Change to Space Marine/40K base sizes

[BeardMonk]

There have been a few snippets of news floating about on the webspace that the new Blood Angels models are on a larger base size compared to other Space Marine models. 20mm up to 30mm i think?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/base-sizes-change-smaug-coming-games-workshop/

In my head, this makes sense in fluff terms as a Space Marine is massively bigger that an Imperial Guard trooper. So they should have bigger bases. But will it invalidate older models from competitive play?

What are peoples thoughts?

[Arkhan Land]

If this is this case, which it seems likely, im going to make and cast lil 20-30mm upgrade disks.

my question is, when do we see this with other units? will for example new Eldar HQ units kit's find themselves on bigger bases? which orks? which nids?

[Ben_S]

Currently the standard base is 25mm (about 1"). If you look at the Shield of Baal, the Genestealers are still on these, so presumably not everything is changing. The Death Company are on 32mm bases though and, from the look of the new BA Tactical Squad, this may be getting rolled out for all (power armoured) Space Marines. Whether it applies to other armies, such as Orks or Necrons, we can only guess.

Personally, I don't fancy the idea of rebasing all my models - even the ones that aren't painted will cost an extra £3 per (ten man) squad for the new bases - and don't intend to do so. We'll have to see what TOs decide though.

[Mr Mystery]

There have been a few snippets of news floating about on the webspace that the new Blood Angels models are on a larger base size compared to other Space Marine models. 20mm up to 30mm i think?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/base-sizes-change-smaug-coming-games-workshop/

In my head, this makes sense in fluff terms as a Space Marine is massively bigger that an Imperial Guard trooper. So they should have bigger bases. But will it invalidate older models from competitive play?

What are peoples thoughts?

In short, no. It doesn't invalidate owt, as you're meant to use the base the models came with.

[Deadlift]

I'm not rebasing a single model.

[Lexington]

Could look nice - there's a whole lot of overhang on a lot of Space Marine models. At the same time, I wonder if this won't make Marine models look smaller overall, with the reduced base size.

One place these really shine is for Nob-style Orks - Meks, Big Meks, Doks, foot Nobz, etc., since GW can never seem to decide if they're on a 28mm or 40mm base. This makes for a nice in-between, methinks.

[Joyous_Oblivion]

Space marines will be on 32mm bases as seen on the new Blood Angel tactical boxes. Everything else stays normal.

While I won't rebase my old guys, I do like bigger bases In general as it lets me do more cool stuff on their bases.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm interested to see how the scenic base makers play with the increased surface area.

[ElectricPaladin]

I probably will rebase my current models. It will annoy me to have different size bases for the same units in my army. It's also a good opportunity to mix in one of the subtler Dragonforge (or similar) lines to spice up my army's appearance. I won't demand my opponents do the same, of course.

My real question is how will this effect other units and other armies.

• Will scouts go up to 32mm bases?
• Will non-Astartes in power armor (ie. the inquisitor I just freaking finished) go up to 32mm bases?
• Both? Neither?

[YorkNecromancer]

While I like the idea of new, larger bases for Astartes, I will not be rebasing a single one of mine. Because that way lies madness. It took me long enough basing them up the first time round. No way am I spending another 60+ hours modelling, detailing, painting, pigmenting, and gluing another thousand or so of those!

[Darren Richardson]

I know what you mean Yorkie, I have over 120 Marines Figures all made up, no way am I gonna rebase ALL of them!

Another thing though, that new size base is gonna swamp retro Space Marines big time, 25mm Termies already look daft on those bigger 40mm bases.....

[Wolfshade]

I've still got terminators on their old small slot-a-bases if I haven't changed them over I'm not going to rebase all my marines

[CoffeeGrunt]

Wonder if Necron Warriors and other models will get the same treatment, the spooky, scary skelebots never seemed to stand on their bases quite right.

[John Bower]

Now if anyone needed 30mm bases they are it, I do seem to struggle with them staying stuck on.

[BeardMonk]

I don’t play 40K all that much so my grasp of things is quite shakey. However I working on some IG Valhallans atm as a break from other projects so its pertinent to me right now. It would make sense to classify troops in small (25mm), large (32mm) and monstrous (50mm?). I imagine this will affect competitive play as you can get less bases in contact with objectives etc if they are of a larger size etc.

