Baseless Base Accusations about bases

[Lord Xcapobl]

So here I am with a slight dilemma.

What bases should I use to put my new, custom, Astra Militarum heavy weapons teams on?
While the answer seems rather straightforward, the following points tend to wreck that simple train of thought.

The AM codex only lists a heavy weapon team as a single model, with the Bulky special rule. The AM codex no longer specifies the base size specifically.

Then I look at the new shiney 7th edition rulebook. There is a section on models and base sizes on page 9. However, it doesn't solve the issue, it brings more questions. You see, the "custom" HWT I mentioned? They are a mix and match of several bits from various sources. The heavy weapons themselves were left over bits from regular Cadian Heavy Weapon Teams boxes. The tripods were bits scavenged through Ebay. the torsos and arms are leftover bits or custom orders as well. The legs and heads... same. I never ordered these new heavy weapons teams as complete kits in a box. I didn't get any bases with them.

The rules try to help, by stating I should mount such models without bases on bases based on bases as seen on similar models. Then it all went to... something less pleasant. When using similar models for comparison and example, I still have four options. First is to mount these custom new HWTs on a 60mm round base. The same as the plastic Cadian and Catachan HWTs anyways. However, similar models might also mean to look at rules, like Bulky. In that case I should mount the HWTs on 40mm round bases like I did my Terminators or other Bulky models. The third option would have to be to mount the HWT on 25mm round bases or slottabases. They are infantry, and the average infantry model is a guardsman, which comes with his own 25mm base. Fourth, and this would probably the option for the heavy weapon itself, is not to use a base at all. While the current plastic Cadian and Catachan HWT boxes come with a 60mm round base, all those still available blisterpacks with Praetorian Guard HWTs, and those Tallarn metal HWTs, and those Mordian Iron Guard HWTs in blisterpacks, and more some such, don't mount the heavy weapon on a base at all.

And yes, I do realise some other implications here. Accusations of cheating aside (knowing this would be 'modeling for advantage' as opinionated by some), I know the small bases opposed to 60mm bases are an advantage in the game. Heck, even space Orks that fire their rokkit launchas backwards would have a hard time missing the big, round bases most HWTs come on these days. Smaller bases mean less of a chance of getting clipped by a blast marker or template. Also, smaller bases have the advantage of fitting inside building models more easily (ever try to balance a regular HWT with a 60mm base on the upper floor of an administratum building, corner section?) Of course, there are many more advantages, and disadvantages, with using different base sizes.

I will probably mount the individual models on whatever the heck I can base them on, likely a 40mm and a 25mm base for the heavy weapon with its operator, and the loader in that order, and then also build a scenic base on a 60mm plate to accomodate both separate models as a single team, allowing me to remove the loader as some sort of wound marker.
However, the rules in this matter are unclear, imprecise, allow too much interpretation, and as such also foster quite some Baseless Base Accusations about bases.
 

[Centurio]

Seems you are making this pretty complicated. Why not just use the same bases as the normal HWTs?

[Frater Cornelius]

Page 9 BRB:

" The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the bases they are supplied with. Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't supplied with bases at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to mount these model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance."

 

So yeah, you can do your thing but do not expect this to fly on some tourneys. In a casual environment people do it all the time so no issues there.

I mount my heroes on artsy bases, though those are identical in size to their usual ones, just a bit higher and prettier.

[Teetengee]

The only safe option is the standard 60mm base. But most players will probably be fine with anything as long as the models look like they fit on the base well (i.e. don't seem weirdly squished in or hanging off the edges.).

[WarriorFish]

I think it would help if you had pictures to show us, but from the sounds of it are they mostly the old metals? In which case it's fine to have them as is, but as Centurio the easiest thing is to mount them on 60mm bases like the current HWTs to avoid any possible issues.

[march10k]

60mm.  Comparing a two man heavy weapons team to a space marine with a heavy weapon is intellectual fraud, pure and simple.  "similar models" does not mean "models with similar special rules."  It does not mean "models from a different codex that fit the same FOC category."  Mine are actually on 40mm bases (they're old metal cadians) from when I first put them together over ten years ago, but I have a few bags of 60mm bases and rebasing them is...somewhere...on my to-do list.

[Kierdale]

Go with the 60mm. Safe and will save you a long explanation that your opponent doesn't really want to hear anyway (everyone just wants to get in with the game and have to remember as few 'special' things about the OpFor as possible, I find).

