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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
OT: Personally I hate the bases on vehicles.... but that does look like a great, Mad-max style horde.

GW have very much decided all models are going to be on bases now and they only have rules for non-based models as legacy code (or special rules for skimmers).

...Ci...tation please?

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It does look better, but it is a pretty big nerf to Ork infantry lists.

They'll lose attacks for sure, as less boyz will get into combat, but I wonder if the additional board control from bigger bases make up for this at all?

Almost nothing. The extra base size does not allow any ork to run farther, it just makes more of their "bulk" hang back towards the deployment zone. You DO get more coverage in the deployment zone because of this, but that isn't where ork boyz want to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why are so many of you pretending this isn't a massive nerf to the orks?

Would you be just as happ if lasguns were Rapid fire 16 instead of 24? What about reducing psychic power range by an equivalent amount?

Why should it only be assault swarm armies that have to eat this nerf?

 JimOnMars wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
Easy fix. In tournaments don't count the 4th row of boyz. Done.

How is that a fix? Permanently nerfing a base troop unit that just got a point increase as a codex gift?

Because the alternative is that putting new Ork models on older bases becomes advantageous. The models come on 32 mm, they play on 32mm. I respect your right to not have to rebase everything, but if you think you're entitled to an extra rank of attacks over the brand new Ork guy at the club because you're grandfathered in then you're 'that guy.'

FFS of course I would let the new guy attack 4 rows. Easy fix is to allow his model bases to overlap a little, making the orks fit the way were designed, before the nerf.

You'd do some clunky shenanigans like that rather than make the older player follow the new rules?

 Stux wrote:

This was a decision taken decades ago. You can't expect them to be bound by that forever. 32mm makes loads of sense for Orks. They are supposed to be large, broad, and muscular so making them smaller doesn't really make sense either.

How large exactly? Ork "suffered" kinda of a size creep. In the way they were represented in the old art, they didn't look that massive. I am mainly thinking about those old Paul Bonner illustrations, as an example.
For a good part of WH 40k and fantasy, orcs were S3 unless you bought specific, rare units.

40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.

meleti wrote:
40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.

You are probably right, but I would argue that marines """suffered""" an ever greater scale creep.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

meleti wrote:
40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.

You are probably right, but I would argue that marines """suffered""" an ever greater scale creep.

Marines have long been too small compared to other humans and humanoids. Primaris are closer to what classic marines should be, based on the fluff.

But then this is complicated further by the weird proportions. Standard Guardsmen for example have massive heads and are extremely broad. If you scale a picture of a real person to the same height as a Guardsman the difference is comical!

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

meleti wrote:
40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.

You are probably right, but I would argue that marines """suffered""" an ever greater scale creep.

Is it even scale creep or was it always there? I am thinking of this artwork which is from 3rd edition or even earlier, I think:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
Easy fix. In tournaments don't count the 4th row of boyz. Done.

How is that a fix? Permanently nerfing a base troop unit that just got a point increase as a codex gift?

Because the alternative is that putting new Ork models on older bases becomes advantageous. The models come on 32 mm, they play on 32mm. I respect your right to not have to rebase everything, but if you think you're entitled to an extra rank of attacks over the brand new Ork guy at the club because you're grandfathered in then you're 'that guy.'

FFS of course I would let the new guy attack 4 rows. Easy fix is to allow his model bases to overlap a little, making the orks fit the way were designed, before the nerf.

You'd do some clunky shenanigans like that rather than make the older player follow the new rules?

Yes, when the new rule is "your army is 41% less effective now. Sucks to be you."

 Stux wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

meleti wrote:
40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.

You are probably right, but I would argue that marines """suffered""" an ever greater scale creep.

Marines have long been too small compared to other humans and humanoids. Primaris are closer to what classic marines should be, based on the fluff.

Basing our image of what a marine "is" on 3rd edition, definitively primary are the first instance of GW properly scaling a marine. However, see below.

meleti wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

meleti wrote:
40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.

You are probably right, but I would argue that marines """suffered""" an ever greater scale creep.

Is it even scale creep or was it always there? I am thinking of this artwork which is from 3rd edition or even earlier, I think:

Spoiler:

That is 3rd edition unless I am mistaken. But have a look at the old art.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/342983.page
Especially page 4.
Moot point at the end, I guess. Primaris-size is the standard now and I am ok with that. I just wonder if GW will scale up everything. That would make the (needed) scale up marines got with Primaris completely pointless.
IMHO, of course.

It does suck to have to rebase da boyz, I hate it.

However, I recently started redoing all my old boyz from the painfully flat paintjob they have had since 3rd edition. So I'm probably going to bite the bullet now rather than later...
The only positive I can find in this is that I've been thinking that I need to make some new terrain for Kill Team, so now I can theme the bases to the new terrain! Lucky me...

Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?

 skchsan wrote:
Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?

At least in my area it comes down to what base did the model come with at the time. If you have the old school tiny terminators on 25mm from back in the day that's fine. If you bought current terminators and put them on smaller bases that would get you some stick eye. Most players I know love to see older models. Though ironically this is probably an edition were positioning and base size mean less than most editions.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?

