How particular are you about base sizes?

[apologist]

@DemonGSides  Coo – it wasn't my intent to spark an argument. What's above is my opinion on basing – in short, while it's good to use the up-to-date bases where possible, it's really not a big deal if they're not. You were equating using anything but the current size of base as 'basically straight up cheating', and I disagree with that point for the reasons outlined in my post up there. (As an aside, I think you're conflating my Guardsmen with @Rogue's Terminators.)

 

There are lots of perfectly sensible reasons that people might use different-sized bases, which have been presented in this thread in a civil way. Generally, these boil down to:

'I'm not that bothered, and if I am, I hold myself to a higher standard than I expect from the other player', which I think is a pretty good rule.

 

If there's a second thing to glean from this discussion, it's:

'There's a difference between using a bigger/smaller base because it looks good, and doing so to get an in-game advantage.' Again, I don't think either of us would disagree with that. To be honest, I think the only really good reason to be dogged about using the official base size is that you think the base is going to adversely affect the game – and if that's the case, I think talking with the other person beforehand is a better way of resolving things than getting into a tizzy and being proscriptive.

 

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.

 

Putting the unpleasant tone and your rather over-the-top example aside, I think you're missing my point, which is 'if you think your or the other player's bases might cause a problem because they are different, you should talk it through before the game.' Frankly, it's also a good chance to weigh up whether you want to play a game with someone.

 

The same thing applies to your list, whether things are painted, how you'll treat particular bits of terrain, conversions that are notably different from the standard model, third-party or 3D printed models, or cocked dice etc. Basing is much more akin to those physical, social aspects than the abstract, mechanical elements of the rules.

 

[Evil Eye]

I think one thing worth noting on the base size debacle is that 10th is absolutely cooked as a "balanced" game, and adhering strictly to GW's current base recommendations isn't going to fix that, or indeed make much difference at all. Obviously there are limits- sticking a Vindicare on a 50mm base to maximize range is probably a dick move, for instance- but on the whole, things like a Tyranid Warrior being on a 40mm as opposed to a 50mm are going to make far less difference to the balance (or lack thereof) than, say, the atrocity that was the initial Fate Dice rules.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Petitioner's City said:

 

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 :) 

 

 

If you read back to my posts you'd know I've been advocating for just slapping down the appropriate base for the model in the game being paid. 

 

I was told that it was too much work. That's the level of ambivalence we are dealing with.  I think my expectations for this stuff are extremely forgiving, but other posters are saying "No, that's a step too far."

 

It just feels selfish. 

[Rogue]

But that in itself is part of the wider issue. I mean, in one sense you're right - buying a pack of blank 40mm bases, sticking them on the table and going "There's my terminator squad" is really easy.

 

But that's not how I play. It matters to me that my models are painted to the best of my ability, and based in accordance with the pattern used uniformly across my whole army. I choose not to play with half-painted models, or proxies, or even (to illustrate how pedantic I am about this) with a fully painted model on an unpainted base. It's the self-imposed rule I choose to play by. Breaking that 'rule' by bodging finished models onto blank but nominally 'correct' bases feels wrong.

 

(For clarity, this is my rule for me. I don't expect my opponents to adhere to it - I'd much rather have a game against unpainted models than sit at home admiring my own painted stuff on my own.)

 

 

Demon, out of curiosity, how do you feel about using unpainted models in games, given that the Warhammer World and/or tournament standard is fully painted (or three-colour minimum, perhaps)? Would you apply that across the board, given the lack of additional specific guidance at a Core Rules level?

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

But that in itself is part of the wider issue. I mean, in one sense you're right - buying a pack of blank 40mm bases, sticking them on the table and going "There's my terminator squad" is really easy.

 

But that's not how I play. It matters to me that my models are painted to the best of my ability, and based in accordance with the pattern used uniformly across my whole army. I choose not to play with half-painted models, or proxies, or even (to illustrate how pedantic I am about this) with a fully painted model on an unpainted base. It's the self-imposed rule I choose to play by. Breaking that 'rule' by bodging finished models onto blank but nominally 'correct' bases feels wrong.