After the game I might want to ask about interesting conversions and characters.

[Lord Xcapobl]

Seems you are making this pretty complicated. Why not just use the same bases as the normal HWTs?

 

I would say GW made this complicated, because of this:

 

http://www.ciphergames.com/media/40K/imperial_guard/cadian_heavy_weapons.jpg

Cadian Heavy Weapon team...

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9NrI6CkvV3A/ToYqaADfOAI/AAAAAAAAAOk/rUicpEsbefg/s1600/TallarnHeavyBolterMain_445x319.jpg

Tallarn Heavy Weapon team.

 

http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2008/11/29/2145-Heavy%20Weapon%20Team,%20Imperial%20Guard,%20Praetorians,%20Warhammer%2040,000.jpg

Praetorian Heavy Weapon team

 

Which of these would you think is normal, and which would then be abnormal?

I know one is new, and some are old, but they are but still available (through different means, but available nonetheless)

 

As for tournament, those are not taken into account here. I don't attend them.

I just have a bunch of spare parts, from different sources and even different companies. I like to make HWTs with them, and when I read the rules about bases, I see that I can do whatever I want? Because one can quote all the rules one wants, but they still don't say more than (AM Codex) change two models and a weapon into one bulky model, or (7th Rulebook) just place models without base on bases equal to similar models. Now, guidelines such as bulky rules aside, the above three images really show why things are somewhat complicated.

 

And as far as what I should be doing, that last image nicely ties into my own intention. Base them however I want, and then model a 60mm somewhat scenic base where all three models fit.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Cadian Heavy Weapons Team. 60mm base. Easy as pie. It's what my Drone-Piloted HWTs are based on.

 

My Crisis Suits are on a 40mm base, but are Very Bulky, which renders your point about Bulk = Base Size irrelevant, though sadly it simply isn't relevant to begin with. Broadsides, on a 60mm base, are Extremely Bulky, and thus it's not very relevant to try to correlate base size to model bulkiness. 

[CyderPirate]

If you can, got with 60mm, I'm in the same boat and have the crew on a 25mm base next to the gun. Most of my opponents are happy with that (I don't do tourneys either) and I always give them the benefit of the doubt with blasts etc.

[spafe]

My metal cadian hwt arn't based. This is mainly due to me not having any bases. If I was to buy some I would buy 60mm ones, simply to match existing stuff sold. I also would consider 40mm ones as I think the models look better as the ehavy wep (and crew if he sits on it) on that base then the extra crew beside.

 

Getting 60mm bases is the gw answer, as thats whats currently suplpied. However if you wish to play with old metal ones without bases thats also fine. Its like the old metal chaos dred that didnt come with a base, doesnt mean one nowadays shouldnt have one if you converted it...

 

Last point, the pretorian ones you site are conversions, they came the same style as the tallern ones, so thats a bit misleading...

[Teetengee]

Basing them however you like and modeling a 60mm scenic will definitely work, as worst comes to worst you can just play them on the 60mm base. For the initial basing I would then just go with whatever size bases seem to fit the model best.

[Emperors Immortals]

If it helps, im going to base mine like the Tallarn.

 

Gues it only matters what you want to look at and what your friends will play against.

 

The other option is to just cut some 60mm card circles to define "official" base area and base your mini however you want, its kind of what I had to do when Terminator base sizes changed about 800 years ago.

[march10k]

Seems you are making this pretty complicated. Why not just use the same bases as the normal HWTs?

I would say GW made this complicated, because of this:

http://www.ciphergames.com/media/40K/imperial_guard/cadian_heavy_weapons.jpg

Cadian Heavy Weapon team...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9NrI6CkvV3A/ToYqaADfOAI/AAAAAAAAAOk/rUicpEsbefg/s1600/TallarnHeavyBolterMain_445x319.jpg

Tallarn Heavy Weapon team.

http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2008/11/29/2145-Heavy%20Weapon%20Team,%20Imperial%20Guard,%20Praetorians,%20Warhammer%2040,000.jpg

Praetorian Heavy Weapon team

Which of these would you think is normal, and which would then be abnormal?

I know one is new, and some are old, but they are but still available (through different means, but available nonetheless)

As for tournament, those are not taken into account here. I don't attend them.