At least in my area it comes down to what base did the model come with at the time. If you have the old school tiny terminators on 25mm from back in the day that's fine. If you bought current terminators and put them on smaller bases that would get you some stick eye. Most players I know love to see older models. Though ironically this is probably an edition were positioning and base size mean less than most editions.

Actually it was frowned upon to use 25mm termies when you still scattered on deepztrikes as it was much easier to put down termies on 25mm vs 40mm.

 skchsan wrote:
Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?

All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.

You get that, right?

 JimOnMars wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?

All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.

You get that, right?

TIL Terrain or other models don't exist that can create a funnel effect and affect how many rows of Terminators can fight based on their base size.

It's just my opinion, but I feel if you want to play matched play your bases should be the correct size. The fact that GW refuse to clearly specify the "correct size" is the problem here.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?

All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.

You get that, right?

TIL Terrain or other models don't exist that can create a funnel effect and affect how many rows of Terminators can fight based on their base size.

It's just my opinion, but I feel if you want to play matched play your bases should be the correct size. The fact that GW refuse to clearly specify the "correct size" is the problem here.

I get why they are reluctant to do that though, since it would force re-basing on a massive scale and they know that won't be received well. They also recognize that any change to match play is going to affect how most games are played. Again what is the correct size for a base or for that matter the correct size for a model? Older models tend to be smaller which has both advantages and disadvantages but that extends to conversations, counts as, and general model work. Anyone who wants to abuse the rules will, regardless of the rules. Forcing certain bases won't fix that.

 Stux wrote:

leopard wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I am going to once again say that Base Size should be listed on the datasheet and be enforced in Matched Play. If you wanna bash toys together, go nuts and do whatever, but for structured play you have to bite the bullet and do things correctly.

doing things correctly means giving models an appropriate base size in the first place, then not changing it without a very good reason as it relates to the games, specifically not "well it looks better", Orks especially being too big for the 25mm base they used to sit fine on tends to suggest the models should have been slightly smaller perhaps.

This was a decision taken decades ago. You can't expect them to be bound by that forever. 32mm makes loads of sense for Orks. They are supposed to be large, broad, and muscular so making them smaller doesn't really make sense either.

If you want to argue that in 'structured play', you have to do things "correctly", and that means rebasing all your models when a new guideline is issued:

Doesn't that suggest that 'structured play' is simply poorly structured and not worth respecting? If an entire army (Space Marines, Orks) was on the correct size bases for structured play one day, and then, the very next day, a revision to structured play indicates that they are all on the wrong size bases, do we re-evaluate every game played under the old structure? Surely the new structure is correct and the old structure must have always been incorrect, right? Every single battle fought under the old, incorrect structure was played incorrectly, right? Take back the prizes and the awards, everybody.


Either the standards for structured play are simply rules (or guidelines), and have to be followed to the extent the game specifies (which might be very strict, like Magic, or looser, as GW clearly seems to be to me), or the standards are there to enforce some objective reality about the game (Orks are supposed to be on 32mm bases because X).

Nothing that GW has said seems to indicate that they are using base size as some absolute metric for some aspect of the game. Instead, they have established a guideline for base sizes. They could (as it is their game), say that you have to use bases of the appropriate size, like they explain how to determine hits, and wounds, and saves. They have not.

Instead, it really seems like they have said that if it really matters in your particular matched play scenario, to the players, here is a suggested way to handle the base sizes.

FWIW, I think even that is ridiculous. Sure, there are benefits and drawbacks for various models using various base sizes. Sure, one type of model that remains on one type of base may be more effective than another that rebases, while another may benefit from rebasing. If it matters to you, rebase to a new standard. If it doesn't, keep your old bases. Given the lack of precise, mathematical rigor in this game, I can't see that this is the fight to pick.

Are you seriously arguing that rule changes have to be back-dated and retroactive? That's utterly absurd.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?

All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.

You get that, right?

Thats precisely what I'm trying to get at - where do you draw that line? When a certain strategy is viable with 25mm bases? Not rebasing your model is totally up to you, but the game desperately needs uniformity and concrete rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?

All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.

You get that, right?

TIL Terrain or other models don't exist that can create a funnel effect and affect how many rows of Terminators can fight based on their base size.

It's just my opinion, but I feel if you want to play matched play your bases should be the correct size. The fact that GW refuse to clearly specify the "correct size" is the problem here.

Ork boyz are costed assuming 40 can get in.

You want the unit to lose 40 percent of its value, without changing its point cost?

Of course you do! You love it when your opponents get a 40% nerf without compensation. Just not your army.

I would love for somebody to buy a boat of Ork Boyz already on 25mm bases, and a boat load of Boyz on 32mm bases, and just mix the units together. The amount of people "Reee!"-ing over it would be amusing.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?

All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.

You get that, right?

TIL Terrain or other models don't exist that can create a funnel effect and affect how many rows of Terminators can fight based on their base size.

It's just my opinion, but I feel if you want to play matched play your bases should be the correct size. The fact that GW refuse to clearly specify the "correct size" is the problem here.