 

(For clarity, this is my rule for me. I don't expect my opponents to adhere to it - I'd much rather have a game against unpainted models than sit at home admiring my own painted stuff on my own.)

 

 

Demon, out of curiosity, how do you feel about using unpainted models in games, given that the Warhammer World and/or tournament standard is fully painted (or three-colour minimum, perhaps)? Would you apply that across the board, given the lack of additional specific guidance at a Core Rules level?

 

No one is advocating playing with empty bases.  I have literally advocated for the opposite.  You're the one saying that your opponents don't deserve games played with integrity, not me.

 

I already answered your question anyways. One would hope we are fully reading each other's posts.

 

You're dead set that bases don't matter to the mechanics of the game, I don't think we have much to discuss any more. You've taken every thing I've said as a personal attack against your hobby paint job when all I've advocated for was a shared understanding of the rules. In your world I'm fine putting my zoanthropes on Imperial Knight bases because "I like the look better", even though it massively impacts the game.

 

The fact that it's mostly all hypothetical is even sadder. You won't even HYPOTHETICALLY use the proper base for a terminator in the current rules because... You can't be bothered. That's it. That's the extent.   It makes no sense. 

Edited June 25 by DemonGSides

[DemonGSides]

5 hours ago, apologist said:

Coo – it wasn't my intent to spark an argument. What's above is my opinion on basing – in short, while it's good to use the up-to-date bases where possible, it's really not a big deal if they're not. You were equating using anything but the current size of base as 'basically straight up cheating', and I disagree with that point for the reasons outlined in my post up there. (As an aside, I think you're conflating my Guardsmen with @Rogue's Terminators.)

 

I'm not confusing anyone's anything with anyone else's. Basing isn't an opinion besides "How outrageous should make this base?", it is a game mechanic that has knock on effects to how the game works if you just choose to ignore it.  There are small base deviations; 25mm to 28mm has an area difference that is so small it's essentially negligible. No one cares if you have a Cadian Command Squad on 25's instead of 28's because, mechanically, it ultimately means nothing.

 

However, as stated and shown, a 40mm base has 3x the area as a 28mm base.   That MASSIVE in any situation where more than one terminator exists, which is every situation a Terminator is on the board for. Melee changes massively: where before you could only get 2 guys into melee, you can now get SIX.  Massive gameplay changes from using non standard base sizes.

 

Going UPWARDS on bases, as stated by GW themselves, is generally not a big deal; you're limiting yourself in most cases, so it's not a detriment and therefore feel free.

 

5 hours ago, apologist said:

There are lots of perfectly sensible reasons that people might use different-sized bases, which have been presented in this thread in a civil way. Generally, these boil down to:

'I'm not that bothered, and if I am, I hold myself to a higher standard than I expect from the other player', which I think is a pretty good rule.

 

But basing IS mechanically important to the game, whereas something like your paint scheme LITERALLY doesn't make a difference to the GAME portion.  The game is what we are discussing. Not modeling. Model to your hearts content. Hell, GW often wants you to model fancy, but play on a normal base; all of the FW primarch releases come with a scenic base and also a regular base.

 

5 hours ago, apologist said:

Again, I don't think either of us would disagree with that.

 

You might not want to speak for the other frater, because that is literally their opinion; base sizes don't matter and there is no rule about them. Which is just patently false and ridiculous to claim, but here we are!

 

5 hours ago, apologist said:

To be honest, I think the only really good reason to be dogged about using the official base size is that you think the base is going to adversely affect the game – and if that's the case, I think talking with the other person beforehand is a better way of resolving things than getting into a tizzy and being proscriptive

Which is literally what we are talking about; I'm not going to @Rogue 's house and forcefully rebasing his terminators. But the question was posed and their response was a resounding "No way.". They literally refuse to even consider using blue tac'd on bases.

 

5 hours ago, apologist said:

Basing is much more akin to those physical, social aspects than the abstract, mechanical elements of the rules.

 

Base sizes are so much different than any of the social aspects you mentioned. This is like saying "Well, I know auras don't stack, but I think it's cooler if they do, so that's how I play it."