I just have a bunch of spare parts, from different sources and even different companies. I like to make HWTs with them, and when I read the rules about bases, I see that I can do whatever I want? Because one can quote all the rules one wants, but they still don't say more than (AM Codex) change two models and a weapon into one bulky model, or (7th Rulebook) just place models without base on bases equal to similar models. Now, guidelines such as bulky rules aside, the above three images really show why things are somewhat complicated.

And as far as what I should be doing, that last image nicely ties into my own intention. Base them however I want, and then model a 60mm somewhat scenic base where all three models fit.

No. There is no controversy. It's not complicated at all. The metal guardsmen you're showing are from the 1990s. I have an entire army of them. They are no longer for sale from GW. Every IG heavy weapons team available for sale today from GW comes with a 60mm base.

I can get this model off of ebay:

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/$(KGrHqJHJFMF!OFKG(kZBQhr)On!C!~~60_35.JPG

By your reasoning, that permits me to field a squat armed with a hand flamer in a regular game of 40k?

There is only one proper base size for a heavy weapons team. It's 60mm.

My metal cadian hwt arn't based. This is mainly due to me not having any bases. If I was to buy some I would buy 60mm ones, simply to match existing stuff sold. I also would consider 40mm ones as I think the models look better as the ehavy wep (and crew if he sits on it) on that base then the extra crew beside.

Mine actually are on 40mm bases, except for the lascannons, which are on 60mm, and my opponents are fine with it:

They've been on those bases since I first built them back in 3rd edition, when I went out of my way to buy bases for them because I wanted them to be displayed on the same terrain as the rest of the squad. At the time, there was no requirement for a model to have a base at all! But if I were starting from scratch today, I'd put them on 60mm bases, and I do actually have a couple bags of those to rebase them with...after ETL.

[Lord Xcapobl]

 

By your reasoning, that permits me to field a squat armed with a hand flamer in a regular game of 40k?  

 

There is only one proper base size for a heavy weapons team.  It's 60mm.  

 

So, in the Current Codex Astra Militarum, page 70, GW break its own rules, just to add a bit of fuel to the fire again.

Look at the 'massed ranks' picture. Almost in the lower right corner. I see a Cadian missile launcher on a 25mm base. Behind him is a loader model. Also on a 25mm base.

All that in the same new codex that no longer specifically specifies base size for a heavy weapon team.

 

Page 86 shows the same missile launcher team (somewhere on the left, in front of the heavy bolter teams). If you look carefully, they are based on small round bases, not on 60mm bases.

 

As for the squat... well. Need I reason that the squats no longer have a valid army list of their own? And the Guard does in the form of the AM Codex? Tallarns are at least acknowledged in the AM Codex. They exist. If I buy Tallarn HWTs from Forge World, they get a 60mm base, if I somehow buy the older models through sources other than GW, they have different bases, specifically a round 25mm slottabase, and none for the heavy weapon carriage. But I can buy the older models, and use them in a contemporary, valid list.

[Teetengee]

Models may always be used on the base they originally came on. If that is unavailable they should be modeled on the bases that their contemporary versions (or closest substitutes) are provided with. Hence why 60mm should be used for any heavy weapons teams that do not have their own base. That being said, it only matters if your opponents care about that. Rule of cool states that you should base them on what looks good, and that should be fine if you are not going to tournaments with them.

[march10k]

 

 

So, in the Current Codex Astra Militarum, page 70, GW break its own rules

 

~sigh~  Photographs are not rules!  Fluffy statements about space marines having the strength of ten men do not make them S30, either. But, yes, the models you cite do not follow GW's rules for basing models.  

 

The squat could be a guardsman, an inquisitorial henchman, a chaos cultist...the interesting part is the hand flamer, not the species of its bearer.

 

If I buy Tallarn HWTs from Forge World, they get a 60mm base, if I somehow buy the older models through sources other than GW, they have different bases, specifically a round 25mm slottabase, and none for the heavy weapon carriage. But I can buy the older models, and use them in a contemporary, valid list.

