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.

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?

If you are playing Age of Sigmar there is a very explicit base guide provided by GW. I would even say that the one they explicit state to use in AoS is the official one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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."

It is more that AoS already did a whole base change(square to round) already so adding basing guide was minimal inconvenience compared to rebasing everything from square to round. AoS still has a ton of old models so it was never a new game miniature-wise from the ground up. You still get square bases in kits(just got a Slaughtermaster that has both round and square bases).

Karol wrote:
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?

my converted havocs are on 32mm, no way im putting and regular power armor guys on mixed base sized. Power armor on 32mm, terminator on 40, dreads on 60. but my CSM are mostly 30k kits anyway so theyre a lot smaller than the regular range.

Plus going up in size is easy with the rebasing 3rd party attachments you just put onto the base and away you go.

Hiseadmose wrote:
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.

HWTs are the one place I feel less indifferent about rebasing. Partly because the base is so much bigger, and partly because I've run into too many guard players that 'forget' that the loader doesn't shoot or fight separately. When they're still using separate models, the likelihood of 'forgetting' goes up a lot.

Though 'rebasing' in this casestock (cereal box or the like) can be easy as a circle of card and blutack on the bottom of the old bases.

 Nazrak wrote:
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.

I am mad about it because it has a knock on effect on the industry in a way I don't like, meaning that the old scale is going to get inflated more commonly, and my collection will be out of scale with the new stuff.

I mean that is kinda the point of HAVING scales in the first place and it seems obnoxious to me for GW to do this basically so they can re-sell their space marine range.

I'm such a cheapskate and I haven't any desire to play 40k anymore (haven't played in 3 editions), so you'd think I'd run away from any rebasing.

However, I find my self really interested in converting my old Blood Angels to 32mm as a pure aesthetic modeling project. In an army with plenty of jump troops and wide-stanced metal marines, 32mm just looks better to me and stands -in many cases- to be better balanced.

Just ordered a sample of both sizes of "eccentric miniatures" rebasing rings.
https://www.eccentricminiatures.com/adapterrings.html
Supposedly size A fits GW better, but the slightly bigger Size B might better fit around my much-too-thick painted base edges.

I rarely rebase, but I have purchased quite a number of 25mm > 32mm extension rings.

It started for me as a visual aid on ork nobs so it was easier to pick them out when in a massive close combat. But since I have some old school pewter assault marines with metal jump packs, I enlarged their bases for greater tabletop stability.

Since then I've enlarged all jump infantry bases in my collection as well as the old school metal terminators which now have a 32mm base, not 40mm.

 Da Boss wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
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.

I am mad about it because it has a knock on effect on the industry in a way I don't like, meaning that the old scale is going to get inflated more commonly, and my collection will be out of scale with the new stuff.

I mean that is kinda the point of HAVING scales in the first place and it seems obnoxious to me for GW to do this basically so they can re-sell their space marine range.

Sorry if I've missed what you're getting at, but you seem to be taking issue with Space Marines getting bigger, which is an entirely different conversation to the one about base sizes.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 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."

It is more that AoS already did a whole base change(square to round) already so adding basing guide was minimal inconvenience compared to rebasing everything from square to round. AoS still has a ton of old models so it was never a new game miniature-wise from the ground up. You still get square bases in kits(just got a Slaughtermaster that has both round and square bases).

That's what I was trying to say there. Honest, guv.

I never rebase my models. Not least because I prefer the look of smaller bases. I know I'm probably going against the grain in terms of 40k players, but I don't think bigger is better, and I don't like either scale-creep or the trend towards over-designed, centrepiece models.

That aside, I also think it's important to recognise that while some shifts in base-size are (arguably) justified, many others are far from natural. For example, many characters these days have larger bases for no other reason than to accommodate whatever stupid piece of scenery said character has been positioned on. Hence, if someone is using an older model, or a conversion, or even the new model without half a cathedral beneath it, then the old baze size will probably be both more appropriate and look far better than the newer one.

