Pro and Con for Re-sizing Bases

[sibomots]

I've tried to follow some of the threads here that cast questions regarding the size of bases.

 

Out of the box the base size seems to be 25mm for troops,  30mm for larger troops, etc..

 

The "pro" I've read are:

 

The units look better on slightly larger bases

 

The "con" I've read are:

 

Larger bases provides  less density of models under templates thus the defender an unfair advantage.

 

 

I'm leaning towards making bases that are slightly larger than the OEM bases because it look better to me (5mm larger).  I have a machine lathe so  I can turn new bases out to whatever size I need.

 

What actually is the straight story on the size (re-size) of bases?

 

 

 

 

[GreyCrow]

Well, against Templates it's definitely an advantage. Against Blasts however, you're actually providing a larger unit footprint even if you spread them out, so Blasts have more chance to hit. They might not hit more, but they'll hit more often when they scatter a lot.

 

What it also provides is more guys attacking in melee even with a low charge range. Because you measure 2" from the base of one of your model in BtB contact of the enemy, if your squad is conga lining and your charge range is low, you'll eventually get a couple more guys to attack.

 

I feel they look better with Marines, they actually "show" that Marines are bulkier than the average dude.

[h0U5e]

In addition to the above, units will have a larger footprint when deep striking or disembarking from a drop pod or transport making it harder to stay out of LOS.

[defl0]

Another big one is hiding. 5 guys in a rhino can hide behind it if the rhino blows. much harder with big bases, hits infiltrate pretty hard too. 

 

On the flip side it's great for bubble wrapping

[Jacinda]

What it also provides is more guys attacking in melee even with a low charge range. Because you measure 2" from the base of one of your model in BtB contact of the enemy, if your squad is conga lining and your charge range is low, you'll eventually get a couple more guys to attack.

Yes and no. With larger bases, you can be farther back, but fewer models will fit in the 2" range.

 

Also, with larger bases, more enemy models can be in base to base, but fewer of your larger bases can be in base to base with an enemy.

 

If you center a small blast template over a 25mm bases, it will miss the model if it scatters 2". If the marker is centered over a 32mm base, it will need to scatter 3" to miss the model.

 

Anyway, I don't think any of these make enough of a difference to be measurable unless you start taking things to an extreme, like putting IG on 120mm ovals or some other silly shenanigans.

 

The straight story is: use what you want.

[ShinyRhino]

As far as aesthetics, this is what Scouts look like on 32mm bases:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/303044-for-corax-a-raven-guard-progress-log/?p=4024067

 

(Note that those are custom cast bases that were built on stock GW bases. Diameter is 100% identical.)

[Graymane]

They did say when i was last in GW that they were planning on up-basing everything in power armour to a 32mm base (see newer necron immortals, bloodangels, etc) however the was not overwhelmingly popular and is therefore now merely optional.

 

You can use a 32mm base 'legally' if you wish, but it is not compulsory.

 

:)

[Peredyne]

I just started building a Space Wolves army and swapped out the standard bases for the 32mm bases and it makes a huge difference in the visual impact of the minis.

[Kaedes Nex]

I've tried to follow some of the threads here that cast questions regarding the size of bases.

 

Out of the box the base size seems to be 25mm for troops,  30mm for larger troops, etc..

 

The "pro" I've read are:

 

The units look better on slightly larger bases

 

The "con" I've read are:

 

Larger bases provides  less density of models under templates thus the defender an unfair advantage.

 

 

I'm leaning towards making bases that are slightly larger than the OEM bases because it look better to me (5mm larger).  I have a machine lathe so  I can turn new bases out to whatever size I need.

 

What actually is the straight story on the size (re-size) of bases?

 

Smaller bases are the better option, if going purely by gameplay advantage. This is the reason you are never allowed to shrink your base, but you are always allowed to use a larger, diorama base.

 

They both have pros and cons. You should use whichever one looks better. I actually prefer the look of 25mm since all my marines have walking and running legs and don't hang off the edge. The 32mm looks very large and empty if I switched to those. Plus I have to pay money to switch to begin with, will have to buy new foam trays, get hit more easily by templates, can't hide behind Rhinos or terrain as easily, etc. I will definitely miss the advantage of larger footprint for assault, getting in range, and movement though, but it's not worth upgrading to me.

