How particular are you about base sizes?

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

Yeah don´t think it was that late. I build some Wolf Guard Terminators based on the new plastics, multipart. And i put them on something bigger than 25mm.. Must have been 40mm, as that was the next size then? Same size as the 3rd Ed Warboss. I feel like this was around 2005 or so. Might even check..

[Rogue]

All my terminators are either the very early metal ones or from Space Hulk second edition (simple multi-part models, not the dynamic but fixed poses of later editions). All of them came with small slotta-bases (25mm, probably), and I wouldn't want to change them. 

 

Partly, it's because the rest of my marines (which span from the 2nd edition starter set through to the advent of primaris) are all on the same size bases. Partly, it's because the pedant in me leans into the "It's the bases they came with" thing (because they are). Partly, it's because they'd look lost on the bigger bases. And partly, it's because I still use them for Space Hulk (more than 40k, these days), and the big 40mm bases are just too big to fit easily, especially in close order.

 

However.

 

I also have lots of genestealers on 25mm bases (again, it's what they came on). GW are switching stealers over to 32mm, and in this case I'm tempted to follow suit. Stealer models overhang the 25mm base in every direction - it's virtually impossible to arrange them in base contact (more so in large groups), and they snag each other something horrible: pick one up, and a couple of others come with him every time.

 

Moving to the larger bases would give them space to breathe, make life easier, and would just about still work for Hulk (although I have plenty more I could use for that, if necessary). The main thing holding me back is the slotta-bases again. Old stealers have very little contact with the base, and are largely reliant on the slotta-tab to keep them upright. So I either need to cut them off at base level and hope they somehow stick, or I need to pry out each and every slotta-base, and then cut matching holes into the new bases. Neither sounds fun, and both sound likely to damage the existing paint jobs.

 

So the short version is: I feel no particular need to change bases for the sake of it, but could be tempted if it improves my quality of life during games. And even when I might want to, it can be tricky to execute.

[DemonGSides]

4 hours ago, Wolf Lord Duregar said:

Yeah don´t think it was that late. I build some Wolf Guard Terminators based on the new plastics, multipart. And i put them on something bigger than 25mm.. Must have been 40mm, as that was the next size then? Same size as the 3rd Ed Warboss. I feel like this was around 2005 or so. Might even check..

 

Yeah it was late 2000's. I'd say anytime between 2005 and 2010, I don't remember exactly. 

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

WD 304. April 2005

[Dark Legionnare]

1 hour ago, Wolf Lord Duregar said:

WD 304. April 2005

Okay, I'm not crazy after all! I was sure it was before I'd stopped adding onto the Blood Angels, around that time period before 5th was even announced or known. (How innocent young me was from the GW business model)

Memory is not quite so much of a sieve after all!

Edited June 5 by Dark Legionnare

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

Hehe, yeah. iirc 4th Ed was released like early autumn 2004 or so, so this is early during that Ed.

 

Good times..

[JeffJedi]

The new Terminator Captains are on 50mm bases, how could they ever do Space Hulk again?

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

He is? It is getting stupid now.

[Chaplain Killmer]

My DA army grows since 1993 i think and i have many additions to my army that never came with a base. My policy is as it was with GW too - the model has the base it was sold with. Plainly I field a Quad of metal terminators from the first box - they would look like clowns on a current terminator base.

[slitth]

I don't see any problem with it.

If you really want to stick to the rules, just right down the "official" base size and add or subtract as needed.

If the base is "suppose" to be 32 mm but are on a 40mm base instead, then you just add or subtract 8mm depending on the situation. 

[Dr. Clock]

On 6/15/2024 at 2:51 AM, slitth said:

then you just add or subtract 8mm depending on the situation. 

Not really feasible IMO. First of all it'd be 4mm not 8mm, because base sizes are diameter not radius. Once you've committed to using a mini, its base size/coverage is what it is because the game is won or lost by how many things can get into specific areas. We need to avoid at all costs any situations where we need to add or subtract from direct measurements between things, and especially if we are changing from mm to inches in the middle of measuring. Like... my charge range rolling a 7 vs a unit on 25mm instead of 40mm means I now need to measure 7"+7.5mm? No - you just can't do this consistently within the time allowed. Once it's on the table, the model's base IS where it is. 

