How particular are you about base sizes?

[WAR]

=]Just a friendly reminder to play nice[=

 

 

[Gillyfish]

Hmm, personally speaking I have models on a range of bases because I have a range of models.

 

I have one of the original dreadnoughts that came on a square base (you know, the one with a smiley face). I have late 1st/early 2nd ed Deathwing terminators that are on 25mm bases and second ed Space Hulk terminators that are on the same. All of my PA marines are on 25mm bases because I never bought a set after the move to 32mm was undertaken.

 

The people I am likely to play games with are highly unlikely to care. Most of my models are Legends anyway, so in the unlikely event that I tried to have a pick-up game there would either be a lot of tortuous counts-as discussion or searching for defunct unit cards (I mean, I like Landspeeders). At that point, the fact that some of my termies are on 40mm and some are 25mm (and are a lot shorter) or the fact that some of tacticals are weird-looking beakies is probably the least of the things my opponent is going to care about. I would imagine the fact that my army has never seen a Primaris or the more modern units and I insist in using a Jump pack chaplain paired with assault marines is probably going to cause more of a headache if my opponent is so inclined.

 

But evidently this is (very) important to some players. I can see an argument that base size can lead to an advantage. The legitimate question might be, in the context of the rest of the army, how much of an advantage is it and ultimately how much do you actually want to play a game? 

[Petitioner's City]

I think sometimes it's worth remembering this is a game, an act of play, a thing of fun - not something to get stressed over in the way this thread clearly is doing. Warhammer is game . It isn't a sport, it's not a set of laws, it's not anything but a game and a hobby. So don't act like it's some crazy thing of life and death that some matter of mms really changes anything of meaning, it's just a ludic thing.

 

These bases have a really minimal impact on play - even in the examples listed above, which are (forgive me) edge cases. The bases are really fundamentally there to support the models - physically - and have the bonus of providing a sense of mise-en-scene, depending on the hobby investment applied to them. As a physical support they have primarily increased in width in relation to the models themselves increasing in scale - including the spread of increasingly wide tactical basing material that fills up those widening bases. The actual base a given model has has nothing to actually do about the specific rules of a given model, and instead about visuals and aesthetics.

 

This thread (and basing itself) is often about conformity - and I do not believe that (en)forcing this conformity is essential, necessary or even healthy for the core of the hobby, which is hobbying and playing. The old world shows us plenty of solutions to this - and that ultimately, ironically, for a rank and file game - variant basing really doesn't matter for any game, variance can always be accommodated, you can play tow with any mix of the bases people have for their fantasy-suitable minis (too small, too large, too round, too hex even). The same should be the case for 40k.

 

We do not need to try to control other players' aesthetic and economic decisions, however. We need to just shake hands, agree to disagree, and have fun!

Edited June 26 by Petitioner's City

[gideon stargreave]

Petitioner has it right. I’d rather not play at all, than play with someone who doesn’t want to play the same game as me. Wargames are not chess or ludo, neither are they morkborg or pathfinder; they sit somewhere between, and the somewhere is personal. The social contract of the game is different for everyone depending on so many factors, where they play, what else they do in the hobby, the edition they started in, if they drink wine or beer or cola, what their friends do and more. Some people consider it cheating to use the wrong base, others consider it cheating to play with unpainted minis, and some consider it cheating not to bring snacks. Sure the mechanics have rulebooks to support them, but a game is not only the mechanics (check out chess variations for example), but also the experience. 
I can empathize with those of you who think you must rebase, that it effects the gameplay, and I can empathize with those of you who think you cannot. I’ve played against modelers for advantage (and sneaky movers) and I’ve got a huge collection of past armies in more than one system that I absolutely cannot rebase because they’re too fragile and would look :cuss:ing :cuss: to on blank bases. 
the issue is that everyone on this thread is right, and wrong for whatever definition of game you apply. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

15 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

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.

Why do we need to point to something other than an official document from GW? That’s literally their stance on the subject.

if you don’t like that stance that’s a completely different subject.

 

hell GW will let you use old gazkull models from 2nd(?) ed because it’s an official GW model on the base it originally came with in their stores (not sure about their tournaments though.)

[Blindhamster]

1 hour ago, Petitioner's City said:

even in the examples listed above, which are (forgive me) edge cases.

forgive me, but I'm not sure I totally agree there. The melee one in particular. I can fit roughly 4 models (on 28mm bases) around a classic terminator on a 25mm base, whereas I can comfortably fit 7 around a modern terminator on their 40mm base. That's not an edge case, thats almost 50% more models in melee contact realistically (once you start taking unit coherency into account as well). Its going to end up being the difference between entire squads being able to get into melee range of those terminators and only a portion managing it after a charge. Similarly, with cover working the way it does now, its MODELS not UNITS that benefit, which means smaller bases makes it much easier to get a unit to benefit.

