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.

Hi All,

I played in a tournament last week and faced a Daemon army with some ... interesting ... modelling choices:
- Nurglings represented by sideways Tyranid spore mines on standard 25 mm infantry bases
- Bloodletters based on clear bases smaller than their standard 25 mm infantry base
- Daemon Princes represented by converted non-GW models on 32 mm flying bases (the ones used for Tau Gun Drones)

It was a friendly, day-long tournament with pretty casual rules when it came to armies (armies didn't even have to be painted to be fielded), but I was wondering if there's anything I missed about modeling standards in 8th edition matched play? I recall, for example, in previous editions there were some rules like "models must be on a minimum sized base". Are there universal rules that players need to follow about wysiwig and standard modeling? I didn't want to be "that guy" to call my opponent out before our match, but the modelling choices he made did benefit him strategically (less of my models could fight in combat against his Daemon Prince, his Nurgling squads were objective secured and he could have fitted more of them around an objective etc.).

Thanks for the insights!

 orchewer wrote:
Hi All,

I played in a tournament last week and faced a Daemon army with some ... interesting ... modelling choices:
- Nurglings represented by sideways Tyranid spore mines on standard 25 mm infantry bases
- Bloodletters based on clear bases smaller than their standard 25 mm infantry base
- Daemon Princes represented by converted non-GW models on 32 mm flying bases (the ones used for Tau Gun Drones)

It was a friendly, day-long tournament with pretty casual rules when it came to armies (armies didn't even have to be painted to be fielded), but I was wondering if there's anything I missed about modeling standards in 8th edition matched play? I recall, for example, in previous editions there were some rules like "models must be on a minimum sized base". Are there universal rules that players need to follow about wysiwig and standard modeling? I didn't want to be "that guy" to call my opponent out before our match, but the modelling choices he made did benefit him strategically (less of my models could fight in combat against his Daemon Prince, his Nurgling squads were objective secured and he could have fitted more of them around an objective etc.).

Thanks for the insights!

WYSIWYG is not a rule. There is no rules basis for what models have to look like or be based on.

If someone is playing silly buggers like that, refuse to play them.

When your at a tournament its up to the TO to determine if proxy's are legal or not.

I mean I love counts as but that is pretty weak.
Basic standards are use the right sized base for the model.

I'm willing to let slide bloodletters on 25mm (the new box has 32mm, but before now they've always been 25mm) but less than that is silly.

DPs should be on 60mm( unless it's actually an old one that actually came on 40mm.)

25mm nurglings is taking the mick. They have always been a swarm unit.

There's no WYSIWYG rule or rules about bases in the official rules. Thus if TO hasn't set their own standards then nothing stops player from using small rocks to represent his forces...This little rock is tactical with bolter. This even smaller rock is terminator with assault cannon...Technically 100% legal.

Of course tournaments generally have SOME standards for it. Yours clearly though is super loose about that.

(oh and btw even in before there wasn't minimum base rule. Closest GW has got to defining bases was "use with what model came with" which still left plenty of termintators on 25mm bases, avatars on 40mm squares etc possible since models have come with those! But GW got rid of even this one)

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I mean I love counts as but that is pretty weak.
Basic standards are use the right sized base for the model.

I'm willing to let slide bloodletters on 25mm (the new box has 32mm, but before now they've always been 25mm) but less than that is silly.

DPs should be on 60mm( unless it's actually an old one that actually came on 40mm.)

25mm nurglings is taking the mick. They have always been a swarm unit.

He's talking about using bases SMALLER than the smallest ones they came with historically.

For horde CD army I can see using smaller base to provide advantages since the army can run out of deployment space before points.

While its definitely tfg move but modelling for advantage has no rules against it.

Bases SMALLER than traditional/classic bases = no go
Bases LARGER than traditional/classic bases = sure, it's nothing but a disadvantage

@skchsan; smaller bases allow you to pile more units into the 1" close combat range - larger bases actively work against you, so with those, it's not an issue

But yeah, as other people said - conversions are generally fine; but at the end of the day, it's the TO's call. If you're not at a tournament, it's your call then whether or not you want to play vs them.