Hell, look at the example of the Sister Hospitaller, which some genius at GW designed to turn into a diorama. But for anyone using the older model (or any equivalent), it will look absurd on a 50mm base. It'll be like playing a unit in a video game with severe pathing issues. Unless you're desperate to ensure that even your models respect social distancing rules, I can't see much point in moving to such an absurdly oversized base.

Well, I've rebased my whole BA army, from 25 to 32 mm.
Because larger bases look cooler.

I really dislike the new era of gigantosauras sized models. I think the reasons for it on GW's behalf were unscrupulous, they take up more room on a limited table and they take longer to paint.

That said, if I was going to play 9th Edition, then I would use the big models and their giant bases. It doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise. And also those giant models would just look weird on normal-sized bases.

If I already had an army and was deadset on playing 9th Edition, then the old army would be retired, or used only for older edition games. Yes, that was exactly the plan by GW, make everyone buy more gak. But if it were me with a giant collection of 28mm-scale models on 25mm bases then I'd just give GW the finger and stop buying new editions. I'd pick my favorite old edition and stick with it. Because they're going to keep pulling this crap until people start.

That is not me however. I am still making up my mind whether I will go old-school and start WH40K with 3rd or 5th edition (not that 5th is particularly old school, but when they release a new edition every couple of years it is) or suck up the suckiness and giant models and just start with 9th. I can see arguments either way coming in new, but if I had an existing 25mm army, it would be a no-brainer to stay old-school.


.

PieInTheSky wrote:
I really dislike the new era of gigantosauras sized models. I think the reasons for it on GW's behalf were unscrupulous, they take up more room on a limited table and they take longer to paint.

That said, if I was going to play 9th Edition, then I would use the big models and their giant bases. It doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise. And also those giant models would just look weird on normal-sized bases.

If I already had an army and was deadset on playing 9th Edition, then the old army would be retired, or used only for older edition games. Yes, that was exactly the plan by GW, make everyone buy more gak. But if it were me with a giant collection of 28mm-scale models on 25mm bases then I'd just give GW the finger and stop buying new editions. I'd pick my favorite old edition and stick with it. Because they're going to keep pulling this crap until people start.

That is not me however. I am still making up my mind whether I will go old-school and start WH40K with 3rd or 5th edition (not that 5th is particularly old school, but when they release a new edition every couple of years it is) or suck up the suckiness and giant models and just start with 9th. I can see arguments either way coming in new, but if I had an existing 25mm army, it would be a no-brainer to stay old-school.

I am a little confused on the reasons GW on their new models being unscrupulous. I assume you mean GW wants to squeeze more money out of its customers from this. Wouldn't models that take up more space, and therefor requiring less of them on the table, and taking longer to pain mean GW would probably get less money then? I mean there are a number of things one could say how GW is putting the screws to their customers for more money, but what you're saying ain't it.

I am having a hard time visualizing what you mean by using big models and giant bases. Frankly, marines, boyz and whatever else had their bases go from 25mm to 32mm in their boxes really can be explained as an aesthetics thing. Take a gander around other modern miniatures games and the base size they put their models on. They are going to look a lot more like a space marine on a 32mm base than one on a 25mm. And please, don't try and say this GW leading the way. If anything, they were (and with a few models) way behind on this. I am surprised it took GW as long as it did. Jump troops on 25mm bases is dumb, frankly. How many times did you have to upright these models on 25mm and/or stick weights to the bottom to prevent them from toppling over. Because I still had to do that with my hormagaunts.

As for the character models, I think it is less about fitting more terrain bits on them and more about more easily picking them out of a crowd. My Primaris are as plain as the day is long. It isn't hard to lose track of which one the Lt is among a squad or two of Intercessors. But that 40mm bases makes it easy for me and my opponent to know where that dude is. The extra 8mm to the diameter isn't so much that poor Lt feels all alone on his own private piece of nowhere.