It's a game, and we should look to have fun, we should indeed also look to be good sports, which does mean some level of discussion and allowances for eachother.

 

We should absolutely all be respectful of eachother and our modelling decisions, folk with older miniatures may have "out of date" base sizes, its a thing for sure and if people want to do that, it's absolutely their right (personally, when space marines went to 32mm, I rebased all my old models... I've since sold them, but it was a thing I did). That said, it is still going to create oddness within the game, and its also absolutely fine for people to not be happy about that, because it's totally true that most people that got into the game in the last decade will expect units to work a certain way from a spacing perspective, and that doesn't end up being the case for them when people use models from 20-30 years ago on smaller bases.

 

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

hell GW will let you use old gazkull models from 2nd(?) ed because it’s an official GW model on the base it originally came with in their stores (not sure about their tournaments though.)

Nope, not in their tournaments, at least, not without putting him on the new base and "making allowances for how tall he SHOULD be for line of sight stuff"

Edited June 26 by Blindhamster

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Why do we need to point to something other than an official document from GW? That’s literally their stance on the subject.

if you don’t like that stance that’s a completely different subject.

 

hell GW will let you use old gazkull models from 2nd(?) ed because it’s an official GW model on the base it originally came with in their stores (not sure about their tournaments though.)

 

No one has pointed to an official stance yet. Still just a couple people saying that they heard it somewhere.

 

The one document other than what I've provided was specifically generated to help people transition from the Old World to Sigmar, which means literally nothing for 40k.

 

And once again, since you won't read: Casually, do whatever you want. No one cares.  Especially me.

 

But the question was asked about base sizes, there is direction on how you should go with them, and the games mechanics care about literal mm's so a base size is important.  TO ME, base sizes matter because game integrity is more important than someone's lethargy around using the expected base sizes. 

 

Please stop quoting me unless you've got something to add. Repeating the same thing over and over again is tiring. 

Edited June 26 by DemonGSides

[Special Officer Doofy]

All I know is if I spend my money on an official GW kit and spend the time and love putting it together and painting it, I'm using it as is. Doesn't matter if 10 years later GW increases the size of the model and puts it on a bigger base. I'm using the official model I bought on the official base it came with. Not spending more time and money on something GW arbitrarily changed later.

[Dark Legionnare]

3 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

All I know is if I spend my money on an official GW kit and spend the time and love putting it together and painting it, I'm using it as is. Doesn't matter if 10 years later GW increases the size of the model and puts it on a bigger base. I'm using the official model I bought on the official base it came with. Not spending more time and money on something GW arbitrarily changed later.

Especially when it's a faction that potentially have 180+ of said arbitrary changes, like Orkz. (My boys and lootas alone are 180 lads)

 

The amount of hours and effort it took to do them all the first time... :'D

[Antarius]

I’ll just reiterate this, because I think it’s rather central to the issue: “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?”.

To my mind that’s pretty much all we really need to know on the subject. Do they expect you to put models on the base it’s packaged with? Yeah, sure. I have no reason to think they require you to, however -and absolutely no reason to believe that they expect or want you to rebase already finished models.

 

That being said, I can totally see thinking that base size is important and I am not trying to tell anyone that that point of view is objectively wrong, because it isn’t, nor am I particularly trying to win anyone over to my stance, which is essentially “eh, I’m not fussed about it”.
I am just saying that it’s nowhere near official or the only point of view, anyone can reasonably have on the subject and that I don’t think framing it like that is very productive.

 

There are obviously lots of reasons why someone might use, or even prefer, bases that aren’t the same size (or shape) as the one that the equivalent models come with today, so there’s no reason to act like it’s completely unfathomable outside of deliberate cheating.

Edited June 27 by Antarius

[DemonGSides]

Adding deliberate is doing a lot to put words in other people's mouths but whatever.

 

Mods should just lock this so we can move on. 

[Antarius]

47 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Adding deliberate is doing a lot to put words in other people's mouths but whatever.

 

Mods should just lock this so we can move on. 

Ok, I can honestly say that was not my intention at all. I was of the impression that that was your opinion, based on the way you spoke about the issue, but if you feel it's an unfair summation I apologise.

Please feel free to correct me on your stance, as I have no interest in arguing with a strawman (actually, I have no interest in arguing at all).