Larger isn't always a disadvantage tho. A lot of models have aura's which benefit from a larger base.

I've totally been that guy to call people out when they're not up to a reasonable standard.

Last fall I was playing a guy with gray plastic models at a large ITC tournament. I told him that I could either go and get a judge and the judge would remove models from his army, or I could auto-win the first turn roll-off. We settled for me getting +1 to the first turn roll (and since I finished deploying first, it was a net +2).
At the SAME tournament, some other guy had Marine models, with identical paint schemes, that he was claiming were in different Chapters (Wolves and Ultra, I think). I called a TO and got that shut down.

I spend loads of time prepping my models, and even sacrifice other important things to make my tournament showing a priority. I don't stand for lazy hobbyists at tournaments. I consider it very disrespectful to lassiez-faire your way through a major event.

Just report him to the TO. If they're any good, they'll do something about it. If they aren't, you know to avoid for next time. Also spread your story, it helps other people avoid the same shenanigans.

Edit: And yeah, I don't really care if reporting people is overreacting, or whatever else might be thought about it. There's a standard, and I hold myself to it, and I expect others to hold themselves to it as well. If you don't believe that, then abolish the standard.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I've totally been that guy to call people out when they're not up to a reasonable standard.

Last fall I was playing a guy with gray plastic models at a large ITC tournament. I told him that I could either go and get a judge and the judge would remove models from his army, or I could auto-win the first turn roll-off. We settled for me getting +1 to the first turn roll (and since I finished deploying first, it was a net +2).
At the SAME tournament, some other guy had Marine models, with identical paint schemes, that he was claiming were in different Chapters (Wolves and Ultra, I think). I called a TO and got that shut down.

I spend loads of time prepping my models, and even sacrifice other important things to make my tournament showing a priority. I don't stand for lazy hobbyists at tournaments. I consider it very disrespectful to lassiez-faire your way through a major event.

Just report him to the TO. If they're any good, they'll do something about it. If they aren't, you know to avoid for next time. Also spread your story, it helps other people avoid the same shenanigans.

Edit: And yeah, I don't really care if reporting people is overreacting, or whatever else might be thought about it. There's a standard, and I hold myself to it, and I expect others to hold themselves to it as well. If you don't believe that, then abolish the standard.

I'd say it depends on the person.

If Gray Model Guy is clearly a new player, his first tournament, etc. etc., I'd cut him some slack. Let him knnow that he's expected to have painted models, but don't be an ass about it.

Whereas let's say you run into the same guy, six months later, at ANOTHER tournament and he's STILL using grey models... Then be strict on him.

fe40k wrote:
Bases SMALLER than traditional/classic bases = no go
Bases LARGER than traditional/classic bases = sure, it's nothing but a disadvantage

@skchsan; smaller bases allow you to pile more units into the 1" close combat range - larger bases actively work against you, so with those, it's not an issue

But yeah, as other people said - conversions are generally fine; but at the end of the day, it's the TO's call. If you're not at a tournament, it's your call then whether or not you want to play vs them.

It's not about the potential advantages of bases I'm talking about - it's about the LEGALITY as far as the rules go.

There are no restrictions on basing your models. Modelling for advantage is NOT ILLEGAL as far as rules are concerned.

The potential implications of advantages from having non-standard bases will always rely on player-to-player/TO's decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I've totally been that guy to call people out when they're not up to a reasonable standard.

Last fall I was playing a guy with gray plastic models at a large ITC tournament. I told him that I could either go and get a judge and the judge would remove models from his army, or I could auto-win the first turn roll-off. We settled for me getting +1 to the first turn roll (and since I finished deploying first, it was a net +2).

I don't know whats worse; the guy that tried to sneak in unpainted models with specific tournament guideline for requiring paint standards or the guy that blackmailed him to get specific ingame advantage...