Finally, I am not exactly sure where this giant models is coming from save a handful of special characters and/or centerpeice models. Which if you don't like you don't have to include in your collection. Yes, Primaris space marines are clearly bigger than Guardsmen which are slightly bigger than GSC Neophytes and other modern human-size models. I would think that is about getting them back into scale as space marines in armor are much larger than non-augmented humans. The new Chaos Space Marines are larger, but I was able to make my Dark Vengeance Chosen to appear about the same size through some trickery. Necron Warriors are about the same size as they were. Chaos Terminators are so identical is size that I can free mix and match them in squads, and you wouldn't be able to tell on the table. There are hiccups sure, Eliminators are extra big even for Primaris. I don't know maybe tall space marines make better snipers. Abbadon and Guilliman are kinda ridiculous in stature, but Warhammer 40,000 is a ridiculous setting. I think people sometimes forget just how ridiculous the setting is and don't step back enough to remember that.

If a person doesn't want to re-base, that is both completely understandable and more than fine by me. However, I would it strange to start a completely brand-new army and seek to go back to models barely able to fit on top of the small confines of the older, smaller sizes that can't be placed on anything but the gentlest of slope without falling over. I fought against for a bit early on, but I think the new base size has a lot more going for it than the old base size before even considering the rules.

 Nazrak wrote:
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.

The argument was going on long before regular marines were rebased. The release of the plastic Terminator kit with 40mm bases was probably where it started in earnest, although there have also been various arguments about Guard heavy weapon teams and dreadnoughts with or without bases back to the start of 3rd edition at least.

PieInTheSky wrote:
I really dislike the new era of gigantosauras sized models. I think the reasons for it on GW's behalf were unscrupulous, they take up more room on a limited table and they take longer to paint.

That said, if I was going to play 9th Edition, then I would use the big models and their giant bases. It doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise. And also those giant models would just look weird on normal-sized bases.

If I already had an army and was deadset on playing 9th Edition, then the old army would be retired, or used only for older edition games. Yes, that was exactly the plan by GW, make everyone buy more gak. But if it were me with a giant collection of 28mm-scale models on 25mm bases then I'd just give GW the finger and stop buying new editions. I'd pick my favorite old edition and stick with it. Because they're going to keep pulling this crap until people start.

That is not me however. I am still making up my mind whether I will go old-school and start WH40K with 3rd or 5th edition (not that 5th is particularly old school, but when they release a new edition every couple of years it is) or suck up the suckiness and giant models and just start with 9th. I can see arguments either way coming in new, but if I had an existing 25mm army, it would be a no-brainer to stay old-school.


.

There are good things and bad things for larger base sizes. If you see what GW is intending and choose to play into it, that seems a little odd to me. Do you really somehow believe these gakky rules writers agonize on their rules working flawlessly dependent on base size ? I think you give them far too much credit as to assume they are playing some 3 D chess 3 turns ahead. The model basing has pretty much nothing to do some real or imagine fairness or balance. It's just them changing their mind, again. I mean look at bike bases. They were this square ugly things, then the smaller ovals which I like now they are the bigger ovals in a couple years they could make them be even bigger ovals and I don't think this has anything to do with someone sitting around figuring out the perfect base sizes for their rules to be perfect.

I can lose a game just fine with my old based models or my new based models and won't just retire whole armies because I won't rebase them. If I wanted to play in a tournament I'd use stuff that is set up currently, because it cuts down on disagreements but in like the 99% of my games if someone thinks an old based marine army gives me some huge advantage, that sounds like it would be scapegoat for having lost.

Small models I don't rebase and if it's a problem for anyone oh well. Large models I'll just glue the old base on top of the new one and blend it with sand and rocks. Who cares if it's now 5mm taller?

I don't play, but may decide to in the future. My basing varies quite a bit from the standard if I think it will look cooler - I tend to put Marine sergeants and character models on 40mm bases, for example. My bases are part of the painting and modelling side of the hobby and I refuse to change it just to fit in with changes in packaging.

For people who do rebase - how do you do it? (Not talking about base extenders.) My figures are glued/melted on to their bases, which are then heavily textured. If I tried to snap them off I'd just break them.

I mean, no one should care about that. However in their anti hobby sort of way they do imply and lean on base sizing being super critical or height of model being of utmost game breaking importance, like the term modeling for advantage.

