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.

For AoS maybe, for 40K there is no rule.

They actually did make the same statement for 40k as well. I can't find it now, but they basically said just use what it came with when you bought it. This was in direct reference to 40k as it was around the time that GW started putting marines on the larger bases and people were freaking out.

What Tycho said: use the base supplied. GW have repeated this several times.

One COULD argue that changing the base size to the base currently supplied could be seen in some circumstances as modelling for advantage. Of course, the opposite is also true.

For me, it doesn't make enough difference to matter.

GW's sloppiness over base sizes weirdly enough is one of the main reasons I don't play their games any more, at least til I get around to making swappable base footprints for my minis.
I really like everything being on the old standard so that the basing on my large collection is consistent across games and genres, and changing the base size arbitrarily for stuff that was on 25mm to 32mm really annoys me.

I don't want to be accused of modelling for advantage, but I do not use the bases supplied, I put stuff on bases that is consistent with the rest of my collection. That means no 32mm for troops! I am sure someone would take offense at that if I tried to play PUG and since there is an in game impact they would have a point, so I just don't play GW games where base size matters any more.

Silly reason for GW to lose a customer and I am probably the only weirdo that feels like this, but there you are!

 Da Boss wrote:
GW's sloppiness over base sizes weirdly enough is one of the main reasons I don't play their games any more, at least til I get around to making swappable base footprints for my minis.
I really like everything being on the old standard so that the basing on my large collection is consistent across games and genres, and changing the base size arbitrarily for stuff that was on 25mm to 32mm really annoys me.

I don't want to be accused of modelling for advantage, but I do not use the bases supplied, I put stuff on bases that is consistent with the rest of my collection. That means no 32mm for troops! I am sure someone would take offense at that if I tried to play PUG and since there is an in game impact they would have a point, so I just don't play GW games where base size matters any more.

Silly reason for GW to lose a customer and I am probably the only weirdo that feels like this, but there you are!

No i feel the same. Not gonna mix new marines and old on different base sizes, so last time I bought a 10 pack of tacticals I had to scrounge old models and bit boxes for 25mm bases.

And i sure as hell aint rebasing

While I definitely understand, that people dont want to rebase their whole collection, I really like the look of Space Marines (old and Primaris) on 32mm. In my pov it looks much better. As I am currently building my Christmas Brood Swarm I just hope they dont decide to put Genestealers on 32mm now although with all their arms they are a PITA on 25mm.

Bago wrote:
While I definitely understand, that people dont want to rebase their whole collection, I really like the look of Space Marines (old and Primaris) on 32mm. In my pov it looks much better. As I am currently building my Christmas Brood Swarm I just hope they dont decide to put Genestealers on 32mm now although with all their arms they are a PITA on 25mm.

Agree.
My own Genestealers were rebased to 32mm(? whatever the larger bases that came with the at-the-time new plastic terminator sculpts) ages & ages ago.

Yes, I admit it. I modeled for advantage.
The dastardly duel advantages of: A) my models not tipping over all the *&#$ time, & B) their arms not getting all tangled up in play.

In 15(?) years I have never had an opponent think this was anything but a good idea.

ccs wrote:
Yes, I admit it. I modeled for advantage.
The dastardly duel advantages of: A) my models not tipping over all the *&#$ time, & B) their arms not getting all tangled up in play.

In 15(?) years I have never had an opponent think this was anything but a good idea.

Going up in base size has been fine for as long as I can remember. Lots of people put heroes on elaborate 40mm bases, for example. 'Modeling for advantage' as far as base sizes usually means going down in base size, since that's generally advantageous to hiding a unit or getting it into melee.

Putting Marines or Orks on 25mm could be seen as modeling for advantage, since their current official size is 32mm. Same for Genestealers if they were to get switched to 32s, which seems likely.

My Warriors are on 40mm instead of 50mm, and my Biovores are on 40mm instead of 60mm. That's not me trying to eke out a competitive advantage, it's keeping them consistent with my existing collection- but I will admit it is easier to pack them into a smaller footprint.

stroller wrote:
What Tycho said: use the base supplied. GW have repeated this several times.

One COULD argue that changing the base size to the base currently supplied could be seen in some circumstances as modelling for advantage. Of course, the opposite is also true.

