new marines] but I hardly made the question specific to me.

None of my models are based 'Weirdly' they're based as they came, with the exception of two or three characters that are based on GW's now out of print Forgeworld 'Senic bases', which I think are 32mm, and thus larger than the bases those models were originally sold with.

Given the events attitude is, 'If your model isn't permissable, we'll ask you to remove it from the table' I sure wouldn't want this to be sprung on someone else at the event by suprise. But you're all welcome to email them yourselves for clarification if you like.