 

Just to reiterate, my stance is simply that one size up or down is fine... If you're 2 sizes up (really shouldn't ever be happening, but I guess you might want to play a diorama or something lol) you can just reduce movement by an inch or something, and I guess I'll reduce charge distance into you by 1" as well, but then I also get to walk within an inch of you... and if 2 sizes down (25mm terminators) then I just ask that those units leave at least 1" between each other minis in the unit so that they don't get melee, disembark/reserves, line of sight or objective capture benefits that'd be impossible for a correctly based unit.

 

On 6/5/2024 at 2:13 PM, Rogue said:

and then cut matching holes into the new bases. Neither sounds fun, and both sound likely to damage the existing paint jobs.

Yeah - naw. I've cut a couple slottas into 32mm for some oldmarines, and do not recommend, especially at the level of whole units.

 

I can assure you that I'm not rebasing my Eldar for 3mm, though at this point 80% of my oldmarines made their way onto 32s because it really does make them look better. I just used the molded urban bases for the most part which at least have some more thickness so that you can pin the odd metal model on there.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

All my Terminators, vintage metal as well as more modern plastic, have been put onto 40mm bases. The RT era Terminators were glued with their 25mm base on top of the 40mm base and then texture paint has been added to the bases. I don´t think the old models look lost on the large bases. Check these RT era Chaos Terminators out which have been moved onto the 40mm bases:

 

https://ibb.co/album/60Yb0p

[Rogue]

They look great. But it also looks like you've put a fair bit of effort into those bases, which really helps to smooth the change from small to large, hiding the original base completely and filling the spare space with visual 'noise'.

 

Sadly, I'm extremely pedantic about my bases - everyone in the army has to have the same style of base (the only exception being models with scenic elements built-in, like tactical rocks and so on). Currently, that style is a thing layer of astrogranite for a gritty feel, followed by ink and a drybrush - in my case, it would exactly like a 25mm base on top of a 40mm base. So I either have to rebase everything in a busier style (not happening), or my terminators will look significantly different (not keen on that either).

 

So it can work (as you clearly show), but perhaps only if it fits in with your overall style.

[DemonGSides]

Just feels like doing the bare minimum to put forth the effort to be fair in a game.

 

If you're never playing then who cares?  But if you're actively using a 25mm based terminator in a game of current 40k you are basically just straight up cheating.

 

It really isn't that much work to slap them on top of other bases; repeatedly saying it is doesn't make that true. You don't even have to do extra base work; they'd just look like they have big plinth bases if you glue them somewhat centered and gives the benefits of having the correct base size for melee and also nearly the correct height for modern terminator sizes for line of sight.

 

I wouldn't bother if you're not gonna play with them. But otherwise it's about putting the best foot forward for the game you're trying to play and that means being intentionally forthright in army construction. 

[Antarius]

I'm generally very unconcerned, as long as it looks good. Occasionally I'll deviate from the official base sizes, if I think it looks better or there is some logistical reason (for example, I've just rebased my pink horrors on 28,5 mm bases because I think it looks better and it'll allow me to use them for Old World without a lot of hassle).

Since I'll never go to a tournament or anything like that, I really don't care too much about what's "official" - however, if I use a different size base, I'll always make sure to take the interpretation that's most favourable for my opponent when it comes to base sizes (i.e. you could probably hit one more with your template, or you could probably get into base contact with one or two more/less depending on your preference).

My way is not perfectly accurate, but generally I think that's just the nature of the beast with miniature games (let's face it, we muddle about with a lot of minis, so there's bound to be the occasional slip of a few mms here and there anyway), so we might as well be relaxed about it and just do what we find most aesthetically pleasing.