For me, it doesn't make enough difference to matter.

Quotation very much needed. The only thing I've ever seen GW say about base sizes is basically "Use common sense". That's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

ccs wrote:
Yes, I admit it. I modeled for advantage.
The dastardly duel advantages of: A) my models not tipping over all the *&#$ time, & B) their arms not getting all tangled up in play.

In 15(?) years I have never had an opponent think this was anything but a good idea.

Going up in base size has been fine for as long as I can remember. Lots of people put heroes on elaborate 40mm bases, for example. 'Modeling for advantage' as far as base sizes usually means going down in base size, since that's generally advantageous to hiding a unit or getting it into melee.

Putting Marines or Orks on 25mm could be seen as modeling for advantage, since their current official size is 32mm. Same for Genestealers if they were to get switched to 32s, which seems likely.

My Warriors are on 40mm instead of 50mm, and my Biovores are on 40mm instead of 60mm. That's not me trying to eke out a competitive advantage, it's keeping them consistent with my existing collection- but I will admit it is easier to pack them into a smaller footprint.

Putting models with an aura on bigger bases is very much modelling for advantage. Bigger base = bigger area of influence.
However, I've never had any problems with it. My friend's CSM reroll aura char came on a small base and I basically had to convince him to put it on a bigger base since it looked so ridiculous.

 catbarf wrote:

ccs wrote:
Yes, I admit it. I modeled for advantage.
The dastardly duel advantages of: A) my models not tipping over all the *&#$ time, & B) their arms not getting all tangled up in play.

In 15(?) years I have never had an opponent think this was anything but a good idea.

Going up in base size has been fine for as long as I can remember. Lots of people put heroes on elaborate 40mm bases, for example. 'Modeling for advantage' as far as base sizes usually means going down in base size, since that's generally advantageous to hiding a unit or getting it into melee.

Putting Marines or Orks on 25mm could be seen as modeling for advantage, since their current official size is 32mm. Same for Genestealers if they were to get switched to 32s, which seems likely.

My Warriors are on 40mm instead of 50mm, and my Biovores are on 40mm instead of 60mm. That's not me trying to eke out a competitive advantage, it's keeping them consistent with my existing collection- but I will admit it is easier to pack them into a smaller footprint.

You do realize I wasn't being serious about that, right? I mean, my advantage is that my models don't fall over....

ccs wrote:
You do realize I wasn't being serious about that, right? I mean, my advantage is that my models don't fall over....

Yeah, I got it. I was responding to:

"In 15(?) years I have never had an opponent think this was anything but a good idea."

And I was just pointing out that your example was going up in base size, which usually isn't the point of contention- I've never seen that be controversial either. Basing on smaller bases is what some consider problematic.

Kall3m0n points out that a bigger base affects auras, and that's fair. I can think of other cases where it might be beneficial (eg board footprint for a tarpit). I'm just repeating what I've seen in these kinds of threads and out 'in the wild'.

The way genestealers have their arms all over the place, dose it matter if they are on 32mm bases? You are not going to be able to pack them any tighter then if they were on smaller bases.

My 'stealers are on 32mm, I would definitely not want to put them on 25s. Ditto for my warriors; they fill out a 50mm base but on a 40 there would be a nasty amount of overhang.

Now if they could just get a wounds count to match that base size...

 Nevelon wrote:
The way genestealers have their arms all over the place, dose it matter if they are on 32mm bases? You are not going to be able to pack them any tighter then if they were on smaller bases.

Yes, after having built 10 Genestealers now, iI came to the same conclusion and will put them on 32mm.

 Nevelon wrote:
The way genestealers have their arms all over the place, dose it matter if they are on 32mm bases? You are not going to be able to pack them any tighter then if they were on smaller bases.

Oh yeah, you can definitely pack them in tighter. That's when their arms get all tangled & you end up playing the sub-game of untangling a Barrel-o-M.onkeys every time you try & move them. Wich I got tired of - hence the larger bases. Well that & their tendency to tip over.

Gee Dubs has never changed the cost of a miniature for base size increases.

