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.

Could someone who has bought the new buggies/speed freeks box set let me know what size bases the new buggies come with? The GW store says the Boomdakka Snazzwagon has a 170mm Oval base, the Megatrakk Scrapjet has a 150mm oval base, but have no "150mm oval" bases on the store, only 170mm Bases and 105mm bases.

Dont know bout these two but dragsta, boosta-blasta and deffkilla trike all come with 150mm ovals. I can only assume it's the same for all of the new vehicles.

I can also confirm the buggies are not on the 170s. Our local Orkspert bought some to base his custom buggies and they turned out to be larger than the bases on his official kits.

Yeah, the buggies are supplied on a brand new base size.
Currently the only place to get it is in the SF box and individual buggy boxes.
GW may release it separately or they may not.

Base size is 150mm x 95mm. eBay has a few, but they're only in MDF.

Their bases are a slightly scaled-down version of the flyer base. Which fits great for some (Dragsta, Boosta-Blasta, scrapjet) and pretty bad for others (deffkilla wartrike is basically swimming on that base).

Why do they even have bases? As soon as they are propped up on some terrain, there's going to be a big gap between the table and the bottom of the base that I know is going to bug me to hell.

GW figured they would be too powerful without bases so time to nerf them?-)

Because GW is slowly moving to all models having bases, even vehicles.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because GW is slowly moving to all models having bases, even vehicles.

I get it from perhaps a rules perspective for some things, but I (personally) hope that's not the case for everything! :/

I would welcome every model on the tabletop having a base. It standardizes everything and also looks WAY better IMO, then just having a tank on the table.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
I would welcome every model on the tabletop having a base. It standardizes everything and also looks WAY better IMO, then just having a tank on the table.

Yes, but only if they lay perfectly flat against the table. Once they are propped up to a slant on a piece of terrain, the illusion for me just dissolves immediately. Of course, the advantage is that they lessen disagreements about measuring distances, but for me, this does not outweigh the loss of tabletop aesthetic.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
I would welcome every model on the tabletop having a base. It standardizes everything and also looks WAY better IMO, then just having a tank on the table.

Yes, but only if they lay perfectly flat against the table. Once they are propped up to a slant on a piece of terrain, the illusion for me just dissolves immediately. Of course, the advantage is that they lessen disagreements about measuring distances, but for me, this does not outweigh the loss of tabletop aesthetic.

I agree, in many decent tables with 25-30% of terrain huge bases are hard to fit. My nauts sometimes struggle for that reason, BWs and trukks don't.

Bases for vehicles other than walkers just look silly to me and add in vehicles having to cross uneven terrain and it gets even more glaring and gamey.

Bases on vehicles look daft. I will never put mine on bases.

I can understand using them for certain Ork vehicles, particularly if you're wanting to kit-bash, because it gives you a standard size, regardless of how silly you get with your modeling.

I don't understand how anyone thinks that a tank sitting on a table looks odd or bad? That's aesthetically jarring and silly looking as feth.

 Elbows wrote:
Bases on vehicles look daft. I will never put mine on bases.

I can understand using them for certain Ork vehicles, particularly if you're wanting to kit-bash, because it gives you a standard size, regardless of how silly you get with your modeling.

I don't understand how anyone thinks that a tank sitting on a table looks odd or bad? That's aesthetically jarring and silly looking as feth.

Spoiler:

I think it depends on the vehicle.

Bikes all have bases and I think it adds to their aesthetic.

These buggies aren't full tank sized, no where near in fact. The base does give them a little more height and 'ooompf' compared to how they'd look without I think.

I'm not convinced on basing full battle tanks though but then I'd worry there was a discrepancy if I didn't.

I'd be less concerned about everything getting bases, silly as it is for tanks, if it didn't mean no one ever gets to assault units on a tree stump. But barring that I still think larger vehicles look better without them, especially as I play on terrain littered tables. It's hard enough to fit them in without bases as is.

Imagine a baneblade on a base lol

Ooof. Put all vehicles on bases? That would look terrible. Jeez. Never. Base free or ... Or I'll play some game Mantic puts out!

The only reason to have any model on a base is to steady it. Anything else is silly. It is not like templates are being used nowadays. It will be a reason for GW to charge an extra 5 dollars for a tank kit that has a 20 cent base included in the kit.