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.

Is there any site that lists all, or at least most, of 40K's models and the base that they are sold with? It doesn't have to be an official list but it does need to be reliable. The GW site doesn't list all of its bases when listing their models. For example there is no mention of the base size for the Wraithlord (60mm btw). Also there is no place to see what the appropriate base size is for exclusive models, like the spiritseer, that come in box sets only.

Is it so hard not to just use the base the model comes with? If failing that, it's not hard to google image search models and judge their base size from what's around them, and what you know from experience.

It's difficult if you bought something used and the seller didn't include a base. It also is if you're scratch-building something, particularly for Orks.

I've developed a pretty good eye for judging the base size from the official photos, to be honest. the ratio of thickness to diameter is the important thing, and sometimes the bevel angle.

No, I don't think there is an official list. If you go by what base is the closest to the top-down view of the miniature, you won't go far wrong, I'd say.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Is it so hard not to just use the base the model comes with? If failing that, it's not hard to google image search models and judge their base size from what's around them, and what you know from experience.

Which I agree with for the most part, but sometimes you get models second hand and want to make sure you are using the most up-to-date base.
The OP's example of a Wraithlord is a good one to illustrate this, since the old metal ones came on 40mm, but the new plastic come on 60mm.

Sure you could just used the 40mm if it came that way second-hand, but if you KNOW the current model is on a 60mm and are willing to swap for it, why wouldn't you?

Also, "eye-balling" it for a conversion might not be the best either since even GW doesn't showcase the base the kit comes with. The Yncarne is a recent example I can think. Apparently it's on an 80mm base, but every since picture of GW's "studio" model is clearly on a 60mm. The basing for the model was very clearly designed to fill the space of a 60mm, but for some reason, GW started packaging it with the 80mm

-

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Is it so hard not to just use the base the model comes with? If failing that, it's not hard to google image search models and judge their base size from what's around them, and what you know from experience.

If you are converting or doing a counts-as, buying second hand, or any number of other things, you may not have the base.

And it's really not an easy thing to google at all.

Isn't the official line for 40k still "doesn't really matter but if you need a ruling use the base the model came with".

They have an official base lists forAoS I think, bit more important there as CC weapons have ranges rather than fighting in two ranks but wouldn't have thought it'd be that difficult for them to create in 40k.

I'd chuck GW an e-mail enquiring about the base any specific base a model comes with and perhaps suggesting they release an official list for matched/organised play.

For an unofficial list, I'll share a blog I found:

http://en-tharses-project.blogspot.com/2015/07/guide-to-40k-bases.html?m=1

Bonus: the owner actually updates it, too. Last update was this past Tuesday.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Is it so hard not to just use the base the model comes with? If failing that, it's not hard to google image search models and judge their base size from what's around them, and what you know from experience.

I'd like to thank you for such a helpful response. I hope others are as helpful to you in any problem or question that you need help with.

To everyone else- Thank you. I have an old Wraithlord and my FLGS has a house rule that models must be based with the current sized base. I found out from a friend how big the new base is but was disillusioned to see how hard it is to find the correct size of bases for other models. For example, I was thinking of kitbashing a spiritseer but was unsure of the base size (25 or 32mm). I would think that since GW does refer to base size in many of its store's descriptions that they would have it in all of them.

Only the more recent ones, I think. As far as I can see, the base size of a miniature is a purely aesthetic consideration, so I think they just don't think it important enough to codify.

Apart from anything else, if you take older miniatures into consideration, an Imperial guard heavy weapons team can be on:
a 25mm circle and a 25mmx50mm rectangle
a 25mm circle and an unbased model
2 25mm circles and an unbased model
2 25mm circles
a 60mm circle
a 65mm circle (the current standard)

and all of those are "legal" now.

I agree that the game would be better if there was model base guidlines that were followed.

But please don't Horus Heresy the game. So tired of looking at a Primarchs that look like a 32 MM base would work, standin in the middle of a saucer sized scenic base.

It gets ridiculous until you own one of the original $8 greater demon models on the 40mm square base (GW’s monster base at the time) it came with, and you look over at the $140 models on 100mm bases.

Most GW Products include the base size in their description on the GW webstore.

That's not quite true for the eldar and I stated that in my OP.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
That's not quite true for the eldar and I stated that in my OP.

My bad-didn't notice that.

Reemule wrote:
I agree that the game would be better if there was model base guidlines that were followed..

It's never been a big enough issue in 40K to be worth the hassle. Using different sized bases does make a difference, but not really much of one, and any change in base size comes with positives and negatives that pretty much cancel each other out in most cases.


GW have always had a fairly relaxed view on it as a result, and there have even been models over the years that have been sold with different bases simultaneously - Eldar Jetbikes, for example, at one point came with small flight bases or large ones depending on whether you bought them singly or in the squad box.

Personally I find any sense of 'standard base size' is thrown out by the GSC.

The Neophytes are 25mm base models, that sometimes get 32mm bases if they happen to be holding heavy weapons. They still fit on 25mm, but if you go by the assembly instructions they should be on 32mm (but there are spare 25mm bases in the box)

Acolytes, on the other hand, are consistently 32mm base, but actual proper genestealers pop backdown to 25mm, unless they are the pair out of the overkill box.

The level of inconsistency just winds me up a bit, so for the sake of sanity, I put all neophytes on 25mm (heavy weapons or not) and glued all my 25mm based purestrains to 32mm bits of card and filled them in with greenstuff and sand. As a bonus the Space Hulk stealers fit a lot better on 32mm (though some of that terrain requires trimming).