If the tournament enforced a minimum standard of painting, then granting the opponent +1 to the first turn roll off is getting off lightly.

 skchsan wrote:

fe40k wrote:
Bases SMALLER than traditional/classic bases = no go
Bases LARGER than traditional/classic bases = sure, it's nothing but a disadvantage

@skchsan; smaller bases allow you to pile more units into the 1" close combat range - larger bases actively work against you, so with those, it's not an issue

But yeah, as other people said - conversions are generally fine; but at the end of the day, it's the TO's call. If you're not at a tournament, it's your call then whether or not you want to play vs them.

It's not about the potential advantages of bases I'm talking about - it's about the LEGALITY as far as the rules go.

There are no restrictions on basing your models. Modelling for advantage is NOT ILLEGAL as far as rules are concerned.

The potential implications of advantages from having non-standard bases will always rely on player-to-player/TO's decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I've totally been that guy to call people out when they're not up to a reasonable standard.

Last fall I was playing a guy with gray plastic models at a large ITC tournament. I told him that I could either go and get a judge and the judge would remove models from his army, or I could auto-win the first turn roll-off. We settled for me getting +1 to the first turn roll (and since I finished deploying first, it was a net +2).

I don't know whats worse; the guy that tried to sneak in unpainted models with specific tournament guideline for requiring paint standards or the guy that blackmailed him to get specific ingame advantage...

Definitely the latter...

I feel like base size is the only really important thing, and I try to enforce the most recent base size where reasonable. I'd sooner play against accurately sized empty bases than an army that is inventing it's own rules. Deployment, movement, shooting distance, auras, close combat, area denial, coherency, wound allocation, objective control; all these things are heavily dependent on base size. The only thing the model itself impacts is line of sight, and sometimes shooting distance.

At least with characters there should be some leeway with basing, considering that base sizes of official characters are pretty random and GW sells character basing kit that comes with 40mm bases.

 hollow one wrote:
I feel like base size is the only really important thing, and I try to enforce the most recent base size where reasonable. I'd sooner play against accurately sized empty bases than an army that is inventing it's own rules. Deployment, movement, shooting distance, auras, close combat, area denial, coherency, wound allocation, objective control; all these things are heavily dependent on base size. The only thing the model itself impacts is line of sight, and sometimes shooting distance.

This is true. But barring cases where you're mounting a tac marine on a flyer base, there are certain models that look more natural on different, slightly larger/smaller bases.

For example, the banking DV biker models look infinitely more comformatible on a 75x42mm oval base than the 70x28mm biker base. GW also seems to agree with the limited releases of bikers on 75x42mm oval bases. Not sure why this isn't the new standard.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I've totally been that guy to call people out when they're not up to a reasonable standard.

Last fall I was playing a guy with gray plastic models at a large ITC tournament. I told him that I could either go and get a judge and the judge would remove models from his army, or I could auto-win the first turn roll-off. We settled for me getting +1 to the first turn roll (and since I finished deploying first, it was a net +2).

I don't know whats worse; the guy that tried to sneak in unpainted models with specific tournament guideline for requiring paint standards or the guy that blackmailed him to get specific ingame advantage...

Definitely the latter...

Yeah. There's lazy or pressed for time or whatever causes you to have some unpainted stuff at a tournament, and then there's... I can only describe that as icky.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Edit: And yeah, I don't really care if reporting people is overreacting, or whatever else might be thought about it. There's a standard, and I hold myself to it, and I expect others to hold themselves to it as well. If you don't believe that, then abolish the standard.

Truly a paragon of the HHHobby, uncompromising in all aspects except when coercing someone to let you cheat.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

fe40k wrote:
Bases SMALLER than traditional/classic bases = no go
Bases LARGER than traditional/classic bases = sure, it's nothing but a disadvantage

@skchsan; smaller bases allow you to pile more units into the 1" close combat range - larger bases actively work against you, so with those, it's not an issue

But yeah, as other people said - conversions are generally fine; but at the end of the day, it's the TO's call. If you're not at a tournament, it's your call then whether or not you want to play vs them.