 

I would be flabbergasted if someone took that position. It's in flagrant opposition to the rules as intended, as well as be so out of left field that I'm automatically wary of anyone with that opinion, as I would be of anyone showing up to a game with Terminators on 25mm, even if they were the very first terminators ever cast.

 

It costs nothing to bring 40mm bases with some blue tac to put under your beautifully rendered and painted models. Then take the base off when the games over. Your painted mini probably already has a vastly different base than what's on the board anyways, so the constant appeals by other frater to "But my paint job!" Falls on deaf ears.

 

Basically; you can't call the art processes some bespoke holy process that's worth dedication and care, and then also try to play the game without the same care. It's not fair to anyone involved. 

Edited June 25 by DemonGSides

[apologist]

Your contention is that small deviations in base size either way don’t matter; that larger deviations do, and particularly if the base is smaller than currently sold. Is that a fair summary?

 

if that’s right, then I really don’t think anyone here disagrees – but it really goes without saying that exaggeration for effect doesn’t help the argument. 

 

Would you object to someone using @Dr. Clock’s (perfectly sensible) idea of just leaving a bit more space around the models? 

Everyone’s got preferences in-game; I guess my argument is that it’s a social affair and you need to compromise with the other player(s). 40k’s a huge canvas – it covers people doing exactly the sort of thing like people deciding ‘auras stacking’ might be fun, as well as those who have particular emphasis on treating rules as written as the be-all and end-all in every gaming situation and with every other player.

 

Edited June 25 by apologist

[Antarius]

Well, hyperbole certainly doesn't help either the point being made or the possibility of mutual understanding - or even keeping the discussion friendly.

Framing other people's arguments in an extreme and absurd way, so as to make them look ridiculous doesn't generally lead anywhere good.
Putting a zoanthrope on a knight's base is not a good example, for the simple reason that noone's doing that or about to do that because it would be ridiculous. Yes, someone could hypothetically do it and claim that they thought it looked better, but untill that actually happens, I don't think it's a productive way of going about making the argument. You're not going to convince anyone that keeping their terminators on 25mm bases is equivalent to purposefully cheating by putting zoanthropes on knight's bases, simply because it isn't equivalent.

[Rogue]

3 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

No one is advocating playing with empty bases.  I have literally advocated for the opposite.  You're the one saying that your opponents don't deserve games played with integrity, not me.

 

I already answered your question anyways. One would hope we are fully reading each other's posts.

 

You're dead set that bases don't matter to the mechanics of the game, I don't think we have much to discuss any more. You've taken every thing I've said as a personal attack against your hobby paint job when all I've advocated for was a shared understanding of the rules. In your world I'm fine putting my zoanthropes on Imperial Knight bases because "I like the look better", even though it massively impacts the game.

 

The fact that it's mostly all hypothetical is even sadder. You won't even HYPOTHETICALLY use the proper base for a terminator in the current rules because... You can't be bothered. That's it. That's the extent.   It makes no sense. 

 

Again with the unnecessary hyperbole. Please don't suggest that I play without integrity. It's a bit rude, and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

 

I don't think you're attacking my paint job, either. I mean, I like my own painting as far as it goes, but it's never going to win prizes, and I'm not going to get defensive over it. My point was more to do with my own personal issues around the 'completeness' of any army (Marine or otherwise) that I put on the table - my particular brand of neurodivergence struggles with things being out of place, and for some reason, the idea of double-stacked bases really triggers it.

 

As far as example go, a better one might be this: In my world, you're fine bringing your original metal zoanthrope models on the bases they came on because that's how you modelled them back in the 90s and you've never changed them since then. Because as far as I'm concerned, you made them as they should be, and it's not for me to insist that you rebase them every now and then to stay 'up-to-date'. And if that gives you an advantage, then I'll live with it, because it's just a game.

 

And I think you must have missed my comments about tournament play (which is pretty hypothetical for me, as I work most weekends), but that's okay - it's been a rambling conversation. I think I said that in that situation, I would blu-tac 40mm bases to the bottom of the terminators. I'd hate it (in my head), but it would be the right thing for that context. But I wouldn't mess up my current basing for it - at that point, I'd just bring something else instead. [I just checked, and it was me who introduced the whole blu-tac just for the duration of a tournament idea to this conversation - suggesting that I rejected it out of hand is beyond disingenuous.]