 

You said you prefer the look of larger bases, so just use the base size you want. By the way, your numbers are a bit off. It's 25mm for small infantry, 32mm for power armor and other larger infantry, 40mm for heavy infantry, 50mm for special units, and 60mm for monsters and above. If you want a 30mm base, I'm sure that's fine, just count it as slightly larger 25mm.

[sibomots]

I'm building a new army and have not based them yet.  I was hesitant to base them until I could come to decision about the sizes. If I did go with larger bases, I'd have to order them online and the choices for pre-molded textured bases was dizzying.  A lot of cool stuff out there.  The shipping times were less than ideal though (4 weeks from the UK to the States, for example).  I'm anxious to get the army fielded for some events planned at the shop in May.

 

After reading your post, I am more interested in going with the default sizes.  I think that'll work out fine.  Less surface area to screw up! ;-)

 

Thanks for the insights.

[Fibonacci]

 

This is the reason you are never allowed to shrink your base,

 

Where did you get that from?

 

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

 

Emphasis is mine, but by RAW you can mount them on whatever you want.  Make you own 15mm bases if you think they will look better.

[SW1]

 

 

This is the reason you are never allowed to shrink your base,

 

 

Where did you get that from?

 

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

 

Emphasis is mine, but by RAW you can mount them on whatever you want. Make you own 15mm bases if you think they will look better.

Think you missed the point of that quote. There's a qualifying sentence. "Some models are not supplied with a base at all. In these cases ..."

 

So the part your quoting is about models without a base. Stop just picking the little bit you like in a quote and read the entire thing!!!

[sibomots]

I'm new to this game, so I want to make choices that I can live with and fellow players can accept without any fuss.  So, keeping the base sizes OEM is just the right thing for me to do.

 

If I ever get into making special dioramas and such I may just use whatever works for that. But primarily I'm making models (for the time being) to play the game with folks at the shop's tables.

 

For those who want to explore the pro/con, I found the thread that sparked my curiosity: 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304293-should-i-buy-32-mm-bases/page-2?hl=%2Bbases&do=findComment&comment=4022476

[Fibonacci]

 

 

This is the reason you are never allowed to shrink your base,

 

Where did you get that from?

 

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

 

Emphasis is mine, but by RAW you can mount them on whatever you want. Make you own 15mm bases if you think they will look better.

Think you missed the point of that quote. There's a qualifying sentence. "Some models are not supplied with a base at all. In these cases ..."

 

So the part your quoting is about models without a base. Stop just picking the little bit you like in a quote and read the entire thing!!!

 

Does not matter.  It is an unusually modeled base.  It's allowed.

 

Just to be clear, the rule never says "must" in any way.  It says "assumes" and "may have" and "feel free" and "if you wish" but never must.

 

"Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases." -- that explicitly gives us permission to use unusually modeled bases.  It never says we have to use the original base if we don't want to.  I didn't leave anything out.  The entire rule was quoted.  Not just specific bits.  I added emphasis to point out the fact that it never states what we must do.  Only what we may do if we wish.

 

Unusually modeled base and I don't wish.  Therefore by RAW I can mount my terminators on 30mm hexagons or whatever I feel like modeling them with.

[sibomots]

+== The neophytes were rejoined with their Initiate Brothers and made double time  back to the Rhino for transport to the extraction point. It was a victorious battle, but all the same some of the Neophytes forced feelings away that would betray their vows. None dared to ask the question why there was more room in the Rhino than when they began the deployment.

 

+== Finally, after the Rhino was ready to haul out of the zone, the Sergeant appeared in the Rhino and was seated in the front.  He solemnly looked over his Unit and then tapped some keys on his arm mounted CommLink.  The more experienced Initiates all glanced towards the Sergeant and nodded in a way that communicated more acknowledgement than regret.

 

+== The Neophytes one by one came to realize the impact and stored the lesson learned.   It was at this moment that a voice began to crack through the closed space.  At the same instant the Rhino engines revved and the transport interior lights went dull red. No one else heard what the Neophyte Sibo had tried to say, but his Initiate Brother who trained him and worked to make him battle-forged heard.  A sudden shove by the Initiate into the shoulder of Neophyte Sibo stopped the question. The roar of the engine muffled the sound but the Initiate just said simply "25mm made the difference".  

