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.

Aesthetics. I think a lot of classic-Marine models whose feet hung off their 25mm bases look better on 32mm bases.

SemperMortis wrote:
It is also not modeling to advantage since its a split.

Smaller bases = more models in CC
Larger Bases = easier to spread out for area denial.

You'll eventually find someone who's going to abuse that grey area.

I vaguely remember someone having a oddly convenient old marine CC squads on 25mm bases but all their back field or screening units magically happened to be on 32mm.

Also remeber hearing a story of an argument about bases from way back in 3rd or 4th when terminators were changed as the metal ones on 25mm had way less risk for close deepstrikes than 40mm models.

IMHO Tournaments should be inforcing current base sizes for consistency.
In friendly games that between the two of you.

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
It is also not modeling to advantage since its a split.

Smaller bases = more models in CC
Larger Bases = easier to spread out for area denial.

You'll eventually find someone who's going to abuse that grey area.

I vaguely remember someone having a oddly convenient old marine CC squads on 25mm bases but all their back field or screening units magically happened to be on 32mm.

Also remeber hearing a story of an argument about bases from way back in 3rd or 4th when terminators were changed as the metal ones on 25mm had way less risk for close deepstrikes than 40mm models.

IMHO Tournaments should be inforcing current base sizes for consistency.
In friendly games that between the two of you.

That's fine for most models, but things like seekers of Slaanesh have 2 current base sizes depending on which kit you buy. The recent boxes are oval, where as the current Seeker box is the old biker base. Which one should players then be forced to use?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
As a tournament judge, please don't :(

Why not? I'm not in favor of "official" base sizes and I think GW needs to hear my opinion on that.

JakeSiren wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
It is also not modeling to advantage since its a split.

Smaller bases = more models in CC
Larger Bases = easier to spread out for area denial.

You'll eventually find someone who's going to abuse that grey area.

I vaguely remember someone having a oddly convenient old marine CC squads on 25mm bases but all their back field or screening units magically happened to be on 32mm.

Also remeber hearing a story of an argument about bases from way back in 3rd or 4th when terminators were changed as the metal ones on 25mm had way less risk for close deepstrikes than 40mm models.

IMHO Tournaments should be inforcing current base sizes for consistency.
In friendly games that between the two of you.

That's fine for most models, but things like seekers of Slaanesh have 2 current base sizes depending on which kit you buy. The recent boxes are oval, where as the current Seeker box is the old biker base. Which one should players then be forced to use?

That I think is the perfect example of why GE should be providing 2 things
1 a base size chart
2 if you buy a box that doesn't have the correct base in it you should be able to swap them in store for the current bases free of charge.

I've received boxes of ork boyz before that still came with small bases. An email to GW about it ended up with them sending me a pack of 32mm bases.

I do find it odd that they provide an official base size chart for AoS, but not for 40k.
Measurements are a lot more fiddly in Sigmar for combat distances, but it surely can't be that difficult a thing to keep up to date for 40k?

I will be honest, I don't rebase my models. I won't, I don't play tournaments anymore and if someone has an issue with my old models, or feels like my base size is the only reason I can win, they can just not play with me.

At a certain point people need to take agency of being an adult and accept loss may sometimes happen to skill or luck or both in some aspects and not just because of the give and take of a base size.

Frankly I feel like they push the base size changes more to try and make more money by selling new models or bags of bases. I won't buy hundreds and hundreds of dollars of bases for models I already spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on just because they decide they want me to have larger bases after 20 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For me, I want there to be consistent base sizing across the whole army. If it changes then any new models I add will be on the new size, so I want the older ones to match. If the army in question is already done though and I do not plan to add to it then I will leave it as it was.

Another factor for me is that when the base size changes I almost always think it is an improvement in visuals. And for some units, like my tyranid warriors, I couldn't even fit them base to base on the smaller size to begin with!

Quoting you, because I like you. This is how I run it as well, like the majority of my marine forces are older models on old bases but I did make a deathwatch force that is all using the current base size for marines. I just won't change my hundreds of other old models and spend that money and time to do so. So the base size changes if anything just mean my older groups are done as is which means less money for GW which I am sure was their intention.