 

(And as a side note, my bases are deliberately painted to match my home battle-mat. And when I get round to buying a newer size mat, I'll pick one that matches the bases. I really do think about it that much.)

 

 

Edited June 25 by Rogue
Got ninja'd there (slow typing) - there was no intent to pile in after Antarius' post.

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, apologist said:

Your contention is that small deviations in base size either way don’t matter; that larger deviations do, and particularly if the base is smaller than currently sold. Is that a fair summary?

 

I agree with it, but my point is a lot more nuanced, which is part of the issue; people want it to be yes or no, and it really isn't.

 

2 hours ago, apologist said:

if that’s right, then I really don’t think anyone here disagrees – but it really goes without saying that exaggeration for effect doesn’t help the argument. 

 

People are literally disagreeing with me in posts both before and after yours.  Rogue is literally saying that they would refuse to use current base sizes in a game of WH40k short of taking it to a tournament, and I think that's an insanely bad faith and bad sportsmanship way to approach a game that, ostensibly, we're all trying to enjoy equally, even at the beer and pretzels level.

The exaggeration comes from the being absolutely flabbergasted and trying to find the limits of their own positions.  There's no argument because I'm effectively talking to myself in these discussions so far.

 

2 hours ago, apologist said:

Would you object to someone using @Dr. Clock’s (perfectly sensible) idea of just leaving a bit more space around the models? 

 

Yes, especially when there has been plenty of other way more rational, way more usable ways to overcome this INSANELY STUPID problem. I must reiterate; 25mm Terminators are so far out of the norm that the fact that this conversation has gone on for pages is legitimately mind breaking.  The poster who's arguing in favor of 25mm terminators is being HYPOTHETICALLY (remember, that same poster has already said they are never playing Terminators nor Space Marines outside of Space Hulk) stubborn on the basis that "Bringing 10-20 40mm bases with blue tac to a game is too onerous and also causes triggers to my neurodivergence".

We already got past the entire conversation of "Well what about my 28mm to 32mm space marines?" (Answer: no one cares because the difference is negligible and the change is still relatively recent for quite a few models, and the change isn't even standard across the different codexes and units so there's legitimate concern over what is proper and there's also not HUGE mechanical differences at that size.  This was no contention), as well as the "I don't like 25mm, but I do like 28mm" or vice versa or whatever (Once again, 3mm in overall area is mostly negligible).  The problem at hand is purely; someone said that it's fine that a datasheet model (There's no way to run these terminators in a way that makes sense for their footprint without wildly changing what they do and basically creating a whole new unit) with a base that is 3x smaller than it's total area and their opponents HAVE to deal with it.  Their rationale is; 20 years ago, I bought these models with 25mm bases for what is essentially a completely different game than what we are playing now.  The other rationale is that they just don't like the way they look.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a compelling argument, especially when the many, MANY proposed solutions are so, so easy and make the game (And experience) better for everyone involved, INCLUDING the player with 25mm terminators.

 

59 minutes ago, Rogue said:

My point was more to do with my own personal issues around the 'completeness' of any army (Marine or otherwise) that I put on the table - my particular brand of neurodivergence struggles with things being out of place, and for some reason, the idea of double-stacked bases really triggers it.

 

It's a social game, and everyone's going to have to be uncomfortable about something eventually.  You're making it about yourself (Your comfort trumps having a fair game) instead of about the game (Game integrity means I can suffer seeing my models (That I see 99% of the rest of the time EXACTLY how I want to see them) a little out of place from their normal), which is what boggles my mind.

 

59 minutes ago, Rogue said:

As far as example go, a better one might be this: In my world, you're fine bringing your original metal zoanthrope models on the bases they came on because that's how you modelled them back in the 90s and you've never changed them since then. Because as far as I'm concerned, you made them as they should be, and it's not for me to insist that you rebase them every now and then to stay 'up-to-date'. And if that gives you an advantage, then I'll live with it, because it's just a game.

