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.

This came up on a thread about confirmed V5 rumors.
Kudos to Hellfury for attempting to translate:

I dont speak german, but here is a good source of confirmations direct from GW:

http://www.gw-fanworld.net/

Supposedly, it states:
….
Minis have to use the bases they are delivered with, no bigger bases (though this still solves nothing. My eldar jetbikes came with 25mm hex flight bases for example) I see this rule being ignored consistently.

Hopefully one of the germans here can give us a full rundown of what that link says.

Is there any other information on this or someone able to translate the post? This is a significant change as many players have used larger bases for scenic reasons and to avoid the accusation of conversions for cheatiness.

When I flicked through the 5th ed rulebook, it said if models are supplied with bases they must be glued on bases before used in a game. (so you couldn't have a terminator wandering around with no base)

It also says that some gamers like to mount models on larger scenic bases, but as this would affect the way models interact with the rules, you should check that your opponent is ok with it.

I can see most people being ok with models on larger bases.

By permission only? Thats a big difference.

I suppose it would only really matter in a tournament, and how different your bases were. Terminators on 40mm bases or Broadsides on 60mm bases (which mine are on!) I can't see many people having a problem.

But Skimmers on 6" flight stands? That may be a bit much, but then with true line of sight if you can see me I can shoot you!

I never do tournaments so I'll continue to use whatever bases I like.

So, what happens if you're using old metal terminators? are they ok because their bases are smaller, but then is it fair to the guy next to you with the plastic terminators on bigger bases? What about an original hive tyrant? Or bikes that never came with a base in the first place?

Same for jetbikes. Some bikes came with large bases, some small.

I have an issue with this suddenly being opponent consent. I'm not talking about tourneys-although I could see the usual THAT GUY getting snarky. but pick up games, leagues etc.

It is a list of changes but not quotes from the rule book as far as I see just a rough overview. It states that the delivered bases have to be used. Nothing more, nothing less. So I think you have to wait for the rulebook or someone who saw the original rule.

I know this is Fantasy, but the example still holds. I got a box of night goblins that came with 25mm bases. Would I be required to put them on the big bases? Especially true if I only field one of a unit and had nothing to compare base size with.

Niccolo:

I know this is Fantasy, but the example still holds.

How on earth could it "still hold?" This is a 40k v5 rumour; you are talking about Fantasy rules. Worthless analogy.

-

Anyway, I think the idea, if it's been accurately relayed, is a mess. If they want to standardise base sizes, then they ought to actually list the base size for each unit in its entry. Issues like old Termies vs new and jetbike bases make a mockery of this rule otherwise.

Its also a real problem in that converters have been working with the "ok but no smaller then the one it came with" concept at least through V4.

My army's in the gak if this is true, the trouble is, I'm specifically building it for a GT, but my warboss for example is on a 60mm base, because the ghazkhull model he's based on looks gak on a little base. This rule would just cause far more arguments than it would solve. I'm hoping it's a miss-translation or summat.

I'm somewhat curious if there would be an issue with using flat custom-cut 1.5mm thick bases of the appropriate diameter as opposed to the standard raised GW bases.

While anything is possible, I would not imagine so.

huh interesting...

What about IG? What a mess.

I have had IG heavy weapons and gunners mounted all sorts of ways for years now.. For example 2 gunners on 25mm rounds with mortars on 30mm rounds, and all 3 on 80mm rounds and gunner + weapon on a cav base 25mm x 50mm and a 2nd guner on a 25mm round.

OY!

Can't wait for the new book! (I think?)

DOH!

Augustus:

What about IG? What a mess.

Don't forget the Citadel Heavy Bolter models (back breaker style) mounted on a 25mm bases (sometimes hexagonal to boot).

that's sometime that seems poorly defined.
Do the heavy weapons actually take-up additional space?
or could you mount all of you teams on separate 25s on-the-move, or back breaker?

A lot of my nids are on wrong bases too.... back when I was building it, they didn't have that biggest round base they have now, except the molded one that came with dreadnoughts. So, they had the thin large round ones, which are smaller than the real large round ones now... but I glued 2 of them together to get the same height.. still though, my old fexes that I still use are on them. So are my hive tyrants.

going forward, if they want to enforce it, they better start adding it to the codexes.. I think Warmachine does that?

If there really is any kind of official rule on base sizes, it's one I'll be ignoring.

Right, I have been violating that with IG for years (Base sizes as sold) because I always assumed older kits with different base sizes were grandfathered into the rules. Even though Im usually a RAW fanatic, that's one where I think common sence is unquestionable.

PS. I dont think base size (that isnt a gross reinvention) really matters in the game, possibly only in 2 spots IG teams and template hits...

Unless it's clear you're deliberately basing incorrectly for some sort of spurious in-game advantage I can't see anyone giving a crap. I certainly couldn't care less.

My main problem for this is affects conversion. If we make a model thats bigger than before and won't fit on a 40mm base, then if it 'counts as' a lord does it still have to be on a base it won't fit on? Most people would just use bigger bases for two reasons - It looks cooler, and on a converted model.

I think that this will only affect hyper-competitive players, thankfully not to the degree that some of their recent rules have.

One army I'm considering building is a Green Tide Ork list. The Ork fluff talks about Grots in huge numbers, I believe referenced as a carpet of them in front of the Ork advance. With no need to field them in that kind of numbers, I was thinking I'd put mine on the next side larger round bases (what the current termies come with) and putting ~3 per base, though having each base still count as a single guy. If this thing about base size issues holds true, I dunno about that anymore.

I am having the same issue, except it's with my True scale marine army! I am converting them from Terminator parts and was thinking about putting them on terminator size bases, but I don't want to be accused of cheating or any other such stuff.