 

++

 

+== Days later, another signal was received by the Unit and without a second thought the Unit was mustered in the loading dock for deployment.  How far had we traveled since the last mission, Neophyte Sibo wondered.  The question faded in his mind. It was not important.  But still, as his Brothers filed towards the dock A20 on the port side of the ship, he felt the urge to be thankful to the fact his base was standard issue 25mm, and none the worse for wear.  

 

+== The suns light blasted through the cavernous space as the bay doors opened.  Yet again, the Black Templar Sanctus Vendetta Crusade was thrust into battle.  

[SW1]

@sibo - sticking to standard sizes will mean you don't have any issues getting pick up games. Rather than having to spend ages explaining why you've chosen none standard and end up getting accused of modelling for advantage.

 

I look forward to seeing some of your models.

 

@ fib - reading that again I think you'll find it's saying models without a base can if you wish be stuck on a base. The base size appropriate to be used should be worked out using models of a similar size as guidance. Implying a bit of common sense to be used when basing models.

 

That went out the door when you tried arguing for using 15mm bases. When you start drastically changing things so it has an impact on the game mechanics for example blast markers or being able to squeeze more models behind scraps of cover. Then your arguing on the side of modelling for advantage and well ... You know how that looks.

 

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree rather than this discussion ending with a mod applying a melta. ;)

[Fibonacci]

@ fib - reading that again I think you'll find it's saying models without a base can if you wish be stuck on a base. The base size appropriate to be used should be worked out using models of a similar size as guidance. Implying a bit of common sense to be used when basing models.

 

But my models have a base.  They are unusually modeled bases.  There is no reason or rule that says I must change them.

[SW1]

 

 

@ fib - reading that again I think you'll find it's saying models without a base can if you wish be stuck on a base. The base size appropriate to be used should be worked out using models of a similar size as guidance. Implying a bit of common sense to be used when basing models.

 

But my models have a base. They are unusually modeled bases. There is no reason or rule that says I must change them.

No one is talking about YOUR models. You can do what you want with YOUR models.

 

It sounds like you've read something that is not directed at you, which has made you question what you've done. Now rather than discuss the issue you've seen it as a comment directed against you and over reacted going all out to justify something that hasn't even shown on anyone else's radar.

 

What there is an issue about is trying to give someone else bad advice to justify something you have done with your models. Advising someone to use none standard methods of basing when they are asking about the official stance on bases is just not cricket.

[Jacinda]

Could yall take this to the Rules forum or, better yet, PM?

 

The OP has been answered and while the rules are related, this is the modeling section. If you have an opinion on base to model proportions, great. I would like to hear it. But the argument about what is allowed is kind of a drag.

[sibomots]

Thanks. That's sorta of where I was heading.  Rules related, but it dealt with simple choices in the making of the models.

 

I scanned forwards and backwards through the current WH40k rule set and didn't see anything bold stand out regarding base-sizes.  

 

You're right that it's actually a rules question.  I posted in the wrong section (the OP).  I'll be more mindful of that in the future.

[SW1]

Thanks. That's sorta of where I was heading. Rules related, but it dealt with simple choices in the making of the models.

 

I scanned forwards and backwards through the current WH40k rule set and didn't see anything bold stand out regarding base-sizes.

 

You're right that it's actually a rules question. I posted in the wrong section (the OP). I'll be more mindful of that in the future.

Think the retort was more aimed at me n fib. Was a valid question we just moved it onto a more heated discussion.

 

So my apologies to you. ;)

[Valerian]

I re-based my Space Wolves, and have posted a few pictures, below, for perspective. Bottom line, there are some game-play disadvantages associated with upsizing your bases, and there are a couple game-play advantages. Generally speaking, it'll be a wash with neither size significantly outweighing the the other.

Outside of game-play, when judging purely on aesthetics, I prefer the new bases significantly over the older 25mm ones. These guys just look so much better (as does the rest of my army). I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

V