This all didn't mean anything when I started playing, however now you hear it a lot more. I think GW dialed in on telling people to buy new models or new bases or scrap whole armies didn't go over well, so they instead toss these slogans around and press that somehow base size, model height, break and shake the rules it nudges players to do that themselves.

I think the going to models eye view and giving model size a factor on game rules as opposed to being a mere abstraction was done with a clear and concise goal of implied but not demanded obsolescence of old models. Which is why they keep growing in both model size and base size.

If someone thinks I'm way off base here ( because I came with a smaller base in my box ) please let me know. This is however how it feels to me.

Like for instance an old friend of mine has an old vintage ork army, with all the tiny old trucks and I know he's taken flak for playing it being told he has to get the new trucks because the old ones are too small and " modeling for advantage " the reality is, he just likes his old army, when did that become wrong ? When GW decided they didn't like people sitting on old models.

If/when they press away first born marine armies that will be for the same reason and I bet you it'll strike other armies as well in time.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...If someone thinks I'm way off base here ( because I came with a smaller base in my box ) please let me know. This is however how it feels to me...

I don't think the whole "model's-eye-view" thing is an evil plot to make older minis obsolete; there are, broadly speaking, three ways to do line of sight in a wargame: 2d model position with "height" as a number that defines where LOS block starts/stops, like in Warmachine or WHFB, true LOS where you kneel down and check the model's actual position, like in 40k, or true LOS with a theoretical position, like Infinity and its silhouette markers. 2d positioning makes for a very precise but not very cinematic wargame (ask any 40k player why they're not playing Warmachine and "models running around on a flat surface covered in mouse-mats" is probably going to come into the discussion), Infinity and the silhouettes are much slower/harder to play and wouldn't be practical at 40k's scale. True line of sight is really just the standard approach for games with widely varying model sizes and widely varying terrain. You could blame it on 40k's influence infecting the industry, but having tried to write LOS rules a few times I don't think there's a fast/easy solution that gets rid of it.

I have a couple of ork units for 40k that need to be finished. Once they are done I'll go with the bases that come in the boxes. I'm more concerned how the models look on the base and the functionality than some rules lawyer opinion. I don't have to worry about tournaments since I haven't played in one in twenty years.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...If someone thinks I'm way off base here ( because I came with a smaller base in my box ) please let me know. This is however how it feels to me...

I don't think the whole "model's-eye-view" thing is an evil plot to make older minis obsolete; there are, broadly speaking, three ways to do line of sight in a wargame: 2d model position with "height" as a number that defines where LOS block starts/stops, like in Warmachine or WHFB, true LOS where you kneel down and check the model's actual position, like in 40k, or true LOS with a theoretical position, like Infinity and its silhouette markers. 2d positioning makes for a very precise but not very cinematic wargame (ask any 40k player why they're not playing Warmachine and "models running around on a flat surface covered in mouse-mats" is probably going to come into the discussion), Infinity and the silhouettes are much slower/harder to play and wouldn't be practical at 40k's scale. True line of sight is really just the standard approach for games with widely varying model sizes and widely varying terrain. You could blame it on 40k's influence infecting the industry, but having tried to write LOS rules a few times I don't think there's a fast/easy solution that gets rid of it.

I like how you quoted that one line there..smooth. That said, they did use abstraction for heights and sizes and I recall it feeling fine and easy to wrap my head around. Which made the change away from it feel needless and cumbersome, just how it felt to me anyways.

What, in 4e? Sure, you could do the abstracted 2d LOS, it'd just be awkward, not necessarily match up with your terrain very well, and create loads of weird edge cases to do with wide variation in model height. I'm not saying true LOS is the best or the only approach to writing the game, I just think there are advantages from a design standpoint other than just forcing people to buy new minis.

Sure could be, but coming from a company trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth, make dubious army set up calls, sneak in soft squats slowly, etc.