Edited June 24 by Antarius

[Antarius]

On 6/23/2024 at 12:04 AM, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

All my Terminators, vintage metal as well as more modern plastic, have been put onto 40mm bases. The RT era Terminators were glued with their 25mm base on top of the 40mm base and then texture paint has been added to the bases. I don´t think the old models look lost on the large bases. Check these RT era Chaos Terminators out which have been moved onto the 40mm bases:

 

https://ibb.co/album/60Yb0p

Yeah, a base that's too big/small can really do a lot for the look of the mini - sometimes in unexpected ways. I just rebased my pink horrors and my Tzeentch Herald that I pledged for Call to Arms and strangely enough the Herald actually looked bigger when transferred from 25 to 32 mm - if you'd asked me in advance, I'd have said he'd probably have seemed bigger on the smaller base, because he had a lot of overhang and seemed too big for the base.

In the end, it's probably very dependent on the mini and what you do with the extra base space. I think you managed to fill the space in a good way, which doesn't detract from the models.

Edited June 24 by Antarius

[Rogue]

9 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

Just feels like doing the bare minimum to put forth the effort to be fair in a game.

 

If you're never playing then who cares?  But if you're actively using a 25mm based terminator in a game of current 40k you are basically just straight up cheating.

 

It really isn't that much work to slap them on top of other bases; repeatedly saying it is doesn't make that true. You don't even have to do extra base work; they'd just look like they have big plinth bases if you glue them somewhat centered and gives the benefits of having the correct base size for melee and also nearly the correct height for modern terminator sizes for line of sight.

 

I wouldn't bother if you're not gonna play with them. But otherwise it's about putting the best foot forward for the game you're trying to play and that means being intentionally forthright in army construction. 

 

That's a little uncalled for, on both the effort and cheating fronts.

 

I think you've misunderstood my situation. My Marines (and Terminators) are currently in semi-retirement - two of my regular opponents are primarily Marine players, and the third has several flavours of power-armour amongst his armies, so I've been playing GSC almost exclusively for several years. My Terminators are more likely to see use in Space Hulk than they are in 40k (which is a good reason to keep them on Hulk-appropriate bases).

 

I agree that resizing the bases could be done with a bare minimum of effort. Get 40mm bases, glue the existing 25mm on top, job done. Functional, I guess, but it would do my head in; even if I painted the wider base to match, it would still be different to everything else in that army, and that's all I would ever see - Terminators with a 'wrong' base, even if more competitive players might deem it 'correct'.

 

Almost all of my games are friendly. If I were to ever put those Terminators down, I suspect my friends would be happy for them to run as is. We might agree that they shouldn't stand too close together or something, but given my usual win rate, even that probably wouldn't be necessary. In the highly unlikely event that I were off to a tournament, then I'd look to blu-tac them to 40mm bases to avoid arguments,  but they'd be coming straight off again when I got home.

 

[ The pedant in me is going to point out that the Core rules don't mention base sizes. Further, GW's position has traditionally been that models should be on the bases they came with, and my particular Terminators (from the 80s) came with 25mm bases. ]

[DemonGSides]

3 hours ago, Rogue said:

 

That's a little uncalled for, on both the effort and cheating fronts.

 

I think you've misunderstood my situation. My Marines (and Terminators) are currently in semi-retirement - two of my regular opponents are primarily Marine players, and the third has several flavours of power-armour amongst his armies, so I've been playing GSC almost exclusively for several years. My Terminators are more likely to see use in Space Hulk than they are in 40k (which is a good reason to keep them on Hulk-appropriate bases).

 

I agree that resizing the bases could be done with a bare minimum of effort. Get 40mm bases, glue the existing 25mm on top, job done. Functional, I guess, but it would do my head in; even if I painted the wider base to match, it would still be different to everything else in that army, and that's all I would ever see - Terminators with a 'wrong' base, even if more competitive players might deem it 'correct'.

 

Almost all of my games are friendly. If I were to ever put those Terminators down, I suspect my friends would be happy for them to run as is. We might agree that they shouldn't stand too close together or something, but given my usual win rate, even that probably wouldn't be necessary. In the highly unlikely event that I were off to a tournament, then I'd look to blu-tac them to 40mm bases to avoid arguments,  but they'd be coming straight off again when I got home.