I'd also like to hear what you think about the point I've raised twice now - as i said, I find it quite central and I honestly don't understand why you don't seem to.

[DemonGSides]

I'm good. There's 4 pages of posts to figure out my position from at this point, including 2 pages of perhaps the most inconsequential argument ever had.

 

6 hours ago, Antarius said:

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?

 

So GW doesn't care what base you use?  That's your contention?

 

Could have fooled me. Seems like they include a base with every kit that needs one. Seems like the instructions include putting models on bases as part of the process.  Those seem like pretty official calls to me.  Feels like since they do update base sizes, they definitely care about what base size your guys are on.

 

I understand that they don't have a bullet point list of who sits on what.  But they also sell the model kits and they include a base size and those kits are attached to datasheets that, ostensibly, are balanced (I swear to God if someone tries to come in and do another snide "GW doesn't know what balance is!" comment I'm gonna lose my mind) around the things they expect you to have in the kit (Isn't the constant refrain around here that GW has moved to a GW only wants us to use what's in the current kit" standard?) but somehow that doesn't apply to the bases that they include in the kit.

 

 

Now look at what you've done. I said I didn't want to do this anymore.

[Antarius]

Ok. I gotta say, I think you're not extending a lot of benefit of the doubt or trying to read our posts with a lot of good will, considering how frustrated you feel about being misinterpreted and disagreed with yourself.

I had (and have) absolutely no interest in antagonising you, but I just don't see what you're trying to accomplish here, because you seem to be consistently insisting on reading our statements in the most absurd way possible and not really engaging with the actual points or trying to understand why our stance is the way it is. I think maybe that's why you're getting a lot of pushback?

Edited June 27 by Antarius

[DemonGSides]

38 minutes ago, Antarius said:

Ok. I gotta say, I think you're not extending a lot of benefit of the doubt or trying to read our posts with a lot of good will, considering how frustrated you feel about being misinterpreted and disagreed with yourself.

I had (and have) absolutely no interest in antagonising you, but I just don't see what you're trying to accomplish here, because you seem to be consistently insisting on reading our statements in the most absurd way possible and not really engaging with the actual points or trying to understand why our stance is the way it is. I think maybe that's why you're getting a lot of pushback?

 

Brother, the thread has been going on for days and I tried quoting the multitude of times I said please do whatever you want but the forum software keeps screwing up. But please. I have stated emphatically that you should play however you want.

 

I understand quite well why people who want to play on their original bases;

1) they bought them that way

2)they don't want to update (be it lethargy or whatever)

3) they don't think it matters

 

It's not some honorable position. It's an opinion about toy soldiers. It's not that serious. 

 

I'm not worried about the pushback. I'm just tired of repeating myself because people don't want to read the thread.  So yes, the constant "Hey, let me bring up something that's already been hashed out in this exact thread." Is extremely tiring.  I'd prefer people read the thread and apply critical thinking before coming in and trying to gotcha people (I am not talking about the people who have been conversing repeatedly with this complaints.  Rogue et al have at least been engaging with novel discussion).

 

Im more than okay with us having difference in opinions.

 

[Antarius]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

So GW doesn't care what base you use?  That's your contention?

 

Could have fooled me. Seems like they include a base with every kit that needs one. Seems like the instructions include putting models on bases as part of the process.  Those seem like pretty official calls to me.  Feels like since they do update base sizes, they definitely care about what base size your guys are on.

Cool, I'm happy that there's no problem. I do think you come off as somewhat condescending when you address people's points like this, but maybe that's just the internet?
My contention is that it seems strange to act like there's an obvious rule about bases, when GW explicitly have not made any such rule. They have, after all, had 10 editions -and a website where they regularly post rules updates about what seems to be much more trivial matters- to make such a rule, if they wanted to. So yes, I think there's a reasonable inference to be drawn there (and again, this is assuming that the statements on bases they've made over the years don't exist or don't apply to 10th or whatever other scenario we might think of).
I don't see how them including a base somehow invalidates that point?

I still think it's strange why you think it's obvious that the WHW-event should somehow carry over into some sort of official policy on the matter. Because it's genuinely a complete non sequitur to me. To my mind the rules about a given tournament are intended specifically for that event and if they intended them to apply beyond that, I think they'd have mentioned that elsewhere too - or at an absolute minimum they'd have said so in the document itself.

As I said earlier, I totally agree that GW very likely expects you to put models on the bases in the kits, but I genuinely can't see why that (probable) expectation would somehow carry any sort of "official rules" level of weight.