 

Yes, you can.  But you must base the older models on 60mm round bases if you want to be in compliance with the current rules.  Obviously, if your opponent doesn't care, then you can run your heavy weapons team as two 25mm-based models (in the case of an old metal lascannon or mortar) plus the weapon that's not on a base at all, or one 25mm-based loader and a gunner sitting on an unbased weapon (old metal autocannons and heavy bolters), or two 25mm-based models (old metal missile launcher), or one 25mm-based model, and one model (the gunner) on a WFB horse base (the missile team again).  You can do whatever you want with your models, and it's up to your opponent how to handle the discrepancy between your bases and the rules.  But you cannot argue that there is any ambiguity in the rules themselves.  IG heavy weapons teams are a single two-wound model on a 60mm base.  That is the rule.  There is nothing controversial or unclear about that.  And as I've already said, my missile launchers and autocannons (I don't use anything else, although I have everything) are on 40mm bases, and my opponents are fine with that even though it breaks the rules.  But you're not asking what's socially acceptable, you're trying to argue that it's technically legal to use something other than a 60mm round base.  It is not.

[Teetengee]

AFAIK the only exception to the 60mm rule would be older models that were provided with a smaller base in their original packaging. These follow the rule for putting models on the base provided which supercedes the rule for models being on bases similar to similar models. But if you are scratch-building/kitbashing, I suggest 60mm (or the solutions I have discussed above).

[CoffeeGrunt]

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1390/qa0n.png

 

This is an official GW image of a model.

 

You are now required by law to not put that track segment onto any of your Baneblades.

[Frater Cornelius]

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1390/qa0n.png

 

This is an official GW image of a model.

 

You are now required by law to not put that track segment onto any of your Baneblades.

 

Stupid, cliched, too obvious but funnily enough that's a true statement. GW made rules, but it does not mean that they will or even can follow them 100%. I am sure the design team made mistakes while playing their own games, but that does not mean that meltas now have 13" range (for example). Neither does any mistake on a photo mean it is correct, it just means that GW failed to follow their own rules, period. What matters is page 9 BRB and nothing else, unless agreed between you and your opponent and/or organizer.

[Arkaniss]

I plan on putting my old metal Cadian Shock Trooper HWTs on a 60mm base when I get round to it. For simplicities sake (and so I can base them nicely to match the rest of the squad) it will also mean it's easier for a game as whatever the rules state it's your opponent you need to keep happy for a game.

 

This whole conversation does make me wonder where my old cardboard Ork Dreadnought is... the base it came with was tiny ;)

[WarriorFish]

Let's not get caught in circles about bases of all things, I'd hate to have to give this topic the Emperor's benediction.

I plan on putting my old metal Cadian Shock Trooper HWTs on a 60mm base when I get round to it. For simplicities sake (and so I can base them nicely to match the rest of the squad) it will also mean it's easier for a game as whatever the rules state it's your opponent you need to keep happy for a game.

This whole conversation does make me wonder where my old cardboard Ork Dreadnought is... the base it came with was tiny

I imagine for simplicities sake it's probably best to leave the cardboard Dreadnought as a curiosity on the shelf...

[march10k]

AFAIK the only exception to the 60mm rule would be older models that were provided with a smaller base in their original packaging. These follow the rule for putting models on the base provided which supercedes the rule for models being on bases similar to similar models. But if you are scratch-building/kitbashing, I suggest 60mm (or the solutions I have discussed above).

 Incorrect. The rule says use the base the model IS provided with, not WAS provided with. Therefore, the rule only applies if the model is still being provided (by GW). For OOP models, apply the "similar model" rule, which leads you to the HWTs that GW is currently selling...with 60mm bases.

 

 

 

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1390/qa0n.png

 

This is an official GW image of a model.

 

You are now required by law to not put that track segment onto any of your Baneblades.

ROFL. Wait. Photographs are now rules? Oh, wait, they're not.

[Emperors Immortals]

Man, that cardboard dread was great. Goffs if I recall correctly.

 

Anyway, the base size can only be relevant if your opponant says something, 60mm is simply an accepted standard to ensure smoother gameplay.

 

Mount them on pebbles if you want, it won't matter if your oponants don't care.

[Kierdale]

Various opinions have been offered, as well as interpretations of the basing rules.

It is now up to Lord Xcapobl to decide what he will do (which includes asking me to reopen this thread via PM if he so desires).

I am closing the thread for now.

I'll also add a suggestion that when giving one's opinion, no matter how much you disagree with the other's views, remaining polite and respectful is not only appreciated by the site staff but also you're more likely to have an effect on the other person's opinion via calm, reasoned debate.

If all else fails, don't bang your head against a brick wall.