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.

Yeah, that's not moving farther, that's starting closer.

No, he's right, but even the difference between 100mm and 25mm base is so marginally tiny, that I don't think it would even matter when comparing 25mm, 28mm, and 32mm bases over a whole game.

100m and 25mm compared with each red arrow being 10" move.

tneva82 wrote:

Note how what you claim is said by PLAYERS. It's the PLAYERS who are imposing base sizes. GAMES WORKSHOP isn't.

GW changes Base Sizes on a regular bases, with the rules always saying "use the bases that come with the model"

and there is no real reason to do that all except for changing model size and therefore needing a bigger base, or make it harder for 3rd party bases (because they need to change them as well as now one buys 25mm when GW uses 28 and 32mm bases)

Chopstick wrote:
You moved the same distance, but your bigger base make it easier to "touch" other thing.

If it was so hard to see with your eyes, I'll put my guy on a 100mm base to make it's easier to demonstrate, put him behind a line. Turn 1 i move orthogonally crossing the line, turn 2 i move sideway, and my 100mm base guy is now much closer to my target than the 25mm base guy, even though they moved the same distance. WITCHCRAFT!!!?

nah, it's common sense.

Umm... that's probably because the 100mm base guy started closer to the target. I assume your example is supposed to have both the 100mm and 25mm base start from the same hypothetical position with the front rim of the base touching the same position on your arbitrary line. If the models move the same.distance forward and then the same distance at 90 degrees to the first move, then yes the 100mm base model will be closer. However, if the 25mm model can be positioned in such a way as to make the same move.

The 100mm base permits a larger threat area because it could move in either direction, while the 25mm base would need to traverse the size of the larger base to go in the opposite direction.

However that is different from being able to move further. Smaller bases have other advantages in terms of terrain, and also the difference that this hypothetical.case makes when considering a unit of more than one model, and a difference between a 28mm and 32mm base is probably.negligible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
No, he's right, but even the difference between 100mm and 25mm base is so marginally tiny, that I don't think it would even matter when comparing 25mm, 28mm, and 32mm bases over a whole game.

100m and 25mm compared with each red arrow being 10" move.

But this is a misleading diagram because the 25mm model can move the same.distance at a slightly different angle.in the first.turn to.reach the same distance in the second turn.

The distance that can be moved is the same, but the larger base provides a larger threat envelope over multiple.turns.

on 100mm the distance different is HUGE, especially if you decide to go backward follow the black arrow. But my fist point was that you move a bit further, and over multiple turn they added up, every inch count, especially for charging unit.

And my point is that the larger base doesn't move any further, but because it is a larger base it is already closer to other things. I would do a diagram, but I'm on my phone, apologies.

What so you'd realistically want to use a 100mil base on a model that comes with a 28mil, just because you think it would give you an advantage?

Go right on ahead I say (and good luck fitting into ruined buildings, especially on the upper levels)! You'll have quite alot of problems trying to find cover compared to other infantry minis

Like I said, bigger isnt always better. Every size has it's pros and cons. Stup trying to overthink it.

 Flinty wrote:
And my point is that the larger base doesn't move any further, but because it is a larger base it is already closer to other things. I would do a diagram, but I'm on my phone, apologies.

Well of course, technically they moved the same distance, you say the edge of the base is closer to the target, i say the edge of my base is further away than if i had use a smaller base, same stuff.

This forum sometimes.

28mm FO makes sense, because they're a melee horde unit. You want as many in range as possible.

Chopstick wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
And my point is that the larger base doesn't move any further, but because it is a larger base it is already closer to other things. I would do a diagram, but I'm on my phone, apologies.

Well of course, technically they moved the same distance, you say the edge of the base is closer to the target, i say the edge of my base is further away than if i had use a smaller base, same stuff.

But it's not the same. The smaller base is further away at the end of the example, because at the start of the problem you started the smaller base further away from the final target. You also made the bases follow exactly the same path, even though by taking a slightly different path, the smaller base could make up most, if not all, of the difference.