Of course everyone can (and should) do what they want, that's not in doubt. Your stance that it's good to rebase old models is completely valid - but I think the reason it raises some hackles is that you write off people as "lazy" or as someone who doesn't care about their opponent if they don't share that stance.

We obviously agree that it's not the end of the world, but we all seem to find it important enough to have a stance on it. So I think it's only fair that we also explain and discuss those stances.

[DemonGSides]

28 minutes ago, Antarius said:

My contention is that it seems strange to act like there's an obvious rule about bases, when GW explicitly have not made any such rule. They have, after all, had 10 editions -and a website where they regularly post rules updates about what seems to be much more trivial matters- to make such a rule, if they wanted to. So yes, I think there's a reasonable inference to be drawn there (and again, this is assuming that the statements on bases they've made over the years don't exist or don't apply to 10th or whatever other scenario we might think of).
I don't see how them including a base somehow invalidates that point?

 

I have never said nor acted like there is an explicit or obvious rule.  This is what I mean by you're not taking into account what people have already said; my entire argument is that base sizes matter in the mechanics of the game, there is no proscription from GW, the closest thing we have is what the official kits suggest, that's what you should be playing.  It's not a contentious position. 

 

This is another "Deliberate" situation where you have fabricated more about what someone else said while castigating me for supposedly doing that. It's exhausting.

 

29 minutes ago, Antarius said:

I still think it's strange why you think it's obvious that the WHW-event should somehow carry over into some sort of official policy on the matter. Because it's genuinely a complete non sequitur to me. To my mind the rules about a given tournament are intended specifically for that event and if they intended them to apply beyond that, I think they'd have mentioned that elsewhere too - or at an absolute minimum they'd have said so in the document itself.

 

That was posted, in context, to show that there is SOME guidance on base size. If you read the post and the followups, I specifically mentioned that it is for tournament play, which you shouldn't automatically say is the be all end all. It's literally on the same post as the pic you're saying is a non-sequitur; a very interesting turn of phrase from someone who posted Age of Sigmar rules to support their position that GW doesn't care what bases you use. Like... At least my document was related to the game we are discussing.

 

31 minutes ago, Antarius said:

As I said earlier, I totally agree that GW very likely expects you to put models on the bases in the kits, but I genuinely can't see why that (probable) expectation would somehow carry any sort of "official rules" level of weight.

 

No one ever said they were official rules; another instance of you just making up stuff about what I and others have said.

 

32 minutes ago, Antarius said:

Of course everyone can (and should) do what they want, that's not in doubt. Your stance that it's good to rebase old models is completely valid - but I think the reason it raises some hackles is that you write off people as "lazy" or as someone who doesn't care about their opponent if they don't share that stance.

 

To me it is laziness.  I'm okay with people disagreeing with me about it.

 

34 minutes ago, Antarius said:

We obviously agree that it's not the end of the world, but we all seem to find it important enough to have a stance on it. So I think it's only fair that we also explain and discuss those stances.

 

Perfect! Go back and read the posts I've already made explaining and discussing my position instead of making me rehash this over and over and over and over and over.

[Antarius]

No thanks. I think reading the thread twice was quite enough 

You can say what you will, but you keep calling other people's opinions that there isn't a "proscription" on base sizes "frankly completely ridiculous", "lazy", "rude to your opponent", "basically straight up cheating" etc. etc., so I really don't think it's just a question of you being super clear that you think it's ok to not rebase things and the rest of us not reading what you wrote. In fact, I think people on the whole are bending over backwards to extend the benefit of the doubt to you and you just not communicating very well, unless your aim is to be antagonistic to those of us who don't share your stance.

And, just for the record, I'm not "making" you do anything, I'm just trying to have a discussion about the topic of the thread and - again - bending over backwards to assume that you might have something interesting to say, apart from the casual rudeness. Something I'm still willing to do, btw. But it sort of requires you to interact with the points I (and. the other people in the thread) make instead of just dismissing them as absurd (and so on).

Edited June 27 by Antarius

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

Stuff (editor won't let me delete)

 

Nevermind. Not worth the brain power. 

Edited June 27 by DemonGSides

[DemonGSides]

Honestly, never mind. I'm out on this thread. 

Edited June 27 by DemonGSides

[gideon stargreave]

An interesting thought that comes up in this thread is what playing 40k means. For some, it is implicitly 10th ed, whereas for others it is 10th Ed but with all of their personal history of the game, and others it is whatever edition they fancy at the time. For me it’s something else. This could be a topic for a future thread 

[Lord_Ikka]

=][=This thread has run its course, it will be locked for now. =][=