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.

Can’t believe I’ve seen negative posts regarding the new Ork vehicles having bases!

So long as they don’t do dumb things like with some Grav tank rules, bases eliminate all the “which bit do I measure from?” issues and arguments that can ensue from the vague ‘measure from the hull but we don’t define hull... go agree between you’ rules. A base makes a Warbuggy follow exactly the same measuring and LOS rules as an Imperial Knight, a Grot, a Guardsman and a Sentinel.

I don’t see it as anything other than sensible, tbh. Are there any actual negative reasons or issues it causes, or is it purely a case of We Fear Change from some quarters?

I personally think based vehicles look like ass. That doesn't have anything to do with change. Fortunately for me, that's my opinion. It doesn't need logic or mathematical formulas to prove it.

Well, for low-to-the-ground tanks... Yeah, that's fine.

For Knights, it's fething dumb. Because, since you measure from base to base, that means a BANEBLADE, without a base, can hit people in the second floor of a ruins, but an Imperial Knight can't!

And GW knew-THEY KNEW-they added a damn strat to let them attack second floors! Instead of fixing it!

Definitely “We fear change”. I think I’d actually prefer if all vehicles (such as Rhinos, Land Raiders, Triarch Stalkers, etc.) came with bases.

I think it looks a bit worse than without bases and I prefer my vehicles not having bases. But it bothers me as much as someone having an odd paint scheme.

 Elbows wrote:
I personally think based vehicles look like ass. That doesn't have anything to do with change. Fortunately for me, that's my opinion. It doesn't need logic or mathematical formulas to prove it.

Aesthetic preference is an entirely valid opinion.

I'm OK as long as it's not flying bases like Tau Devilfish. Those bases are the spawn of Satan.

meleti wrote:
I'm OK as long as it's not flying bases like Tau Devilfish. Those bases are the spawn of Satan.

I concur...feth flying bases as well. This is how I do my grav tanks.

Flight pegs cut to size, inverted and drilled/glued into the base of the grav tanks. Invisible, stable, and allows them to be placed on bizarre terrain easily.

 Elbows wrote:

meleti wrote:
I'm OK as long as it's not flying bases like Tau Devilfish. Those bases are the spawn of Satan.

I concur...feth flying bases as well. This is how I do my grav tanks.

Flight pegs cut to size, inverted and drilled/glued into the base of the grav tanks. Invisible, stable, and allows them to be placed on bizarre terrain easily.

Spoiler:

That's freaking genius!
Have you had anyone take issue with it? Tournaments?

Nope, but I also don't do tournaments. Keep in mind stuff like the Eldar Grav Tanks have a specific rule in the datasheet that you measure to the hull and NOT the base (because it's a little gak flying stand under that big tank). So really there's zero reason to be concerned with it. I don't know if Tau tanks have the same.

Personally I'm all for all vehicles having bases if only because they can be put on the same terrain as the rest of your army, and it'd protect the paint on the bottom from potential marring by terrain or tables.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

meleti wrote:
I'm OK as long as it's not flying bases like Tau Devilfish. Those bases are the spawn of Satan.

I concur...feth flying bases as well. This is how I do my grav tanks.

Flight pegs cut to size, inverted and drilled/glued into the base of the grav tanks. Invisible, stable, and allows them to be placed on bizarre terrain easily.

Spoiler:

That's freaking genius!
Have you had anyone take issue with it? Tournaments?

You're supposed to measure from the model itself so I can't imagine a tournament having issue.

"Why all the hate?"

Because that's Warhammer 40k. There is always going to be someone whinging about something.

But if you measure from the model, I'm pretty sure the base isn't required for the final build.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Can’t believe I’ve seen negative posts regarding the new Ork vehicles having bases!

So long as they don’t do dumb things like with some Grav tank rules, bases eliminate all the “which bit do I measure from?” issues and arguments that can ensue from the vague ‘measure from the hull but we don’t define hull... go agree between you’ rules. A base makes a Warbuggy follow exactly the same measuring and LOS rules as an Imperial Knight, a Grot, a Guardsman and a Sentinel.

I don’t see it as anything other than sensible, tbh. Are there any actual negative reasons or issues it causes, or is it purely a case of We Fear Change from some quarters?

Well for one it nerfs vehicle#. Knight without base wouldn't need waste cp to attack models in higher level of ruins


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
"Why all the hate?"

Because that's Warhammer 40k. There is always going to be someone whinging about something.

But if you measure from the model, I'm pretty sure the base isn't required for the final build.

Alas i can't opt to not use base. That would be Considered modeling for advantage as that WOULD benefit me

Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically can't you model for advantage with bases a bit easier?

Because guns fire from <anywhere> on a hull, but to be hit you just have to measure to the vehicles base.

All Tournament vehicles should be placed on the base as close to the front. If you don't you'll just be creating the model sub-optimally. If its true, I'd rather no bases any day

That's rather minor compared giving immunity to close combat with base.

Also often bases don't fit well leaving huge empty area to one dimension. Not many vehicles are round after all

If it's not a walker it shouldn't have a base. All walker should have a base though. I've put my Defilers on them ever since the Mechanicus Dunecrawler came out.