 

[ The pedant in me is going to point out that the Core rules don't mention base sizes. Further, GW's position has traditionally been that models should be on the bases they came with, and my particular Terminators (from the 80s) came with 25mm bases. ]

 

I don't think I misunderstood anything.  I said right there; if you aren't playing with them, it doesn't matter what base they are on.  In your retired case, problem solved; if you like the way something looks, there it is, you SHOULD enjoy the modelling job that you did, and don't feel compelled just because new stuff came out!  It literally doesn't matter, they are there for your visual enjoyment; if anything, maybe make a sweet diorama!

But, if you want to play 40k 10th edition, the base sizes are proscribed by what GW includes in the current kits.  Your opponents, who are playing the game by the spirit of it (And not some weird rules lawyer thing that you're trying to advocate for), will be under the same expectation everyone else is, and that's that you use the base that's available to how the datasheet is currently sold.  Also, GW event packs mention that valid bases are the bases that are included in the current kits.  As there's no other authority on bases, that's the one to fall back on. GW makes this explicit in their rules for Warhammer World Tournaments (Source; here );

 

Now listen, I don't think you should play EVERYTHING like its a tournament.  That way lays madness.  If your routine opponents truly don't care, then of course keep on keeping on.  That being said, competitive integrity is really important, even in casual games.  It's no fun finding out that your opponent's been rigging the Monopoly game from the get-go by stealing 100's every time they go into the bank.  Same with Warhammer and modeling for advantage.

You even mentioned the easiest possible thing to do, some quick blue tack on bases for the game.  Then take em off when you put them back on the shelf.  Literally seconds of work, makes the game better for everyone, you get to also enjoy your paint job without having to do a bunch of extra work.  I think the game integrity and the enjoyment that brings is worth it, especially if it also cuts down on mental overhead that you're asking your opponents to do, and for you to remember and calculate while making gaming decisions.

I'm not calling you a cheater, but it is cheating to gain advantage by not following rules or expectations.  I'm not sorry for having the opinion that we should be trying to play the game correctly; when I mistakenly rolled a 4+ when it was supposed to be a 5+ because a gun stripped my Cover, that means I cheated.  I'm not a capital C Cheater, forever to be branded an outcast, but I did cheat and in the future I'm going to try to do better.  What I'm not going to do is "Well, before Cover wasn't an armor save improvement, it worked a different way, so that's how I'm going to keep going forward."

The effort comment I think is warranted.  I don't even paint all of my my guys, but I do make sure that things like wings, bases, and anything that impacts the mechanics of the game are legitimate, including WYSIWYG as MUCH as possible (When I don't, I make sure it's BLATANTLY obvious, such as "All melta guns are actually lascannons" or whatever).  You can definitely use the terminators on small bases once, but after that, if you were my opponent, i'd say "Lets grab some blue tac, I've got some 40's right here, and lets get those bad boys official for our game."  It just makes it easier for everyone and costs borderline nothing.

Because I agree that the paintjob and the care put into the model is super important.  But part of the hobby is the gaming side as well, if you're going to engage in that, I think it's worth putting that same effort and care with trying to play correctly whenever possible.  Having correct base sizes is like, the easiest thing in the world to do, and is worthwhile for the integrity it brings to the game.

 

I'm sorry if you felt like I was attacking you about this, but you're basically the only person interacting.  Especially, 10th edition REALLY cares about base sizes (Because of aura sizes, as well as how Melee works and how movement works (moreso even now with the Pivot rules), possibly even more than the editions you bought those models in).  I just think it's worth it for the game.

 

Eventually you could even just magnetize the whole shebang, and making 20 or so magnetize 40mm that you can just slap your termies on real quick for game day would be the easiest of all worlds; a little more up front hobby investment, but then you've got a quick go of it every time you take em for a stroll.

 

 

[Antarius]

From a gaming pov, I’d much rather play against a painted army on incorrect bases than an unpainted army on correct bases. The aesthetic experience is absolutely part of the gaming experience and many people tend to forget about that (which is probably what causes a lot of the disconnects in these types of discussions).