The fact that t3 2w Sv5+ Imperial guard heavy weapons teams are on 60mm bases and Marine T4 2w Sv3+ heavy weapons are on 32mm/25mm bases should make it clear that base sizes are whatever GW thinks looks good.

Whatever you think looks good should be your rule, understanding that Abaddon, Warmaster of Chaos came on a 25mm base like everyone else.

Carnifexs now have Oval bases, the most obnoxious change I've seen. Imagine having 6 Carnifexs with circle bases and now 2 with seemingly oversized oval bases

Bago wrote:
While I definitely understand, that people dont want to rebase their whole collection, I really like the look of Space Marines (old and Primaris) on 32mm. In my pov it looks much better. As I am currently building my Christmas Brood Swarm I just hope they dont decide to put Genestealers on 32mm now although with all their arms they are a PITA on 25mm.

I am building some Stealers, Terms, and Horms and they have the 25mm slotta bases so I dont have a choice with them.

 amrogers3 wrote:

Bago wrote:
While I definitely understand, that people dont want to rebase their whole collection, I really like the look of Space Marines (old and Primaris) on 32mm. In my pov it looks much better. As I am currently building my Christmas Brood Swarm I just hope they dont decide to put Genestealers on 32mm now although with all their arms they are a PITA on 25mm.

I am building some Stealers, Terms, and Horms and they have the 25mm slotta bases so I dont have a choice with them.

I just clipped them off and glued them to 32mm bases. Just the stealers tho. Termagaunts work fine on 25mm imho. I do not own hormagaunts yet.

What is more advantageous for gaming, bigger or smaller bases?

Smaller bases to get more models into base-to-base for melee?

I assume this is what they mean by modeling for advantage.

 amrogers3 wrote:
What is more advantageous for gaming, bigger or smaller bases?

Smaller bases to get more models into base-to-base for melee?

I assume this is what they mean by modeling for advantage.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. IMHO the even out overall, but when the situation comes up where if you were on the other sized would have mattered, people might get salty.

Smaller bases allow more models to be packed tighter. Makes it easier to get in cover, combat, etc.

Larger bases give you a bigger footprint. Cover more table, chain for buffs, screen better, bugger auras, etc.

Exactly - typically one would expect massed troops to benefit from smaller bases whilst leaders and aura and bigger units tend to benefit bigger bases.

In the end all we really want is for GW to confirm one single unified current base size per model. It at least creates a baseline for people to work with

 Overread wrote:
Exactly - typically one would expect massed troops to benefit from smaller bases whilst leaders and aura and bigger units tend to benefit bigger bases.

In the end all we really want is for GW to confirm one single unified current base size per model. It at least creates a baseline for people to work with

I don't want this. Groups I know have already adopted AoS base 'guide' as gospel. Base pedantry is anti-fun, places constraints on kitbashes, conversions and counts-as.

 =Angel= wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Exactly - typically one would expect massed troops to benefit from smaller bases whilst leaders and aura and bigger units tend to benefit bigger bases.

In the end all we really want is for GW to confirm one single unified current base size per model. It at least creates a baseline for people to work with

I don't want this. Groups I know have already adopted AoS base 'guide' as gospel. Base pedantry is anti-fun, places constraints on kitbashes, conversions and counts-as.

Base size being part of the rules is nothing new, its been around in a lot of wargames for years. Heck some wargames use the base size so much the model on top of the base doesn't even matter one bit.

Plus its not as if the chart makes base size anything more or less than it already is within the rules. All it does is clearly convey the information of what base size each model has. We can get that information already from current packs of models from GW. The chart is only needed to help those who might be coming back with older collections; or who have older model stock and such or when GW appears to have a lot of older and newer stock jumbled up togehter with some models (or seems to randomly change their mind now and then). It just formalises information that is already out there.

 Overread wrote:

Base size being part of the rules is nothing new, its been around in a lot of wargames for years. Heck some wargames use the base size so much the model on top of the base doesn't even matter one bit.

40k takes the opposite approach, having grown from a skirmish game. Models are the units, bases are used to stand them up for convenience in play. For most editions of the game, they were 25mm bases for infantry. The issues we are having now are GW increasing base sizes without considering the mechanical impact it would have on the game- the game being built with the assumption that bases are an afterthought, convenient to measure from because of the regular shape.