 

Except in this example, my Zoanthropes are worse because a smaller base size means a smaller aura range, compared to your situation where your terminators are just straight up better due to a smaller base size meaning more terminators in melee.  How magnanimous of you!  (I know this wasn't your intent, but this is LITERALLY my point; the game works a certain way, with certain bases, because that's how the game is designed.  It's been designed different than it was 20 years ago when those Terminators released.  Feel free to play those Terminators on 25mm in 2nd ed, because it was built for that, but 40k 10th edition expects terminators on 40mm, hence why the company provides those bases with the models)

 

59 minutes ago, Rogue said:

And I think you must have missed my comments about tournament play (which is pretty hypothetical for me, as I work most weekends), but that's okay - it's been a rambling conversation. I think I said that in that situation, I would blu-tac 40mm bases to the bottom of the terminators. I'd hate it (in my head), but it would be the right thing for that context. But I wouldn't mess up my current basing for it - at that point, I'd just bring something else instead. [I just checked, and it was me who introduced the whole blu-tac just for the duration of a tournament idea to this conversation - suggesting that I rejected it out of hand is beyond disingenuous.]

 

I didn't, I even commented on it, I just think it's a weird double standard to make.

You also keep saying it'd mess up the current basing, but facts are not in evidence.  I double based a bunch of poxwalkers onto 40mm bases just to try it out, and the bases are still there as they were when I finished them originally.  I then took them off, and they looked just as good as they did originally.  If the model required the 40mm, I'd probably just do that; it took me exactly 2 minutes and 36.4 seconds to rip off 10 pieces of blue tac and put them on 10 40mm bases and then put the poxwalker on the base with a little pressure. 

 

Most likely, I'd also probably just get new terminators, since the sculpts are awesome, and retire the 25mm terminators to Space Hulk and casual viewing.  But you posited a hypothetical where you would want to play with them, and I think it's worthwhile to put your best foot forward in a game and play the way most people expect it to be played.  We don't seem to agree on that, and I'm more than okay with that.

 

59 minutes ago, Rogue said:

(And as a side note, my bases are deliberately painted to match my home battle-mat. And when I get round to buying a newer size mat, I'll pick one that matches the bases. I really do think about it that much.)

 

So you LITERALLY never play with anyone else's game mat or terrain?  Variety is the spice of life!

Edited June 25 by DemonGSides

[Rogue]

Okay. Let me back you up a little.

 

Rogue isn't literally refusing to play any game short of tournaments with current bases. (I'm pretty confident about this, due to me being Rogue.) In essence, Rogue (still me) is an unenviable combination of lethargic and perfectionist, and much as he might like to have everything on the 'right' bases, it's not going to happen any time soon.

 

I also need to point out (again) that I brought up the blu-tac'd bases thing as something I would do. I was my suggestion. That I made. By me. I'm not stubbornly refusing to countenance it, because it was me what countenced it first.

 

And believe it or not, almost all of my games are played at my place. Within my group, I'm fortunate to have the largest room for playing in, the most terrain, a wife who is interested enough to occasionally play, and most pertinently, three pre-schoolers - my friends are generous enough to come to me so that we can start as soon as the boys are down, and I'm on hand through the evening if needed.

 

I'm going to step back from this part of the conversation for a bit. I really only came in to make a passing contribution about how I was more inclined to rebase genestealers than terminators (for various trivial reasons), but it feels like it's become weirdly personal in an uncomfortable way; I'm getting snarky (which I dislike); and given how inaccurately you seem to represent the things I say, I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to say them anymore.

 

Hopefully we'll find something else to talk more constructively about in the future.

 

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

I'm going to step back from this part of the conversation for a bit. I really only came in to make a passing contribution about how I was more inclined to rebase genestealers than terminators (for various trivial reasons), but it feels like it's become weirdly personal in an uncomfortable way; I'm getting snarky (which I dislike); and given how inaccurately you seem to represent the things I say, I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to say them anymore.

 

My apologies, I didn't mean to make you feel like you were being personally attacked.  But I do not agree with the sentiment that 25mm terminators are fine in the game, which you said your friends would be fine with.  I just don't think they would be, and if they were, they'd be right to ask you to use 40mm.

We can move on.

Edited June 26 by DemonGSides

[Emperor Ming]

Being on the correct base size is just good form right?