Being bigger doesn't make you faster, it makes you take up more space. Being deployed against the line and the board edge while moving towards a target also deployed against the board edge means the 25mm base gets there first. Does that mean 100mm bases are slower now? Obviously not, it just started closer.

And that conspiracy about GW changing bases sizes to squeeze out decorative base manufacturers is well into tinfoil hat territory. GW doesn't even sell decorative 28mm bases. Go check their site. If it's anything at all beyond "the artist thought it looked cooler", and that's probably the real reason, it was a move to reconcile the "normal" base size with the fact that they use inches as their default measurement. Moving to 28s removes the issue where "within 1 inch" would include two ranks of 25mm bases thanks to that extra .4mm. It hasn't been implemented properly for that to be the case, but who knows, that may have been part of the reason and then it got lost in the mess that is GW's organizational structure.

Chopstick wrote:
uhmmm no the rule said you measure by using the further point of the base, so you move a bit further, but not much.

I was making a little joke. So little it was overlooked

Well I'm sold, I'll now be mounting all my Drukhari on 100mm bases. For Kill Team. What an utterly ridiculous discussion.

Looking at the pictures, the Flayed Ones look like they fit very well on 28mm bases, they look right to me. Honestly, I wish 28mm bases had been out at the same time as 32mm, because the regular non-primaris marines would look WAY on 28s than on 32s. So I went on ebay and low & behold, there's already packs of generic black plastic beveled bases being produced (search for 28.5mm bases). For $20 I have 100 coming just to have on hand so I can toss models on whatever looks most appropriate. The same sellers sell packs of 32mm plastic black beveled bases, so if you like the Necrons on the larger bases, you can do so very easily

Never been that bothered about base size, and will change them if they don't feel right. For example, the Harlequin characters like the Shadowseer or Solitaire, I gave them a larger base for balance.

No need for fancy charts or pretty graphs. It's actually pretty simple. If you're a tournament player, you're going to base them on 28mm bases and be done with it. Anyone else can do what they please.

 Sasori wrote:
I'm assuming it's a typo like the 65 MM for the reanimator and SKorpekh Lord.

65mm for Reanimator and Skorpekh Lord is not a typo, that is the actual size of the base that is usually referred to as 60mm. I was surprised to see that GW used the correct size for once.

28mm is lovely base size for many miniatures, I use them for Plaguebearers and several Necromunda warbands. However, it's annoyingly half a millimetre less thick than 32mm bases. While Flayed ones may look good on 28mm's, I think it's weird that they have smaller base size than Necron Warriors.

Kill-team fails because the models consist of regular 40K minis.

They should have done it like in the AoS boardgame in which specific models where produced for the various warbands.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Kill-team fails because the models consist of regular 40K minis.

Kill-team succeeds because the models consist of regular 40K minis.

It's another way to use models you already have or make use of models you like but wouldn't build a whole army around.

Yeah. I’ve bought several Deathwatch and GSC kits because of Kill Team.
It’s money they wouldn’t have gotten if they didn’t make KT.

Danny76 wrote:
Yeah. I’ve bought several Deathwatch and GSC kits because of Kill Team.
It’s money they wouldn’t have gotten if they didn’t make KT.

Same here. Deathwatch, AdMech, The Last Chancers, and Deathguard.

 ohreally wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Kill-team fails because the models consist of regular 40K minis.

Kill-team succeeds because the models consist of regular 40K minis.

It's another way to use models you already have or make use of models you like but wouldn't build a whole army around.

Nope, it failed otherwise I would have bought some of the stuff. Kill-Team is just 40K on a budget.

In fact all my Primaris from Conquest (subbed for expanding my DG) I only kept for Kill Team, albeit a large one now with a lot of choice (first 20 issues).

Now there’s an idea, they could have done the next subscription based on getting Kill Team sized lots for several factions. That way it could have been sprues of 5 even from kits of 10 etc, but more varied units.
Everyone would have like 10 to 15 Kill teams. Potential to turn into full armies or expand the Kill Teams.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 ohreally wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Kill-team fails because the models consist of regular 40K minis.

Kill-team succeeds because the models consist of regular 40K minis.

It's another way to use models you already have or make use of models you like but wouldn't build a whole army around.