 

I am reminded of a youtube video I watched recently, where Alessio Cavatore talked about playtesting Warmaster with Rick Priestley. Rick had been kinda dubious that Alessio would be able to get everything ready for playtesting, which Alessio hadn’t really understood. When Rick came over, Alessio had everything ready; correctly sized pieces of cardboard with unit names on them, outlines of are terrain etc. - Rick basically just went “but how will we know how it feels to play this game?”

The way Alessio tells it, Rick’s reaction was something of an eye-opener. It really took him by surprise, because he just hadn’t considered the look and feel of the minis and battlefield part of the game, up to that point.

 

Now, obviously, I rarely, if ever, manage to paint up an entire army (which is one of my great sources of hobby woe), but I’d definitely prefer to play with/against an army that looks and feels immersive, rather than something more akin to playing pieces. Which is not to say that my preference is necessarily better than anyone else’s, but I think the point about different approaches is relevant in any case.

[apologist]

I don't think this is at all clear-cut. @DemonGSides, while there's lots of details that I agree with in your post, I think your central argument hews rather too closely to the wording, rather than the spirit of the rules.

 

The fact that your main source is the events pack for Warhammer World Tournaments runs counter to your overall claim. Precisely because it applies specifically to Warhammer World events, the implication is that different events will make different – and equally valid – decisions. 

 

Quote

Also, GW event packs mention that valid bases are the bases that are included in the current kits. As there's no other authority on bases, that's the one to fall back on. GW makes this explicit in their rules for Warhammer World Tournaments.

(My emphases) 

This stance assumes a specific case applies generally, and I don't think that's true. The authority on bases for an event is simply the organisers – whether that's a dedicated team in a professionally organised event, or simply you and the other player in a game at home. If you want a source for this, then the core rules state:

 

Quote

Storytelling is at the core of Warhammer 40,000, with the rules designed to bring to life the epic conflicts between the forces of Mankind, aliens and daemons in the grim darkness of the far future. The purpose of the game is for all players to have an enjoyable shared experience, putting their tactical skills to the test while admiring the spectacle of amazing miniatures clashing on fantastic battlefields. In this spirit, good sportsmanship and politeness are at the heart of the game.

(My emphases)

 

Basing is mentioned only in passing in the core rules. It's clear that it's important: there are lots of notes about 'when a model doesn't have a base', basing is relevant for movement, combat etc., but unlike other GW games, where base size was specifically mandated, 40k has a more open-ended and non-specific relationship.

 

+++

 

The key thing is that the 'good sportsmanship and politeness' called out in the rules is followed, and that applies to base sizes as much as anything.

 

For myself, the 'correct' base is primarily the one that best frames the model. As @Antarius says, 

Quote

The aesthetic experience is absolutely part of the gaming experience

... and fundamentally, that's what I'd prioritise for my own models' basing. Generally speaking, I'm happy with the bases that are provided by GW, but like @Rogue, I've got lots of old models that were supplied with bases that are smaller than the current iteration – my Guard, for example, are on 25mm, rather than 28mm.

Not only do I not want the expense of rebasing those models, I also wouldn't rebase for visual reasons. They're small models; they'd look lost on a larger base, like a painting in a too-large frame.

For general gaming with models that do not match the current supplied equivalent, the right thing to do is to highlight which (if any) models are on older bases in the pre-game chat, and discuss with the other player what, if anything, you want to do. This might vary from using some spare bases that are the current size, which can swapped in where necessary; to nothing at all.

Having said that, when attending an event at WHW (or elsewhere), I'd suggest that following the more restrictive and explicit rules in the pack is the right thing to do. That's not simply a case of following the letter of the rules: because event gaming is often more pressurised and time sensitive, and involves playing with people who may well have different assumptions about the game mechanics than your usual friend group, it's more important than ever to have a friendly chat with the other player, and to play with open-minded generosity of spirit.

 

(Nor is that to suggest that everyone should play without any sense of competition at all – if that's what both you and the other player want, then go to it, with all the friendly ruthlessness in measurement precision you want!)

+++

TL;DR 

Base sizes are like painted models. It gives both players a better experience if you're singing from the same hymn sheet; but really boils down to player agency and basic politeness, rather than being something where you can point to a universal 'right answer'.