I only rebased an army once. It was about 8000 pts of Daemons, 90% of which where infantry-sized guys like Plaguebearers and Horrors.

Of course, that was after I got burnt out on WHFB, took them off their squares, and put them on rounds for 40K. But there's no way in Hell I'm changing them from 25's to 32's now.

Fun thing is that now I can put them on movement trays that hold round bases when some of my friends get the urge to Oldhammer. It was a blast playing that after AOS had been a thing for literally years.

@AngryAngel, WTY for the compliment

ccs wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
As a tournament judge, please don't :(

Why not? I'm not in favor of "official" base sizes and I think GW needs to hear my opinion on that.

Because a lack of official base sizes creates a huge mess for tourney organizers/judges to deal with, on top of what matched play already is! And you lose nothing for it being there; many people will not know the official size outside their army anyways, and many more won't care in a casual setting unless someone is clearly being exploitative. The only people who would be up tight about it are ones best to be socially distanced from even outside a pandemic. But tourney runners cannot just walk away from those people, and it is apparently considered tolerable behavior (seriously there are some social standards way off calibration when it comes to that stuff) so I have to deal with it. An official chart makes it very cut and dry; it is being used as X and legal, or anything else and not. While that is clearly far too strict for an everyday game, at a tournament things need to be that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
It is also not modeling to advantage since its a split.

Smaller bases = more models in CC
Larger Bases = easier to spread out for area denial.

You'll eventually find someone who's going to abuse that grey area.

I vaguely remember someone having a oddly convenient old marine CC squads on 25mm bases but all their back field or screening units magically happened to be on 32mm.

Also remeber hearing a story of an argument about bases from way back in 3rd or 4th when terminators were changed as the metal ones on 25mm had way less risk for close deepstrikes than 40mm models.

IMHO Tournaments should be inforcing current base sizes for consistency.
In friendly games that between the two of you.

That's fine for most models, but things like seekers of Slaanesh have 2 current base sizes depending on which kit you buy. The recent boxes are oval, where as the current Seeker box is the old biker base. Which one should players then be forced to use?

That I think is the perfect example of why GE should be providing 2 things
1 a base size chart
2 if you buy a box that doesn't have the correct base in it you should be able to swap them in store for the current bases free of charge.

Another option is GW could come out with an official chart that says "either". The only thing it would remove is the OLD biker base; a rectangular cavalry base.

 Banzaimash wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
Why do people rebase their models just because GW starts putting different base sizes in their boxes? It seems a bit bizarre to me, tearing apart perfectly good models because GW have decided to switch from 25mm to 32mm. As long as base sizes are consistent within a unit/army surely there should be no problem. It's strange that minor changes made by a company are treated like a royal decree by some. So why do people do this?

It doesn't take tearing them apart. I just put adapter rings on all my Sisters.

As for bases sizes, yes, it is a problem. The size of the base determines how densely the unit can be packed, where models and fit, and how much the unit can spread out. In fact, the model can be basically anything, as long as the base size is proper, because for the most part it's the base that plays the game by defining the model's position, volume, etc. and the model itself is decorative.

There's pros and cons to smaller or bigger bases. If a few mm of base were really such an issue, why hasn't GW made it a rule?

Yeah, there are advantages to doing either, that doesn't make it not exploitable or irrelevant. That kind of just shows that fixed bases need to be a thing.

GW hasn't done anything about it because there'd be a backlash if people were told to rebase minis, particularly since GW doesn't sell expander rings.
And they do have a statement on the subject: "use the base size that comes in the box". This isn't great, but effectively canonizes the currently issued base size as standard for the model with the caveat that old models don't need rebasing.

What is the official application of "use the base size that comes in the box" for models that had no base like one generation of Sentinels, or heavy weapon teams that were mounted on separate bases? A what's in the box or Xmm chart would be handy here. A document listing all current and grandfathered in base sizes.