Nope, it failed otherwise I would have bought some of the stuff. Kill-Team is just 40K on a budget.

Hadn’t realised till now they were basing things around getting you specifically to buy things, thought maybe it was just purchasing in general was the aim.

They did seem to try out a WarCry-esque method of "new faction not just rebadged 40k boxes" with Rogue Trader...and it did not seem well received.

WarCry works for a reason. It's tied specifically to one locality that every faction has a reason to go after.
The other big thing is that outside of the Khainite Shadowstalkers...all of the WarCry warbands? They're all from Slaves to Darkness. The rest of the warbands are just plain AoS stuff.

 Kanluwen wrote:
They did seem to try out a WarCry-esque method of "new faction not just rebadged 40k boxes" with Rogue Trader...and it did not seem well received.

WarCry works for a reason. It's tied specifically to one locality that every faction has a reason to go after.
The other big thing is that outside of the Khainite Shadowstalkers...all of the WarCry warbands? They're all from Slaves to Darkness. The rest of the warbands are just plain AoS stuff.

Granted, they were extremely poorly incorporated into Slaves to Darkness up until Broken Realms: Morathi brought Idolators AND an errata was issued to make Cultists in Idolators get marks. I don't think anybody was buying Warcry boxes for much beyond playing Warcry and maybe coincidentally novelty units within your force.

(I'm interpreting your comments as suggesting Warcry is more popular because the unique boxes were more interesting to AoS players than the Rogue Trader boxes were to 40k players. which I don't think is the case. UNLESS your point is that they're fully fledged members of Slaves to Darkness unlike the Gellarpox and Rogue Traders who are weird, standalone armies that can't be easily incorporated into anything in which case kindly ignore my entire rambling post)

It's the latter--but you've brought up another good point, as it's worth noting that the individual warbands were available individually. Rogue Traders and Gellerpox Infected weren't able to be purchased separately.

Also worth noting that the actual warbands, even with Broken Realms, are still considered a bit lacklustre since they are weird mixed units.

Also for what it's worth, they later came out with the double boxes because the warbands were customizable beyond what came in the box. Want to take 2 of the big crow stilts guys? You can! AFAIK, that wasn't the case with Gellarpox or Rogue Traders.

Ehh...they came out with the double boxes because you could have good sized units and the WarCry cards would be extraneous buying two of the same set.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ehh...they came out with the double boxes because you could have good sized units and the WarCry cards would be extraneous buying two of the same set.

You can use the Warcry cultists in a Slaves of Darkness army for AoS. Since I don't play AoS, I don't know how useful that is. However, the Untamed Beasts can take a 6" move after both armies are set up but before the first turn, which I'd imagine would be situationally useful, depending on scenario or objectives.

Killteam didn't fail, even though they used the simplified 8th rule as base, there're still fair amount of choice and customisation.With elite and commander, game is pretty much a complete package.

Rogue trader was meh, because the value was poor as the time of release. Customisation and weapon choice are 0, and the Rogue trader team are all shoved inside a tiny sprue, so many of the models have the sameish boring pose.

Warcry is an even more simplified skirmish game, no faction trait, no unique passive for unit, no wargear, weapon choice and model variety for the original warbands are poor, because the kits are too small. The AoS warbands pretty much beat the original warbands in every aspect: more unit variety, more choice, more abilities.

Killteam is the better game, i didn't need to roll for crit to beat a meatbag like Warcry, the tactics and specialist abilities in KT are very good and is a lot more useful than many Warcry's abilities.

The thing with the Rogue Trader box is that it was fundamentally a very different theme to normal Kill Team; normal Kill Team is a squad based skirmish system set in normal 40k battle zones with the standard armies, whereas Rogue Trader is semi-civilians in more of a dungeon crawl arrangement.

If they wanted to do a Kill Team dungeon crawl, they’d have been better doing a Zone Mortalis or even a Space Hulk theme.

The Rogue Trader squad they designed feels more at home in Blackstone Fortress. And that’s before we get into the fixed build of the Rogue Trader squad, versus the custom squad flexibility at the core of Kill Team.