What’s happening is that GW puts models on bases that are big enough to fit them, and then revises models to get bigger over time. (And then there’s the old IG fireteams that were two models and then became one model on a bigger base....)

I’ve got both 25mm-based Obliterators and Terminators, and the bigger Obliterator and Terminator models. Not to mention unbased bike, rectangular-based bikes and pill-shaped-base bikes.

There’s a strong motive to have things based consistently and by the most recent base sizes to avoid “basing for advantage”, but blood feuds get started if you tell someone with a decorative base that they need to rebase their models.

 solkan wrote:
What’s happening is that GW puts models on bases that are big enough to fit them, and then revises models to get bigger over time. (And then there’s the old IG fireteams that were two models and then became one model on a bigger base....)

I’ve got both 25mm-based Obliterators and Terminators, and the bigger Obliterator and Terminator models. Not to mention unbased bike, rectangular-based bikes and pill-shaped-base bikes.

There’s a strong motive to have things based consistently and by the most recent base sizes to avoid “basing for advantage”, but blood feuds get started if you tell someone with a decorative base that they need to rebase their models.

If you based your model's decorative base on the base it came with, it will always be legal. If you based it up a size for decorative purposes, well, maybe you'll get lucky and GW will size increase that model at some point in the future?

I know it sucks. Wish GW or ITC made a "Hero" rule where HQ's could be sized up a base, for decorative purposes. It's almost always in their own detriment anyway :(

We've had that in some editions in the past. Bases in the rules are something that has varied in application a bit over the years.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 solkan wrote:
What’s happening is that GW puts models on bases that are big enough to fit them, and then revises models to get bigger over time. (And then there’s the old IG fireteams that were two models and then became one model on a bigger base....)

I’ve got both 25mm-based Obliterators and Terminators, and the bigger Obliterator and Terminator models. Not to mention unbased bike, rectangular-based bikes and pill-shaped-base bikes.

There’s a strong motive to have things based consistently and by the most recent base sizes to avoid “basing for advantage”, but blood feuds get started if you tell someone with a decorative base that they need to rebase their models.

If you based your model's decorative base on the base it came with, it will always be legal. If you based it up a size for decorative purposes, well, maybe you'll get lucky and GW will size increase that model at some point in the future?

I know it sucks. Wish GW or ITC made a "Hero" rule where HQ's could be sized up a base, for decorative purposes. It's almost always in their own detriment anyway :(

What's "a base size up"?

Once upon a time, there were three base sizes in 40k;
- 25mm
- 40mm square
- cavalry base
and then they added bike bases and terminator bases, and larger round bases for greater daemons...

Now, in currently on the website there are:
- 25mm round
- whatever size the small flying stands currently are
- 25mm square
- 32mm round (the new Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine size)
- 40mm round
- 50mm round
- 60mm round
- 80mm round
- 100mm round
- 60mm oval
- 75mm oval
- 105x70mm Oval
- 120mm x 92mm oval

That's the list just looking at the models that I care about. The hobby section has even more, probably for obnoxious things like knights.

Now let me dig out the chaos chariots that I put together when the Chaos Demons codex came out (when Bloodcrushers were metal). Before there were plastic "herald on chariot" models.

If you say "If you're one base size up, you're okay", you're assuming that there was a base size to use at the time. The closest thing to a base size at the time for some of those models was WHFB chariot size, and taking base sizes from another game gets really weird...

 solkan wrote:
It gets ridiculous until you own one of the original $8 greater demon models on the 40mm square base (GW’s monster base at the time) it came with, and you look over at the $140 models on 100mm bases.

The original Greater Daemon of Khorne wasn't the Bloodthirster, and it was on a 25mm square base. The original Greater Daemon of Nurgle, while not a Great Unclean One, was somewhat larger than the Knorne one and was on a 40mm base. Both of those were about similar in height to the original 1990 Eldar Avatar.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 solkan wrote:
It gets ridiculous until you own one of the original $8 greater demon models on the 40mm square base (GW’s monster base at the time) it came with, and you look over at the $140 models on 100mm bases.

The original Greater Daemon of Khorne wasn't the Bloodthirster, and it was on a 25mm square base. The original Greater Daemon of Nurgle, while not a Great Unclean One, was somewhat larger than the Knorne one and was on a 40mm base. Both of those were about similar in height to the original 1990 Eldar Avatar.

If I remember correctly, what you're claiming as the "original" Greater Daemon of Khorne was a board game mode (Heroquest or something). And not to be confused with the Greater Daemon models that they made for Epic that ended up basically being 25mm sized figures of the Realm of Chaos versions of the greater daemons. (Again, model made for a different game.)

This is what I'm calling the $8 Greater Daemon:

although my brother insists that I'm remembering wrong and it was $12.

I'm fairly positive the GW store website lists the base size that comes with their model in the description of the model. Yeah, just checked my Custodes. Lists the bases that come in the box and their sizes.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm fairly positive the GW store website lists the base size that comes with their model in the description of the model. Yeah, just checked my Custodes. Lists the bases that come in the box and their sizes.

Most of the store entries do. Not all of them do. And none of them help if you’re trying to figure out what the base size of antique metal figure was.

For instance, the new Fiends are on oval bases, but the previous metal fiends were on round bases and before that were on smaller rectangular bases.

I have imperial army figures that came with 25 mm hexagon bases.

 solkan wrote:

If I remember correctly, what you're claiming as the "original" Greater Daemon of Khorne was a board game mode (Heroquest or something).

The Heroquest Gargoyle used the Bloodthirster as a design base, but was slightly smaller.