Also, as much as GW loves extracting money from the player base, I am surprised that they do not sell an extravagant base size adapter.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

While that is clearly far too strict for an everyday game, at a tournament things need to be that way.

Sorry but that's not true at all. Tournaments already rely on house rules (times limitations, requirements of fully painted armies, adoption of some format like the ITC one, etc...), so if you think there could be arguments about bases just issue another house rule to fix it: you'll have your chart anyway.

 McGibs wrote:
I do find it odd that they provide an official base size chart for AoS, but not for 40k.
Measurements are a lot more fiddly in Sigmar for combat distances, but it surely can't be that difficult a thing to keep up to date for 40k?

Because 40k has 30+ years of models on various versions of round bases. AoS doesn't. Quite easy to set the parameters for your game when you build it from the ground up, this is why 40k has more wishy washy rules on bases as it has to accommodate old collections. AoS does this too, but because it is so (relatively) new it can say quite clearly "If you want to play in tournaments- these are the base sizes you have to use."

Most of the times the new base size just looks better on the model.

I also go to tourneys and they are a bit more strict about this.

 Mr. Grey wrote:
I've received boxes of ork boyz before that still came with small bases. An email to GW about it ended up with them sending me a pack of 32mm bases.

This - at one point (some) GW stores had bases behind the counter and would offer you the different size ones. I was given 32s for Boyz & Plaguebearers.

I do not rebase my old models and in fact I base my new models on 25mm consistent with the industry standard since forever. If a model could not be based on 25mm then I consider it out of scale with my collection and do not purchase it (new chaos marines, primaris, and so on).

I despise the change in bases as one of THE most anti-consumer things GW has ever done, I hate it's effect on the industry and I utterly hate the scale creep it results in. It actually makes me feel quite despondent when I think about the standard shifting away from 25mm to the bigger standard, resulting in bigger scaled miniatures and effectively meaning I will not be able to buy correctly scaled miniatures any more for my armies. I guess I will switch to Historicals or something at that point.

I feel the whole rebasing nonsense is a massive feth you to the community and yeah, I am properly salty about it. I also accept that some may think it looks better, I don't agree, particularly not on a collection wide basis where I suddenly have stuff out of scale with my older stuff.

What happens if a unit option exists, but only as a model that is part of a different box, and the other unit has different bases.

Like lets say someone wants a reaper gun in their csm squad, but havocks come on big bases. Does the reaper gunnner have to be on the bigger havock base, or does he have to be on the same base as the rest of the unit?

 Banzaimash wrote:
Why do people rebase their models just because GW starts putting different base sizes in their boxes? It seems a bit bizarre to me, tearing apart perfectly good models because GW have decided to switch from 25mm to 32mm. As long as base sizes are consistent within a unit/army surely there should be no problem. It's strange that minor changes made by a company are treated like a royal decree by some. So why do people do this?

Requiring models to be based on what GW currently puts into the box with the miniatures is a popular houserule.

I intended to rebase my army in early 2016. That was largely due to me deciding on a new basing scheme and wanting to unify the scheme across older models as well, but would carry the additional benefit of 'modernising' the base size on older units.
I got around to buying up a bunch of bases, and then my love of 40k collapsed and I never got around to it.
Generally I think my models are better off on the smaller bases, as it's the assault troops that are older and I can fit noticably more into melee/deepstrike bubbles on 25mm bases than 32mm.

So I definitely understand tournaments wanting to define this sort of thing, and GW supporting that would be a great help for them.
However, I understand why they don't. 40k is a very old game with a lot of collections that would be invalidated by requiring 'modern' bases.
It works for AoS because they functionally restarted that game from scratch with the current base sizes, so there were no old collections to invalidated (they were invalidated by the existence of AoS anyways).

GW has plenty of games that have more precise, designed-from-the-ground-up-for-competitive/tournament-play games such as Underworlds or Kill Team Arena that play fast, are highly streaming-friendly due to smaller play-areas and game-time, have MtG-inspired cycles of cards to keep the meta evolving, etc..

It's all there for the taking.