It's not about the potential advantages of bases I'm talking about - it's about the LEGALITY as far as the rules go.

There are no restrictions on basing your models. Modelling for advantage is NOT ILLEGAL as far as rules are concerned.

The potential implications of advantages from having non-standard bases will always rely on player-to-player/TO's decision.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I've totally been that guy to call people out when they're not up to a reasonable standard.

Last fall I was playing a guy with gray plastic models at a large ITC tournament. I told him that I could either go and get a judge and the judge would remove models from his army, or I could auto-win the first turn roll-off. We settled for me getting +1 to the first turn roll (and since I finished deploying first, it was a net +2).

I don't know whats worse; the guy that tried to sneak in unpainted models with specific tournament guideline for requiring paint standards or the guy that blackmailed him to get specific ingame advantage...

Definitely the latter...

Yikes. I get following the rules and making others follow them, sure. But when you're willing to go outside those rules to get an in-game advantage (presumably so you don't get labeled as TFG, or in some vain attempt to help yourself rationalize it), and then arrogantly proclaim your pride in doing so....Hell, Slaanesh would be impressed with that new level of depravity.

I have had people complain that my army is based incorrectly... Since every single Marine is on 25mm bases. Buutttt, that is the size they came with.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I have had people complain that my army is based incorrectly... Since every single Marine is on 25mm bases. Buutttt, that is the size they came with.

Rules aside; rebase them or get base extenders. It's a huge difference between a base less thsn sn inch wide smd one bigger.

You will always get complaints when you are ga8ning an advantage just because you have older kits.

I'll rebase the models or use extenders the second complainers pays and does the job without damaging model in the process. Until that screw them.

tneva82 wrote:
I'll rebase the models or use extenders the second complainers pays and does the job without damaging model in the process. Until that screw them.

Yes, screw them for wanting a fair game!

We're lucky GW is too incompetent to include a "Base size" characteristic. I get you based your models on what they came with, but things change and sometimes models have to change, just ask anyone who owned a Vect model or the other examples of models no longer being legal.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I have had people complain that my army is based incorrectly... Since every single Marine is on 25mm bases. Buutttt, that is the size they came with.

If your opponent is crying about SPACE MARINES on 25mm bases... you prolly shouldn't play with them.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

fe40k wrote:
Bases SMALLER than traditional/classic bases = no go
Bases LARGER than traditional/classic bases = sure, it's nothing but a disadvantage

@skchsan; smaller bases allow you to pile more units into the 1" close combat range - larger bases actively work against you, so with those, it's not an issue

But yeah, as other people said - conversions are generally fine; but at the end of the day, it's the TO's call. If you're not at a tournament, it's your call then whether or not you want to play vs them.

It's not about the potential advantages of bases I'm talking about - it's about the LEGALITY as far as the rules go.

There are no restrictions on basing your models. Modelling for advantage is NOT ILLEGAL as far as rules are concerned.

The potential implications of advantages from having non-standard bases will always rely on player-to-player/TO's decision.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I've totally been that guy to call people out when they're not up to a reasonable standard.

Last fall I was playing a guy with gray plastic models at a large ITC tournament. I told him that I could either go and get a judge and the judge would remove models from his army, or I could auto-win the first turn roll-off. We settled for me getting +1 to the first turn roll (and since I finished deploying first, it was a net +2).

I don't know whats worse; the guy that tried to sneak in unpainted models with specific tournament guideline for requiring paint standards or the guy that blackmailed him to get specific ingame advantage...

Definitely the latter...

Yikes. I get following the rules and making others follow them, sure. But when you're willing to go outside those rules to get an in-game advantage (presumably so you don't get labeled as TFG, or in some vain attempt to help yourself rationalize it), and then arrogantly proclaim your pride in doing so....Hell, Slaanesh would be impressed with that new level of depravity.

