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.

only question now is when will they make suitable base sizes for tanks?

you have to do some serious cutting and modding to get any base to suit the tanks.

 Weazel wrote:
Vehicles can't get to higher levels of ruins, regardless of base. How does the base give THE BUGGY "a serious disadvantage".

Try playing a TWC list and look at Gretchins laughing at you from the second floor of ruins... Vehicles, cavalry or bikes cannot climb levels of ruins, and the intent is clearly that you cannot attack stuff up there, base or not.

Well buggy is so small "serious disadvantage" might be bit exaggeration but it IS disadvantage. It's hard to say how tall the model is from the pic but it's obviously taller than base itself so height it can attack to is less than without base. Looking at video clearly taller than ork(there's ork standing at the back) so 2-2.5" tall place where infantry is would be vulnerable for buggy without base and immune to the buggy.

Simple fact: Buggy with base is more limited than buggy without on what it can attack with. There's no "but and if's" about that. It's simple rule fact.

Oh and incidentally the old buggy in the video could reach quite tall in close combat...

Though it's bit premature. Not quaranteed yet base in buggy is for 40k and not for speed freeks.

 Weazel wrote:
Vehicles can't get to higher levels of ruins, regardless of base. How does the base give THE BUGGY "a serious disadvantage".

Try playing a TWC list and look at Gretchins laughing at you from the second floor of ruins... Vehicles, cavalry or bikes cannot climb levels of ruins, and the intent is clearly that you cannot attack stuff up there, base or not.

They can't get to 2d floors but they can still charge models on 2d floors as long as they can get within 1". Models with basees measure this 1" from a base, models without bases measure from the hull.

So, currently we have a knight-sized gorkanaught unable to reach 2d floor, even though he's higher than that while a trukk or a rhino can easilly reach 2d floor because they measure from a hull.

Having a base is usually a disadvantage. In case of orks, a serious disadvantage.

I don’t recall Warbuggies being stunning CC specialists though... is this just a hypothetical disadvantage?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I don’t recall Warbuggies being stunning CC specialists though... is this just a hypothetical disadvantage?

It's a real disadvantage. You ain't killing much with ork shooting, so got to tie up stuff.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I don’t recall Warbuggies being stunning CC specialists though... is this just a hypothetical disadvantage?

They aren't super killy but can hurt stuff like rangers, IG infantry squad _and they prevent them from shooting_. Buggy shooting itself is not that important so ability to say tag that devastator squad with 4 heavy weapons in combat is worth lot more than losing your one weapon on the dirt cheap buggy.

With new GW ruling that you can't attack into ruin with infantry if you can't physically put model to the floor making say ork boyz lot less useful in clearing those devastators from ruins makes ability of non-based vehicle of attacking tall places even more useful.

I actually like them on bases, but i can understand if other dont.

There's also the fact that bases give a bigger footprint which can potentially make moving through spaces on the board more difficult. At the same time it has the advantage of making encircling the vehicle more difficult as the enemy has to physically move a greater distance to surround a bigger footprint.

Vehicles not being able to attack the second floor unless they can fly up there isn't a problem though. A rhino shouldn't be able to hit a unit on the second floor of ruins because it can't ram them in any way. A knight not being able to punch them is fine too, it can be justified as them being able to more easily avoid it because the knight has more limited mobility trying to reach into a building than out in the open. Ultimately it doesn't matter what people think makes sense though, as long as the rules are consistent it's not a problem. If anything it should just be ruled that no vehicle that can't get to the higher floor can engage a unit there in melee.

The only argument people can really make against bases on vehicles is they don't like the look. Anything else should fall under modelling for advantage.

 Elbows wrote:

meleti wrote:
I'm OK as long as it's not flying bases like Tau Devilfish. Those bases are the spawn of Satan.

Spoiler:

This is genius.

 koooaei wrote:

 Weazel wrote:
Vehicles can't get to higher levels of ruins, regardless of base. How does the base give THE BUGGY "a serious disadvantage".

Try playing a TWC list and look at Gretchins laughing at you from the second floor of ruins... Vehicles, cavalry or bikes cannot climb levels of ruins, and the intent is clearly that you cannot attack stuff up there, base or not.

They can't get to 2d floors but they can still charge models on 2d floors as long as they can get within 1". Models with basees measure this 1" from a base, models without bases measure from the hull.

So, currently we have a knight-sized gorkanaught unable to reach 2d floor, even though he's higher than that while a trukk or a rhino can easilly reach 2d floor because they measure from a hull.

Having a base is usually a disadvantage. In case of orks, a serious disadvantage.

Just wait for CA to rule that vehicles (base or not) cannot attack models on 2nd+ level of ruins, unless they can fly... I mean that would be an elegant solution if the want to start basing vehicles. But I fully agree that it's quite stupid that Knights or 'Nauts cannot attack stuff touching their groin because their base is too far away.

I actually hope that they rule it so that everything measures from the hull. As the hull is allready used for shootibg and for flying models.

Because irrational hatred and fear of change is something we as a species excel at?

Just saying.

 Stormonu wrote:
Definitely “We fear change”. I think I’d actually prefer if all vehicles (such as Rhinos, Land Raiders, Triarch Stalkers, etc.) came with bases.