Aesthetically bases on tanks or other wheeled/tracked vehicles are not super exciting, but when rules are concerned they do tend to make a few things less ambiguous. Things like is model X within 1" of vehicle Y's hull and eligible to attack in CC. Since hull is kinda undefined in many cases (especially when Ork contraptions are considered) a base does make measuring a lot easier.

A model with a base looks worse and has weaker rules in attack and stronger in defence. For orks having a base is a serious disadvantage.

 koooaei wrote:
A model with a base looks worse and has weaker rules in attack and stronger in defence. For orks having a base is a serious disadvantage.

"A serious disadvantage" sounds like hyperbole. Care to elaborate?

 Weazel wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
A model with a base looks worse and has weaker rules in attack and stronger in defence. For orks having a base is a serious disadvantage.

"A serious disadvantage" sounds like hyperbole. Care to elaborate?

Ever had "pleasure" of having gorkanaut be pretty much incapable of taking out objective because it's protected by squad 3" from ground that you can't really do anything? Can't attack it in h2h, shooting is so inefficient short of super hyper luck you ain't killing them.

1++ with no 1 always fail rule for enemy stinks.

I'm not sure on the base to be honest.

The reason is purely one of aesthetics. I currently have all manner of vehicles that are of similar size, particularly Trukks in this instance, that have no base and for consistency I'd like these models to be the same as those.

If GW say we must use the bases for these Buggies I'll probably have to go and get bases for all my Trukks. Which is a faff.

tneva82 wrote:

 Weazel wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
A model with a base looks worse and has weaker rules in attack and stronger in defence. For orks having a base is a serious disadvantage.

"A serious disadvantage" sounds like hyperbole. Care to elaborate?

Ever had "pleasure" of having gorkanaut be pretty much incapable of taking out objective because it's protected by squad 3" from ground that you can't really do anything? Can't attack it in h2h, shooting is so inefficient short of super hyper luck you ain't killing them.

1++ with no 1 always fail rule for enemy stinks.

That's correct. Having a base makes you incapable of reaching the 2d floor of a ruin unless you place the model on it's side, so that the base starts standing vertically. It looks awful and is usually considered a tfg behavior, though it's not, strictly speaking, forbidden in the rules.

If you don't do it, you end up with a model incapable of dealing with stuff higher than 1' + base hight above the ground. Your model becomes equivalent to a pancake when it comes to assault. Even though it uses it's full hull when it shoots or is getting shot.

At the same time, if a model doesn't have a base it continues to use it's hull in assault and can occasionally tag models on 2-d floors of ruins or on hills and barrels and stuff like that. At the same time, it can be targeted from the 2d floor itself but it comes into play extremely rarely unlike the situation described above.

So, a model with a base is usually worse than the same model without a base unlesd you want to rotate the model vertically. In which case it's almost the same. But you end up with sidedoor drifts.

All this stuff is a thing only when it comes to assault, so if you gunline and don't move, don't bother it won't affect you much. But ork shooting forces you to mellee, that's why the new buggy, being an awesome model, is spoilt by having a base. Both rules and looks wise.

Since bases aren't technically required in the rules, I say do whatever you like. If you think they're cool, then slap them on, if not then don't.

Bases make sense on walkers, just like they do on infantry, but they just make other vehicles awkwardly shaped for moving and difficult to store/transport in a case.

Dandelion wrote:
Since bases aren't technically required in the rules, I say do whatever you like. If you think they're cool, then slap them on, if not then don't.

Alas that will generally not be accepted on tournaments. If it was any tournament player would put knights baseless. Ditto for ork walkers or hell walkers in general.

Iirc you're forced to put the models on based thry come with.

 koooaei wrote:
Iirc you're forced to put the models on based thry come with.

There is no such stipulation in the rules actually. There's basically nothing about how to build your models this edition in fact!

Of course tournaments will have their own rules on it.

 Elbows wrote:

meleti wrote:
I'm OK as long as it's not flying bases like Tau Devilfish. Those bases are the spawn of Satan.

I concur...feth flying bases as well. This is how I do my grav tanks.

Flight pegs cut to size, inverted and drilled/glued into the base of the grav tanks. Invisible, stable, and allows them to be placed on bizarre terrain easily.

Spoiler:

This is flipping great!

To answer the original question, I think it’s largely unfamiliarity. People have got used to a certain look, and it looks incongruous when that’s changed. Personally, I feel like it makes *sense*, but it still looks off to me. In time, I’ll probably get used to it and not remember what the fuss was about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
Iirc you're forced to put the models on based thry come with.

It’s true. I found an old box of Marines which I was going to put on 32s to match my newer ones, then GW sent a bunch of large chaps round who threatened to break my knees until I glued them onto 25s.

Vehicles can't get to higher levels of ruins, regardless of base. How does the base give THE BUGGY "a serious disadvantage".

Try playing a TWC list and look at Gretchins laughing at you from the second floor of ruins... Vehicles, cavalry or bikes cannot climb levels of ruins, and the intent is clearly that you cannot attack stuff up there, base or not.