My favourite part is how he paints himself as a good guy and the other guy as disrespectful, when its obvious he also was acting like a WAAC TFG. Its a goddamn game with toys for christs sakes, some people take this gak so seriously its mind boggling. But in part, thats why I avoid tournaments; too much seriousness in a supposed to be fun game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
I'll rebase the models or use extenders the second complainers pays and does the job without damaging model in the process. Until that screw them.

Yes, screw them for wanting a fair game!

We're lucky GW is too incompetent to include a "Base size" characteristic. I get you based your models on what they came with, but things change and sometimes models have to change, just ask anyone who owned a Vect model or the other examples of models no longer being legal.

If they expect me to pay money and damage my models, possibly ruining them, to suit GW's marketing ploys, it's only fair for them to do the job and expenses if they are bothered. If GW would be so worried about balance regarding bases they then wouldn't have upped the base size in the first place thus removing any need for rebasing.

I'm playing with models GW sold. It's not like I'm modeling for advantage. I didn't model them smaller or base them on smaller base than GW provide.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
I'll rebase the models or use extenders the second complainers pays and does the job without damaging model in the process. Until that screw them.

Yes, screw them for wanting a fair game!

We're lucky GW is too incompetent to include a "Base size" characteristic. I get you based your models on what they came with, but things change and sometimes models have to change, just ask anyone who owned a Vect model or the other examples of models no longer being legal.

Hmm, I think I would get grief from other players if I rebased my Great Unclean One or Lord of Change onto their newer bases. The older models just aren't designed to live on a base that large.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
I'll rebase the models or use extenders the second complainers pays and does the job without damaging model in the process. Until that screw them.

Yes, screw them for wanting a fair game!

We're lucky GW is too incompetent to include a "Base size" characteristic. I get you based your models on what they came with, but things change and sometimes models have to change, just ask anyone who owned a Vect model or the other examples of models no longer being legal.

But when we've had GW through the years and editions saying you can use the base the model was provided with, what's fair is to expect that you can use the base the model is supplied with. That's a different situation than something like there being no rules for Vect any more.

Spacemarines are still sold by GW with 25mm bases it's a wierd situation but I can buy new marines with 25mm bases from GW. To be honest rebasing plastic marines isn't really a big deal its annoying and time consuming but it helps my 3rd edition devs etc not fall over at the first hint of a non level table.
Also the new bases take 2p's instead of 1p's ao thats more counterbalance weight.

tneva82 wrote:

If they expect me to pay money and damage my models, possibly ruining them, to suit GW's marketing ploys, it's only fair for them to do the job and expenses if they are bothered. If GW would be so worried about balance regarding bases they then wouldn't have upped the base size in the first place thus removing any need for rebasing.

I'm playing with models GW sold. It's not like I'm modeling for advantage. I didn't model them smaller or base them on smaller base than GW provide.

I rebased my marines, because I think they look better on the larger bases, but this seems reasonable enough to me and I wouldn't argue it.

To take the notion one step further, I wonder if anyone would try to tell me that my collection of the old GK terminators (you know, the ones with the gunblades) aren't valid GK Terminators.

Ice_can wrote:
Spacemarines are still sold by GW with 25mm bases it's a wierd situation but I can buy new marines with 25mm bases from GW. To be honest rebasing plastic marines isn't really a big deal its annoying and time consuming but it helps my 3rd edition devs etc not fall over at the first hint of a non level table.
Also the new bases take 2p's instead of 1p's ao thats more counterbalance weight.

As for "not really big deal"...Howabout somebody having used say these https://www.firestormgames.co.uk/25mm-round-rough-ground for bases.

100 of those, hey presto 50£ poof.

Not to mention some models are pain in the ass to remove from base without damaging model basically requiring you to cut and file that original base because plastic glue on plastic model and plastic base has this habit of melting those into one solid piece(hey that's what plastic glue is DESIGNED to do...).

So yeah. If somebody gets bothered by my models that might get benefit from not being rebased but also might get disadvantaged...Well he or she is free to pay and do the job. Otherwise he or she ain't person I even want to bother playing with so he or she can play solo for all that I care if he or she wants to play.