Ork boyz are costed assuming 40 can get in.

You want the unit to lose 40 percent of its value, without changing its point cost?

Of course you do! You love it when your opponents get a 40% nerf without compensation. Just not your army.

Isn't that how most arguments go on Dakka? "Nerf every army but the one that I play"

 JimOnMars wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

They'll lose attacks for sure, as less boyz will get into combat, but I wonder if the additional board control from bigger bases make up for this at all?

Almost nothing. The extra base size does not allow any ork to run farther, it just makes more of their "bulk" hang back towards the deployment zone. You DO get more coverage in the deployment zone because of this, but that isn't where ork boyz want to be.

But can't Orks rapidly redeploy that bulk with the Tellaporta stratagem or with Da Jump? I'm just looking for a silver lining here.

 nurgle5 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

They'll lose attacks for sure, as less boyz will get into combat, but I wonder if the additional board control from bigger bases make up for this at all?

Almost nothing. The extra base size does not allow any ork to run farther, it just makes more of their "bulk" hang back towards the deployment zone. You DO get more coverage in the deployment zone because of this, but that isn't where ork boyz want to be.

But can't Orks rapidly redeploy that bulk with the Tellaporta stratagem or with Da Jump? I'm just looking for a silver lining here.

It makes it easier to encircle the enemy, or at least block their path.

That's probably the biggest practical benefit.

The really stupid thing about GW and base sizes is, it is totally possible to write the rules of the game so that base sizes have no in game effect. If I wanted to change the base sizes for aesthetic reasons (this must be the reason GW are doing it!) then I would just make sure that the base sizes were irrelevant. Saga does this for example - rather than measuring on an individual model basis, if a unit is in combat the entire unit is in combat. This is much simpler and less fiddly in game to work out, and means it really does not matter that base size you use.

The fact that GW doesn't design the game this way suggests they do not give a crap about players or they are too incompetent to see the problem or the obvious solution. Given their track record I sadly think it is the latter.
Edit to add: Were ork infantry lists over powered this edition? I had played Ork infantry from 3rd edition til 6th when I stopped playing 40K due to hating the way the rules had gone, but I was not under the impression that ork horde lists were that powerful in the current edition. If they are not overpowered then reducing their power further seems like a pretty dumb thing to do.

Seeing players support this is sad. Have ye no sense of fair play?

Entire unit in combat then doesn’t vibe with conga lines to auras, as you end up with guys who must have 20 metre chainswords if they can hit from miles away. Making bases sizes irrelevant impacts on other areas. It’s not incompetence - it’s a choice. Dislike it, cool, but don’t pretend ignoring base sizes doesn’t break other areas of the current rules.

 Da Boss wrote:
Edit to add: Were ork infantry lists over powered this edition? I had played Ork infantry from 3rd edition til 6th when I stopped playing 40K due to hating the way the rules had gone, but I was not under the impression that ork horde lists were that powerful in the current edition. If they are not overpowered then reducing their power further seems like a pretty dumb thing to do.

Seeing players support this is sad. Have ye no sense of fair play?

Depends. If one of the player slowplays so games go 1-2 turns then orks are king. If game goes the standard 5-6 turns as per scenario(or until one side is wiped) then they were(and doesn't look promising for change either) mainly avoiding wipeouts. General pattern: Turns 1-2: Flood table, score maelstrom cards where you can(praying for secure/defend X as unless it's one opponent parks on you were generally quaranteed to get it. Controlling 5/6 was commong. 4/6 pretty much standard). Then from turn 3 onwards with huge casualties(60 models a turn is pretty easy even for substandard gunline) ork control starts to wane. Turn 4 things are just trying to score anything and keep something alive. Turn 5 is hoping game ends as with that casualty rate even 300+ model army struggles(especially as morale boost is long gone by now so you are losing models to morale as well). Turn 6...Well every time game went to turn 6 I got wiped out.

GW has upped the killing power up the roof in 8th ed while defensive abilities have stayed same. Orks actually took step back in that for boyz...Need to buy more grots.

And to think 60 boyz used to be useful number. Not in 8th :-/ Have to sell tons of models after all.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Entire unit in combat then doesn’t vibe with conga lines to auras, as you end up with guys who must have 20 metre chainswords if they can hit from miles away. Making bases sizes irrelevant impacts on other areas. It’s not incompetence - it’s a choice. Dislike it, cool, but don’t pretend ignoring base sizes doesn’t break other areas of the current rules.

Entirely agree with this.

In fact I'd go further and use the base for more so the model can be abstracted. That allows more scope for cool conversions and kit bashing without any possibility of it being considered modelling for advantage.

Since 40K is a mass battle game, I would say "the unit" is a better level of abstraction than the individual. Keeping the skirmish roots in there makes things quite clunky. If there are problems with other weird edge cases with auras and so on, well, that is easy enough to write in a different way so that it cannot be abused.

If GW are going to change base size it is bad game design to have the base size be significant in the game.

(Though, I have stopped playing 40K precisely because I was frustrated with this sort of thing. So perhaps I should bow out of the thread now.)