Edited June 25 by apologist

[Petitioner's City]

I tend to hate people being anal about bases; it's just often unnecessary pedantry and I feel (just a feeling, I emphasizes!) that it is often controlling personalities who express base-related criticism (and it has ugly tinges, like basing comments before old world launched!).

 

This is for me a modelling hobby and a gaming hobby, and I approach it as a permissive, creative-driven environment, in which what looks good for the model or your own army/warband/individual aesthetic matters most.

 

Usually for me I use standard bases, but I like certain kinds of models (heroes on rounds) to be on larger bases - eg 40mm marine heroes in heresy, 32mm mortal heroes, versus 32mm and 25mm standards for those types. And I'm happy to play older wfb with tow-sized bases, or wfb/tow with round models too.  And if a model is much bigger, or littler, I'll play about as suits me :)

 

Yes people will 'take the mickey', but it's not the worst thing, and the game-based solutions are easy to do (such as holding a 'correct' base - or even movement tray - over a miniature, or supplanting one with a 'correctly-based' mini, during a necessary moment).

[DemonGSides]

3 hours ago, apologist said:

I don't think this is at all clear-cut. @DemonGSides, while there's lots of details that I agree with in your post, I think your central argument hews rather too closely to the wording, rather than the spirit of the rules.

 

The fact that your main source is the events pack for Warhammer World Tournaments runs counter to your overall claim. Precisely because it applies specifically to Warhammer World events, the implication is that different events will make different – and equally valid – decisions. 

 

(My emphases) 

This stance assumes a specific case applies generally, and I don't think that's true. The authority on bases for an event is simply the organisers – whether that's a dedicated team in a professionally organised event, or simply you and the other player in a game at home. If you want a source for this, then the core rules state:

 

(My emphases)

 

Basing is mentioned only in passing in the core rules. It's clear that it's important: there are lots of notes about 'when a model doesn't have a base', basing is relevant for movement, combat etc., but unlike other GW games, where base size was specifically mandated, 40k has a more open-ended and non-specific relationship.

 

+++

 

The key thing is that the 'good sportsmanship and politeness' called out in the rules is followed, and that applies to base sizes as much as anything.

 

For myself, the 'correct' base is primarily the one that best frames the model. As @Antarius says, 

... and fundamentally, that's what I'd prioritise for my own models' basing. Generally speaking, I'm happy with the bases that are provided by GW, but like @Rogue, I've got lots of old models that were supplied with bases that are smaller than the current iteration – my Guard, for example, are on 25mm, rather than 28mm.

Not only do I not want the expense of rebasing those models, I also wouldn't rebase for visual reasons. They're small models; they'd look lost on a larger base, like a painting in a too-large frame.

For general gaming with models that do not match the current supplied equivalent, the right thing to do is to highlight which (if any) models are on older bases in the pre-game chat, and discuss with the other player what, if anything, you want to do. This might vary from using some spare bases that are the current size, which can swapped in where necessary; to nothing at all.

Having said that, when attending an event at WHW (or elsewhere), I'd suggest that following the more restrictive and explicit rules in the pack is the right thing to do. That's not simply a case of following the letter of the rules: because event gaming is often more pressurised and time sensitive, and involves playing with people who may well have different assumptions about the game mechanics than your usual friend group, it's more important than ever to have a friendly chat with the other player, and to play with open-minded generosity of spirit.

 

(Nor is that to suggest that everyone should play without any sense of competition at all – if that's what both you and the other player want, then go to it, with all the friendly ruthlessness in measurement precision you want!)

+++

TL;DR 

Base sizes are like painted models. It gives both players a better experience if you're singing from the same hymn sheet; but really boils down to player agency and basic politeness, rather than being something where you can point to a universal 'right answer'.

 

I think there is a right answer and you know it, hence why you're going above and beyond to wiggle into "base sizes don't matter."

 

Which is fine!  But acting like "Well TO's have all sorts of opinions" and it's not basically EXACTLY what GWs policy is pretty laughable. I don't think you're gonna see a single TO be okay with your 25mm terminators, and you knew that when you wrote your post about how there's room for all types.