Nothing to do with "fearing change". I don't like bases on vehicles for purely aesthetic reasons. I'd do away with bases entirely if it wasn't for the fact the models would fall over.
My field guns (tarantulas, thud guns, etc) are bases only so they appear at the correct height alongside the crew miniatures. With larger vehicles this is less of an issue.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Definitely “We fear change”. I think I’d actually prefer if all vehicles (such as Rhinos, Land Raiders, Triarch Stalkers, etc.) came with bases.

Nonsense. I don't like bases on vehicles for purely aesthetic reasons. I'd do away with bases entirely if it wasn't for the fact the models would fall over.
My field guns (tarantulas, thud guns, etc) are bases only so they appear at the correct height alongside the crew miniatures. With larger vehicles this is less of an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Definitely “We fear change”. I think I’d actually prefer if all vehicles (such as Rhinos, Land Raiders, Triarch Stalkers, etc.) came with bases.

Nonsense. I don't like bases on vehicles for purely aesthetic reasons. I'd do away with bases entirely if it wasn't for the fact the models would fall over.
My field guns (tarantulas, thud guns, etc) are bases only so they appear at the correct height alongside the crew miniatures. With larger vehicles this is less of an issue.

Rhino's, chimeras etc would likely need custom bases to be made. Is there any that covers it from front to back without leaving huge empty areas on sides?

Not sure why this is a sticking point - GW could introduce a different size of base easily - look at all the ovals they've done. Also, why did you quote me to raise that point?

because in 40k having no base gives your vehicle super powers and allows it to reach upper levels.

Why does my defiler have no problem reaching enemy soldiers at eye height with its giant crab claws but my my maulerfiend flails like an impotent baboon at any enemy above 1" off the ground?

I'm not sure an oval base would look right on a Rhino or Land Raider and would potentially require wider streets to drive down.

I based all vehicles.
Don't like it? Bugger off.

I based all my dark shrouds on the large oval base, they look much better than the horrible flying stand.

Don’t like them, don’t use them. I am not sure about them but that’s because my other buggies aren’t based and I will be using those.

So, the hate for based buggies is mostly just hate for stupid terrain rules, right?

I could honestly care less if vehicles have bases or not. I've known a few people who did it already.

ValentineGames wrote:
I based all vehicles.
Don't like it? Bugger off.

Oh i doubt many are bothered by you nerfing yourself with no game advantagb

I like the look of bases so I can base them like the rest of my models. it also halps with gettign incombat for less of the "is that model within combat range or now, with a base it is simpler... but the combat rules into ruins are so dumb and the bases just complicating it.

 Weazel wrote:
Vehicles can't get to higher levels of ruins, regardless of base. How does the base give THE BUGGY "a serious disadvantage".

Try playing a TWC list and look at Gretchins laughing at you from the second floor of ruins... Vehicles, cavalry or bikes cannot climb levels of ruins, and the intent is clearly that you cannot attack stuff up there, base or not.

That might have been the intent, but it's clearly not what the rules actually say.

I prefer bases on every vehicle except most tanks.
This is because most tanks have a simple outline that neither "concaves" or is modular.
Vehicles with legs or parts that can be assembled in a way that can dramatically alter its outer edge should have bases to provide a consistant point of measurement from model to model no matter how you assemble it.

A Rhino, for example, will always have the same rectangular shape no matter whose Rhino it is. No need for a base, it will always be consistent.
Deifilers and Soul grinders, otoh, could have dramatically different silhouettes depending on how the legs were glued (or Emprah forbid, not glued) in.
I've seen these modeled on bases and it looks fine and makes things more consistent throughout each game

"Loose" chasis, or ones with odd outlines could also use bases. Ork bubbies fit this, so I am glad GW gave them a base.

-

The Newman wrote:

 Weazel wrote:
Vehicles can't get to higher levels of ruins, regardless of base. How does the base give THE BUGGY "a serious disadvantage".

Try playing a TWC list and look at Gretchins laughing at you from the second floor of ruins... Vehicles, cavalry or bikes cannot climb levels of ruins, and the intent is clearly that you cannot attack stuff up there, base or not.

That might have been the intent, but it's clearly not what the rules actually say.

What? the rules says you cant lol.

"Only infantry can scale walls and climb unless fly" ok
"To be in combat you need to be 1" away from BTB" ok
"To charge you mush move within 1" BTB" ok

I simplified the wording, but you get the idea, so..... where does it say a Armor Sentinel can attacka unit on the 2nd floor of ruins?

If it's within 1" it can attack. Sentinel from base. Land raider from roof

Elbows,
Wow. I think I need to redo all my Grav tanks now. That is awesome. I can't overstate it. I love those things, but not their bases.

Directly on topic:
Not in the rulebook anymore, but still a more important rule than anything but the Golden one: rule of cool. If the base makes it look cool, great! I'm glad you did it! If the base makes it look like gak, I'd rather you didn't base it. But it's your model.

I should point out that I don't play tournaments. If you're playing me, and measuring from the model makes more sense than the base, go for it. Even if your Dread then blends my Devs who were silly enough to stand on the edge of the 2nd floor of the platform! (That said, I think rangers/devs/etc hiding more than 1" away from the walls from a Dread or Hive Tyrant or whatever makes complete sense thematically.)

tneva82 wrote:
If it's within 1" it can attack. Sentinel from base. Land raider from roof

This. If I build my Repentor as-intended from the box it can't attack infantry on a second floor that it's clearly tall enough to reach. If I modify the feet so it can balance without the base it can attack under the same circumstance. Regardless of the intention, that's what the rules-as-written say.