If I was going to guess that the LoS change was all for the good of the game or a way to try and make size and thereby new models matter to move them more, I'd pick they did it to sell newer models. If they really wanted the game to be in a good state they'd actually be trying to perfect and refine the system and not just mixing it up all the time to move books and shake up the whole system all the time.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
I like how you quoted that one line there..smooth. That said, they did use abstraction for heights and sizes and I recall it feeling fine and easy to wrap my head around. Which made the change away from it feel needless and cumbersome, just how it felt to me anyways.

They did use an abstracted system in 4th edition... for area terrain and close combats, while the rest of the time the game used true LOS, as it has done in every other edition. It's not some new ploy, it's how the game has always worked LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Sure could be, but coming from a company trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth, make dubious army set up calls, sneak in soft squats slowly, etc.

If I was going to guess that the LoS change was all for the good of the game or a way to try and make size and thereby new models matter to move them more, I'd pick they did it to sell newer models. If they really wanted the game to be in a good state they'd actually be trying to perfect and refine the system and not just mixing it up all the time to move books and shake up the whole system all the time.

It's nothing to do with selling bigger models. The models got bigger because it lets them make them more detailed. GW have always leaned towards using true LOS because it is more immersive than an abstract system... Getting down to see what the models see pulls you into the action. It's just an extra layer of visual spectacle.

We will have to agree to disagree it adds any kind of depth to the experience to spider man around the table to check out the eye view. The abstracted method for terrain and units did a good deal to make things move smoother, imo of course.

As well there was no real modeling for advantage in those old ways, base sizes weren't stressed so highly, etc. These are newer sticking points and I do recall the old rule book stances being what the models came with being legal.

I highly doubt detail factors into it as much as wanting to push new plastic, at least for a company selling models.

My 2nd to 6th Ed Dark Angels shall remain on their original bases. It means that I can't mix new and old squads of Tactical/Devastator dudes for aesthetic reasons, but hey. I do prefer the new bases, but I don't like going backwards hobby-wise with my own minis. If it was good enough in 1996 then by the Emperor its good enough in 2021.

I recently rebased my 2nd/3rd Ed Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons Teams. I had bumbled along for a while by just keeping the loader close to the gunner, but I decided to get with the times and base them because it did confuse opponents. I guess that means that the new IG Codex will go back to loaders being on their own...

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
As well there was no real modeling for advantage in those old ways, base sizes weren't stressed so highly, etc. These are newer sticking points and I do recall the old rule book stances being what the models came with being legal.

People have been complaining about modeling for advantage at least since I started playing, which was early in second edition. The common argument that used to be brought up was how you could make you're Eldar Dreadnoughts more durable by posing them kneeling down. Nobody actually did it, but everyone complained about it.

People largely didn't stress about base sizes because most people accepted that it actually didn't make that much practical difference on the table, and for whatever benefits you got from it there were usually some negatives as well, although the specifics of that have changed from edition to edition. As I mentioned earlier, it seems people only really started drawing a line in the sand with base sizes when terminators went from 25mm to 40mm bases, because it made a difference to their Deep Strike footprint.

I highly doubt detail factors into it as much as wanting to push new plastic, at least for a company selling models.

Of course it's wanting to push the new plastic... but they're doing that by making the models (in their view) better. The fact that they are bigger is merely a side effect of that. I very much doubt that 'make the models bigger so people will have to replace their old models to stay in scale' was a strategy for a company that has historically never been able to stick to a consistent scale.

Yet again, agree to disagree my anecdotal evidence was that I didn't even hear modeling for advantage until around mid fifth start of sixth edition.

As for the models being better, if it was just them being better they wouldn't tie their look so heavily into in game use if they wanted to sell on better. As better would just sell itself.

Edit: Though I do like how you read their intentions so fully, are you a rules/model designer for them per chance to have such an inward look as to their motivations ? Otherwise its all just our best guess. I just don't really think they care much of offering us better and more just giving us more or selling new. To be clear I'm assuming their motivation isn't evil, it's simply being a greedy company. Which for them is not either good or bad just being what they are.

well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

Beardedragon wrote:
well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

Be that as it may, its also a dime & a moment I dont need to spend.