 

But the original question posed at the beginning of all this nonsense was whether or not basing was worth it for the individual, and we have all the same opinion; do what makes you happy.

 

But acting like there isn't some proscription from GW and that it is a lawless world of whatever base sizes you want is both rude to your opponents and frankly completely ridiculous. I'm happy to play against you with my synapse creatures all walking around on ridiculous bases so that they can model for advantage, the same way your 25mm bases on a 40mm models datasheet are modeling for advantage.  We can both walk away from that game being miffed that the other was cheating, and both like Warhammer less for it. It just breaks the game and creates feels bads for your opponent, which you apparently don't really care about, unfortunately. 

 

To me, that's the bigger bummer. Game integrity is so important and these are the game pieces. Like playing Monopoly but everyone's allowed to make their own money as they go along.

 

Like do you think that the bases that come in current kits are just suggestions?  They're not, GW expects you to build them with the same size base or larger (See the above picture for GWs stance, not just Warhammer world tournament stance, since Warhammer World is run by GW).

[DemonGSides]

3 hours ago, apologist said:

Not only do I not want the expense of rebasing those models, I also wouldn't rebase for visual reasons. They're small models; they'd look lost on a larger base, like a painting in a too-large frame.

 

Like this is patently ridiculous. There's barely a visual difference between 25 and 28.  You're legitimately taking the piss with this example.

 

Could have used the very visually distinct 32 and 40mm, and we have already discussed the difference between one step up in basing (that you've conveniently forgotten); going from 25 to 28 is barely w difference and no one would care. Going from 25 to 40 is literally tripling the area that a model takes up; I get your MODEL may not fit in that base because it's a wee lad, but your opponent is already getting shafted on the visibility due to your model being a full head under where their datasheet expects them to be, as well as now you can fit 3 terminators in the foot print of one modern terminator base. That's just not fair, and you can make it fair with about 3 minutes worth of hobby work at the beginning of a game.

 

Instead you wrote a diatribe about how there's definitely room for 25mm terminators and your local TO would be cool with it.  Like, no, no there isn't one alive running a modern tournament that would be okay with that. 

[DemonGSides]

3 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

I tend to hate people being anal about bases; it's just often unnecessary pedantry and I feel (just a feeling, I emphasizes!) that it is often controlling personalities who express base-related criticism (and it has ugly tinges, like basing comments before old world launched!).

 

This is for me a modelling hobby and a gaming hobby, and I approach it as a permissive, creative-driven environment, in which what looks good for the model or your own army/warband/individual aesthetic matters most.

 

Usually for me I use standard bases, but I like certain kinds of models (heroes on rounds) to be on larger bases - eg 40mm marine heroes in heresy, 32mm mortal heroes, versus 32mm and 25mm standards for those types. And I'm happy to play older wfb with tow-sized bases, or wfb/tow with round models too.  And if a model is much bigger, or littler, I'll play about as suits me :)

 

Yes people will 'take the mickey', but it's not the worst thing, and the game-based solutions are easy to do (such as holding a 'correct' base - or even movement tray - over a miniature, or supplanting one with a 'correctly-based' mini, during a necessary moment).

 

No one is going to be upset if you take a larger base unless there's aura shenanigans going on; it leaves you open to more melee opportunities and generally is a negative for the player with the oversized base.

 

The problem occurs when people are willingly putting terminators with 25mm bases into the game and acting like it's normal.

[Petitioner's City]

49 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

No one is going to be upset if you take a larger base unless there's aura shenanigans going on; it leaves you open to more melee opportunities and generally is a negative for the player with the oversized base.

 

The problem occurs when people are willingly putting terminators with 25mm bases into the game and acting like it's normal.

 

I guess it was 'normal', once - so it will feel normal to the people who have always had them that way? It's relational, I guess, but I think I dont mind it - it's part of the actual heritage aspect of using older minis - and that itself is really cool :)

 

You are right it can lead to unexpected in game advantages, but as I said above, you can mitigate it if you feel the need by using templates or spare bases over or under tbe offending minis, or apocalypse-style movement trays of the larger base size. Equally these are quite useful, if you really need to press the point :)