 

As a guard player rebasing heavy weapons teams every few editions is just part of the game now

 

However, they have finally gotten it right, 50mm is the right size, finally

 

I'm pretty easy going, but I would frown at terminators on 25mm bases

 

Base sizes are an important part of balance, and at the end of the day, at the very least, base extenders are not that much effort to acquire and apply. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

34 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

My apologies, I didn't mean to make you feel like you were being personally attacked.  But I do not agree with the sentiment that 25mm terminators are fine in the game, which you said your friends would be fine with.  I just don't think they would be, and if they were, they'd be right to ask you to use 40mm.

We can move on.

GW has said you can play models on the bases they came with in their tournaments, so according to GW, 25mm based terminators are fine.

[DemonGSides]

1 minute ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

GW has said you can play models on the bases they came with in their tournaments, so according to GW, 25mm based terminators are fine.

 

I really don't want to hash this out again, but unless you can point to something more definitive than the earlier mentioned Warhammer World Tournament document, the expectation is that you use the base size that's included in the most recent kit, not the originally purchased kit.

 

In home games obviously do whatever you want, but the game is balanced around the same expectation, considering it's what GW includes in the box; they don't include 6 25mm bases, they include 1, for the teleport homer token, and 5 40mm bases for Terminators currently being sold.  That's the game's expectation as well with how datasheets and balancing is designed.

In MY opinion, you should always try to aim for the 'correct' base size, AKA the one that comes in the kit that is for sale.  It's an easy question to answer; if I bought the kit from GW today, how would they expect me to base it?  Most likely with whatever bases they include in the box they sell directly.  That's my baseline for expectations.

If you want my opinions on larger bases, or similar base sizes, then please feel free to read previous posts.  We've covered the gamut pretty robustly from the get go here and I don't think there's much contention; play the size that the game expects you to, a little variance (25mm<->28mm, 28mm<->32mm) isn't that big of a deal, but if the base is going to matter mechanically (Melee-centric troops, units with aura's), you should aim to follow GW's expectations based on the bases included in the kits that are currently being sold.

[Evil Eye]

17 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

but the game is balanced around the same expectation

The game is barely "balanced" around anything at all. I think you're putting more stock in GW's ability to balance their game than is perhaps realistic or sensible.

[DemonGSides]

I didn't make a value judgement on that balance, just that there's an expectation.

Wearisome.

[Evil Eye]

And why do you care about that expectation when all it does is make people rip perfectly good bases off models in service of non-existent "balance improvements"?

[Antarius]

Going at it from another angle: I don't see why is it a reasonable expectation that anyone would accept a document made for a specific event as an official rules requirement?

We already have an official statement from GW about bases, so why should we go hunting for another, contradictory, one? And why should we be bound to the interpretation that WHW tournament rules are implicitly binding for games that aren't the WHW tournament? I mean, don't get me wrong, it obviously seems logical to you, but it just honestly doesn't to me and I'm wondering where the disconnect is.

I just feel like it's a needlessly legalistic way of reading (into) the rules that doesn't mesh with the way other GW games, other games I've played, or even actually legally binding documents I've had to interpret and follow, work.

[TheTrans]

So I've played a few game systems where the Base (and silhouette) of the model heavily factored into balance and was written into their stats. These where games that were pretty reasonably balanced, or at the very least, the models volume was pretty important and therefore, the Base/Size of the miniature's silhouette played into their balancing, their abilities and all that (to the point sometimes, models were on bases, with silhouettes that just plain didn't match with the actual model at all, but due to the rules they had, had base sizes to balance out powers etc).

I honestly feel GW justs hoffs models onto what ever base size looks the best for said model. The rules writers aren't factoring any of that crap in outside that *checks notes* corporate says the artsy guys say the models look best on *checks notes again* 32mm bases instead of 28.5mm bases, so just make sure you put the correct base size on the rule sheet thing so as to make sure the people that got confused about adding points for meltaguns don't get confused about if their model should or shouldn't be based. 

As per so much of modern 40k, I feel a lot of the artistic license is being ripped out by the 'must play to tournament 'standards' at all times' crowd. 