I am also putting a squad of IG together and I am totally confounded as how to base my Lascannon gunner and spotter guys. Do I put them on the large 60mm base, that they normally come on, or do I go smaller?

What do you guys think?

Thanks,
Chappy P!

I have Guard HW's that aren't even on bases (2nd Ed ACs and HBs), and some that don't even have attached crew (old 2nd Ed Lascannon and Mortar).

I've got some on cavalry bases. I've got a plastic Autocannon on a regular base stuck to the gunner who's also on a regular base, so it's two bases next to one another like:

^
|
o
o

... with the gun facing the direction of the arrow. My new plastic ML's are on regular bases, with the loaders on separate bases. My plastic HBs, ACs and LCs are all on the big bases, but the loaders are mounted separately.

Yeah... this won't work.

And Jetbikes, as mentioned, are another good one. Even the Windrider Host Apoc box had Vypers and Jetbikes with different size bases on the box cover.

And what about things that don't have bases, like Attack Bikes?

BYE

Necros wrote:going forward, if they want to enforce it, they better start adding it to the codexes.. I think Warmachine does that?

Indeed they do. There are 3 base sizes in WM/H - 30/40/50mm. The size is specified in the unit description, and LoS rules rely strongly on the base size. In my experience, this system gets generally high praise from 40K players, and prevents a lot of arguments.

There are some crazy exceptions such as the Covenant of Menoth, which is modelled on a large base, but has "treat as if on a small base" in its rules. Dumb move on PP's part, IMHO.

DFo wrote:

Necros wrote:going forward, if they want to enforce it, they better start adding it to the codexes.. I think Warmachine does that?

Indeed they do. There are 3 base sizes in WM/H - 30/40/50mm. The size is specified in the unit description, and LoS rules rely strongly on the base size. In my experience, this system gets generally high praise from 40K players, and prevents a lot of arguments.

There are some crazy exceptions such as the Covenant of Menoth, which is modelled on a large base, but has "treat as if on a small base" in its rules. Dumb move on PP's part, IMHO.

Gunner models on Weapon Crews are treat as small sized as well.

Aduro wrote:One army I'm considering building is a Green Tide Ork list. The Ork fluff talks about Grots in huge numbers, I believe referenced as a carpet of them in front of the Ork advance. With no need to field them in that kind of numbers, I was thinking I'd put mine on the next side larger round bases (what the current termies come with) and putting ~3 per base, though having each base still count as a single guy. If this thing about base size issues holds true, I dunno about that anymore.

your running into another rule problem there. because models can't see through units anymore if you have a cheep grot on a big base especially if its one guy, your blocking line of sight a lot quicker and easier to your orks.

I think this is more of a new 'line of sight' thing. like how they gave us size's in 4thed and we got the magical cylinder. I think its to keep people from buying cheep units, converting them, and putting them in front of your small expensive squad.

like scouts on termi' base's.

It sounds like this is going to be a more up to discretion issue rather then official. but I am glad to see they are trying to regulate it. I've heard horror stories of people fighting drop pod armies at tournaments and they used shoe box size pods to block in their army. or the other argument, I've seen rhino's that are literary a piece of plasticard thick, and have doors and wheels just glued on.

since it's becoming more a line of sight game I think this rule is to stop those that would convert something so that it benefits them in the game by bending their artistic license. I'm glad their coming up with this, but if they only half ass this its going to be another mess like in 4th ed.

EDIT: If the guard thing becomes a problem in their new codex they could just have single unit on a bigger base with the heavy weapon that has 2 wounds like the marine attack bike. (at * many points you can add 2 heavy gunners with a heavy bolter, +* laz, etc etc.)

Wouldn't most of the advantages of larger or smaller base sizes (barring ridiculously over-the-top conversions specifically for in-game advantage) be negated by the disadvantages?

This was the case for 1st edition Flames of War. Although base sizes were standardized in 2nd edition, it seemed to mainly be for the sake of making official what almost everyone was already doing; any in-game advantages for increasing or decreasing base size are counter-balanced by equal disadvantages.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not up on the most recent edition of the 40k rules though, so there could easily be something I'm missing.

yes but its where those disadvantages come into play thats the problem. if you put a scout on a termi base you can't put them as close together to hide them but if their a meat shield thats not a problem. If their there to tie up units in close combat giving them a bigger base they can be based by another model but that wont benefit the defender unless they have counterattack or their assaulting the unit and they block line of sight to the stronger units behind them.

but all in all I think what their trying to do is prevent people pulling a 'technicality' and using something that they didn't test for or specifically address in the rule book at a tournament and a judge that has more on his mind doesn't make the right call.

so going back to what base size jetbikes "really" use...if i was going to make a counts-as army of flying eldar (based on dire avenger models, which come with tiny infantry bases), what base size should I put them on to represent "jetbikes"??

Clearly having winged dire avengers and saying they are jetbikes does Not work. But on the other hand, with this image in mind, what base size *would* work..

Not meaning to hijack this thread, but it is entirely to do with 5th ed and this base size question, its just a bit more specific. hope you don't mind!

suggestions please

when I did the jetbikes for my old eldar army, I too a small flying base and glued the bottom part to a medium sized round base, then flocked it all so it matched my other bases.

Just base your army so it looks good and it's logical. use common sense. If someone complains about your base sizes, throw an old metal dreadnought at him and then go play with someone who doesn't care, or at least doesn't say anything cuz they don't wanna get hit with something.

I don't see the problem if thats clearly what the unit is. but if you have to explain it all the time you might want to try another idea. yes it is your art, but you should still have consideration for the person your playing.