I disagree, 40K has nearly always measured movement, abilities, template damage all from the model base. Yes the model atop also comes into things as well as, but the base has always been a part of the equation.

The issue is more that GW has never really been that formal with their own rules system; so when you try to be formal with it you encounter inconsistent elements - such as GW's attitude toward bases being super casual even though the base does have a significant influence to the games rules and how models play on the tabletop.

 =Angel= wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Base size being part of the rules is nothing new, its been around in a lot of wargames for years. Heck some wargames use the base size so much the model on top of the base doesn't even matter one bit.

40k takes the opposite approach, having grown from a skirmish game. Models are the units, bases are used to stand them up for convenience in play. For most editions of the game, they were 25mm bases for infantry. The issues we are having now are GW increasing base sizes without considering the mechanical impact it would have on the game- the game being built with the assumption that bases are an afterthought, convenient to measure from because of the regular shape.

Bases have never been an afterthought, even as far back as 2nd edition models were hit by templates if the template covered even part of the base. Every rulebook for 40k that I've ever seen have stated that you measure movement from the edge of the base. That's not "afterthought" to me, that's "integral part of the rules".

 =Angel= wrote:
I don't want this. Groups I know have already adopted AoS base 'guide' as gospel. Base pedantry is anti-fun, places constraints on kitbashes, conversions and counts-as.

Putting base sizes in the rules and having the rules work with the base is way, way less constraining on kitbashing, conversions, and counts-as than the current approach of having the rules use the model itself.

A system where as long as you have the right base size you're good to go, regardless of what's on it, offers a lot more scope for creative conversion than one where simply converting a character to be kneeling instead of standing can be considered 'modeling for advantage'.

 =Angel= wrote:
40k takes the opposite approach, having grown from a skirmish game.

Infinity is a skirmish game and it doesn't use the models to determine LOS. You can play Infinity with empty bases and the game works fine, without the 'I can see one dude's tetanus-locked outstretched arm, prepare for your entire unit to get obliterated' nonsense of 40K.

It's really not a skirmish-vs-non-skirmish thing; it's more a case of one system relying on LOS and terrain as a core part of the game and the other having historically treated it as an afterthought.

 =Angel= wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Base size being part of the rules is nothing new, its been around in a lot of wargames for years. Heck some wargames use the base size so much the model on top of the base doesn't even matter one bit.

40k takes the opposite approach, having grown from a skirmish game. Models are the units, bases are used to stand them up for convenience in play. For most editions of the game, they were 25mm bases for infantry. The issues we are having now are GW increasing base sizes without considering the mechanical impact it would have on the game- the game being built with the assumption that bases are an afterthought, convenient to measure from because of the regular shape.

Sorry, but that doesn't quite fly. 40K hadn't been a skirmish game for quite some time when they converted to this standard. It is because of it being an army game that they went further and further in to TLOS, losing all but melee spacing in the last few years.

Keramory wrote:
Carnifexs now have Oval bases, the most obnoxious change I've seen. Imagine having 6 Carnifexs with circle bases and now 2 with seemingly oversized oval bases

I agree, the new oval bases on the Carnifexes are terrible. I'm replacing them with 60mms to match my older models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
I don't want this. Groups I know have already adopted AoS base 'guide' as gospel. Base pedantry is anti-fun, places constraints on kitbashes, conversions and counts-as.

Putting base sizes in the rules and having the rules work with the base is way, way less constraining on kitbashing, conversions, and counts-as than the current approach of having the rules use the model itself.

I agree, although it's still not necessary to have completely standard base sizes either. I'd prefer they keep official base-size rules out of it. Imo 40K should function fine with minor variations in model/base side. Imo the "size" classification that would be more important is a "height" size that determines visibility over intervening terrain and models, al la 4th edition. Seems like GW has veered away form that level of abstraction though.

It would be possible to write the rules in such a way as to make base size unimportant, but doing so would remove some of the micro-posiitoning tactics that I think people generally like.

I would be fine with it being a bit more abstract and allowing everyone to fight everyone in melee or something like that. There are games that work like that.

But I am not gonna be rebasing my stuff. If I really, really want to play 40K again I will blue tac my dudes onto 32mm flat renedra bases.