Put the models on what base, you, personally think looks good. You'll (probably) spend more time building/painting your models and looking at them forlornly in a cabinet than you will with the 1 in 5 neckbeards that start seething because your 2nd ed, hunchback metal Wolf Guard Terminators are on the goblin green, 25mm slotta bases that they were delivered with.

Edited June 26 by TheTrans

[DemonGSides]

6 hours ago, Antarius said:

Going at it from another angle: I don't see why is it a reasonable expectation that anyone would accept a document made for a specific event as an official rules requirement?

 

6 hours ago, Antarius said:

We already have an official statement from GW about bases, so why should we go hunting for another, contradictory, one?

 

No one has been able to provide a source on this claim. I'm not saying you're wrong. But I would like some sort of source for this if it's going to be continually used as gospel.  I would prefer something from corporate GW directly and not a Twitter post or CS Rep conversation if possible.

 

Bases are included in the model building step, and the game is built around using the latest models. It just really seems like a no brainer. 

[Antarius]

It's what they've been saying for years. If you don't believe it, well ok, I guess - I just don't really see how that changes anything.

I mean, let's say it doesn't exist and we've all just had a Mandela effect thing about it, in which case there's no official statement out there about bases at all. How do you get from that to your assertion that we should be obligated to accept a WHW event document as an official rules standard that (all?) other games must also abide by? Wouldn't a more logical conclusion be that if they've not actually bothered to put anything about bases in the official rules, they're probably not that bothered about what bases you use?

I'm really, honestly not trying to be annoying here, it's just that the issue is nowhere near as clear cut as you keep saying and I'm not sure whether you genuinely don't see it or whether it's a rhetorical thing.

[Antarius]

Anyway, here's what they said about bases for AoS 5 years ago - I know, I know, AoS is not Warhammer 40.000, but I think it's interesting that they pretty much say exactly what most of us have been saying, even when it comes to matched play: "just pretend they're on the right size, it's not something that ought to cause a lot of problems".

 https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/age_of_sigmar_base_sizes_en.pdf
 

BASE SIZES IN MATCHED PLAY GAMES

In Warhammer Age of Sigmar, most distances are measured from one model’s base to another model’s base. In the vast majority of games, the actual size of the base is not terribly important, and you can use bases of whatever size or shape you prefer.

The only possible exception to this is matched play games. This is because matched play games are intended to be evenly balanced contests, and in these circumstances having the same model on a different sized base can become an issue. To address this, on the following pages you will find a set of suggested matched play base sizes for all of the models in the Warhammer Age of Sigmar range.

Don’t worry – you don’t have to rebase your model if it is not on the suggested base unless you want to (that’s why these are suggested base sizes rather than mandatory ones). If you prefer not to rebase your models, just assume that the model is mounted on a base of the appropriate size when setting the model up, moving it, or measuring any distances in a matched play game. For example, if you are a veteran player using an old unit that is mounted on 25mm square bases instead of the suggested 32mm round bases, you should set the unit up, make any moves, and measure all distances as if they were mounted on the larger 32mm round bases when you play matched play games. Although this may sound a bit complicated, in practice it is actually very easy to do.

Edited June 26 by Antarius

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

It's what they've been saying for years. If you don't believe it, well ok, I guess - I just don't really see how that changes anything.

I mean, let's say it doesn't exist and we've all just had a Mandela effect thing about it, in which case there's no official statement out there about bases at all. How do you get from that to your assertion that we should be obligated to accept a WHW event document as an official rules standard that (all?) other games must also abide by? Wouldn't a more logical conclusion be that if they've not actually bothered to put anything about bases in the official rules, they're probably not that bothered about what bases you use?

I'm really, honestly not trying to be annoying here, it's just that the issue is nowhere near as clear cut as you keep saying and I'm not sure whether you genuinely don't see it or whether it's a rhetorical thing.

 

Because it's official GW stance about bases.  That was my entire convention; there isn't a lot of official communication about what base sizes are, and the one thing we do have that is officially from the company itself.

 

But once again, you're leaning on "Oh we all know they said that" then it should be easy to point to.