But as long as there's also a niche for a sprawling, "simply-show-off-all-your-toys" and "play-all-sunday-afternoon" games like 40K, GW shouldn't necessarily ditch it (yet) in favour of publishing only the competitive games like Underworlds.

Hiseadmose wrote:Also, as much as GW loves extracting money from the player base

Wait, the player needs a base now!?!? I have been out of this game for too long...

Yeap. you better super glue the right size base to your butt or else you'll be accused of leading by bad example for your army men.

 Da Boss wrote:

I feel the whole rebasing nonsense is a massive feth you to the community and yeah, I am properly salty about it. I also accept that some may think it looks better, I don't agree, particularly not on a collection wide basis where I suddenly have stuff out of scale with my older stuff.

I think that sometimes it does look better. I think big bases are fine for display models. Otherwise, I've not rebased since I updated my Terminators. (Once I saw deepstrike shenanigans due to differently sized bases, I wanted no part of it.)
The gameboard is small enough- bigger bases make it smaller still.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yeap. you better super glue the right size base to your butt or else you'll be accused of leading by bad example for your army men.

*magnetises flying base to arse*

I must admit I didn't tear any models apart to rebase them, I just got the adaptors that go round the edges from a bloke in USA.

It actually gave me a bit more room on the bases to put sand and detritus without looking too cramped.

 Kroem wrote:
The boyz never fit that well on 25mm bases and 32mm look right nice :-)

Yep, this was my reasoning. Plus I'd already put my Nobz, Lootas and special weapons on 32s when they first came out, as it was good at stopping them falling over. Certainly not worth getting bent out of shape about one way or the other, imo.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
I do find it odd that they provide an official base size chart for AoS, but not for 40k.
Measurements are a lot more fiddly in Sigmar for combat distances, but it surely can't be that difficult a thing to keep up to date for 40k?

Because 40k has 30+ years of models on various versions of round bases. AoS doesn't. Quite easy to set the parameters for your game when you build it from the ground up, this is why 40k has more wishy washy rules on bases as it has to accommodate old collections. AoS does this too, but because it is so (relatively) new it can say quite clearly "If you want to play in tournaments- these are the base sizes you have to use."

I mean aside from the 30+ years on square bases that came before AOS....

AoS is a new lore and rule edition, but lets not fool ourselves; the game is built right off the back of Old World; even round bases since its start were sometimes changed as 2.0 and the formal rules and base size chart came out and were sorted out. There's no reason that the same can't be true for 40K as well.

PLUS lets not forget the current base size is information that is out there in the world; its right in every current box produced for each miniature. IT's messy though because sometimes the same model has different sizes depending on how its sold - eg there are differences with the same model between genestealer cults and Tyranids are those differences simply manufacture choices or are they balance choices - which is which. Without an official chart its confusing. With a chart you have a single clear easy to read reference point.


GW loses nothing, people are still free to follow GW's "use the base that came in the box" line and to use whatever they want. Those who want to use the system as fairly and strictly as they can can do so; events can be run with clear guidelines and boundaries without argument and debate or bias.



A base size chart also helps us restrict GW's casual base size changes. I think once or twice models got random base changes in AoS and because there was the chart it got noticed and GW had to either update the chart or update manufacture. So in a sense it helps restrict base size changes once the chart is out in the wild. It makes GW hold up to a standard and helps check if there's been a packing error or such.




Basically the chart benefits us as gamers and as a gaming community in just the same way that an FAQ and Errata helps us better understand the interaction between some rules and clarifications on how rules work when there's confusion.

I think if they were gonna change the bases like that they should have designed the rules to make them independent of base size, but we've had that discussion several times here by now

Plenty of games (Saga is a good example) have rules that ignore bases for gameplay, and I think if you are gonna do this sort of stuff designing the game to not care too much about bases is the way to go.

When was it that Marines moved to 32s? 2015 maybe? Can’t believe this discussion is still going round in circles and people are still getting a mad about it tbh. It literally doesn’t matter unless you’re playing hyper-competitively, in which case either there’ll be additional tournament rules, or you can houserule it with your opponent. Just smacks of people going out of their way to find something to complain about at this point.