 

Meanwhile, there are multiple sources showing what the bases you should be using, but you're saying that they don't matter. I'm not really being ridiculous here, it's people thinking 25mm terminators make sense in 10th Ed gameplay that are the ones making a big leap. 

 

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

Anyway, here's what they said about bases for AoS 5 years ago - I know, I know, AoS is not Warhammer 40.000, but I think it's interesting that they pretty much say exactly what most of us have been saying, even when it comes to matched play: "just pretend they're on the right size, it's not something that ought to cause a lot of problems".

 https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/age_of_sigmar_base_sizes_en.pdf
 

BASE SIZES IN MATCHED PLAY GAMES

In Warhammer Age of Sigmar, most distances are measured from one model’s base to another model’s base. In the vast majority of games, the actual size of the base is not terribly important, and you can use bases of whatever size or shape you prefer.

The only possible exception to this is matched play games. This is because matched play games are intended to be evenly balanced contests, and in these circumstances having the same model on a different sized base can become an issue. To address this, on the following pages you will find a set of suggested matched play base sizes for all of the models in the Warhammer Age of Sigmar range.

Don’t worry – you don’t have to rebase your model if it is not on the suggested base unless you want to (that’s why these are suggested base sizes rather than mandatory ones). If you prefer not to rebase your models, just assume that the model is mounted on a base of the appropriate size when setting the model up, moving it, or measuring any distances in a matched play game. For example, if you are a veteran player using an old unit that is mounted on 25mm square bases instead of the suggested 32mm round bases, you should set the unit up, make any moves, and measure all distances as if they were mounted on the larger 32mm round bases when you play matched play games. Although this may sound a bit complicated, in practice it is actually very easy to do.

 

But I gave you a more updated document that DOES apply to 40k and you're saying it's less truthful than this document?  Im not convinced.

 

Also, Current AoS has an expectation (and rule) that you use the base as proscribed in the rules; unlike 40k, GW has made a very specific stance on what is the expected base. I'm not sure leaning on AoS is the slam dunk you think it is.

 

 

I'm still waiting on that official word that 40k is okay to play old bases; when they updated Marines from 28-32, they definitely said don't worry too much about it unless you're playing super competitive; I have acknowledged this multiple times in this thread and it is getting very tiring repeating myself just because you want to argue something that, in my opinion, isn't really that big of a deal.  Just play the right base. It's so easy. 

Edited June 26 by DemonGSides

[Blindhamster]

8 hours ago, TheTrans said:

he rules writers aren't factoring any of that crap in outside that *checks notes* corporate says the artsy guys say the models look best on *checks notes again* 32mm bases instead of 28.5mm bases, so just make sure you put the correct base size on the rule sheet thing so as to make sure the people that got confused about adding points for meltaguns don't get confused about if their model should or shouldn't be based

i genuinely laughed at this. Thanks!

 

This thread has been quite a painful read otherwise honestly.

 

Do base sizes matter? Yes.

• They matter because larger models are more susceptible to things like melee (easier to get more models in contact)
• They matter for some of the movement rules (moreso a thing with the new rules on pivots really)
• They matter for cover rules (much easier to get more of your models into cover on small bases)
• They matter for auras (bigger base means longer reaching aura)

Is there an official rule in any of the core documents on base sizes? No.

Is there any other official rule on base sizes? Yes, official GW tournaments, this applies specifically to GW tournaments, and even in that document there are allowances made for other kinds of events.

Are there other rules that come into play? Yes. Sportsmanship, which goes both ways, its unsporting to not use the correct base sizes, its also unsporting to get cross about it if someone doesn't do it. Finding a compromise at the time is sporting.

 

As for my personal view, i like my models to by WYSIWYG and have done even in editions where it wasn't really a rule. I like my models to have at least some paint on them (I cant and wont claim to using painted armies, but my models are usually converted, undercoated, base coated and at least some details blocked in, usually with BASES at least blocked in for colours too). I'd expect my oponent to use the correct base. I'd totally allow incorrect sizes as a one off in casual games, but I'd expect the player to do better next time and have the correct base sizes. I personally don't care if its a base extender, blue tac'd or whatever. But "allowing a bit more space around the models" wouldn't cut it.