But then we have the issue of “truescale”. There is no way that 10 32mm bases can fit inside a Rhino...... Or that SM flyer thing.....

I think this would be a headache for TO’s for the next year as those with different size bases may have a SLIGHT advantage in certain scenarios?

[HansRichter]

Well I think GW has just inadvertently stopped me giving them even more money.

Had been planning to base all my new BA minis using the imperialis basing kits, which look very nice. But only fit 25mm and 40mm bases.

Thanks GW :)

[Mad Cat]

I think that resin base manufacturers like Dark Art, Secret Weapon, Dragonforge, Iron Halo will make 30 or 32mm bases for their themes. Many of them have produced 50mm options when the centurions came out a while ago.

In the mean time I suppose the warmachine style 30mm rounded bases will be more acceptable on table.

Somebody mentioned a colar or expansion ring to convert 25mm to the new base size. If you remember the old grey GW bases with a detachable coloured collar for 2nd ed blood bowl you get the idea.

[Path Walker]

I don’t play 40K all that much so my grasp of things is quite shakey. However I working on some IG Valhallans atm as a break from other projects so its pertinent to me right now. It would make sense to classify troops in small (25mm), large (32mm) and monstrous (50mm?). I imagine this will affect competitive play as you can get less bases in contact with objectives etc if they are of a larger size etc.

But then we have the issue of “truescale”. There is no way that 10 32mm bases can fit inside a Rhino...... Or that SM flyer thing.....

I think this would be a headache for TO’s for the next year as those with different size bases may have a SLIGHT advantage in certain scenarios?

The bases wouldn't have to go in the Rhino, its not a ring of the ground that all troops carry around with them to stand on!

- - - Updated - - -

No one will have to rebase anything, there is no requirement for rebasing the book makes it clear that you use the base your models came with, the advantages/disadvantages are so tiny that no serious TO is going to care because its not important.

It will however, help jump pack troops make it through a game without falling flat on their faces.

The only interesting thing to come out of this is i've had a good laugh at people over reacting to 7mm more base size.

[40kGamer]

I'm literally of two minds with this. First off I'm plenty irritated that GW is making a change that will ultimately require me to rebase my marines to use them in tournaments. It doesn't seem like 7mm is a big deal now but within 1-2 years noone will be using old based marines at events. Hell, if you show up with old terminators and Wraithguard at events you can pretty much kiss your Sportsmanship score goodbye now, what do you think will happen if your entire army is on the wrong base.

On the other hand I'm loving the fact that I now have a base that will handle my fluff sized marines. It would have been nice if GW took this opportunity to address the marine scale issues but such is life.

When the dust settles most people will find a way to accept the changes but once again GW has managed to irritate an already volatile player base but I wouldn't expect any less from a company that still acts like it has the only game in town.

http://ct.iscute.com/ol/ic/sw/i53/5/8/21/ic_de8cde579876a5673a048daaa7fb5d7a.jpg

[ElectricPaladin]

I'm literally of two minds with this...

You should see a psychiatrist ASAP.

Literally =/= Figuratively.

:D

[40kGamer]

You should see a psychiatrist ASAP.

Literally =/= Figuratively.

:D

Something to bring up at my standing appointment! :D

Of all the problems in the world our community is dealing with mixed emotions over a change in the base size for our beloved models! :p

[Culial]

This whole thing really bothers me!
Not only because of the sheer number I models I'll inevitably have to re-base, not only because of the added expense doing that will bring to what I hope we call all agree is a already relatively expensive past time.

No, what's really grinding my gears is how this demonstrates that GW put next to no planning into said expnsive past time!
7th edition was conservatively 2 years "early" compared to previous release averages, yet now - less than a year in - GW are introducing an arguably large change (figuratively, I know 7mm isn't factually that large) to their biggest selling line!
I, as mentioned, take this to show ineptitude because I'd rather not believe (despite the mountains of evidence) that this move is the blatant money-grab it must otherwise be.

I truly love your product GW, but man do you know how to push my buttons!

[40kGamer]

This whole thing really bothers me!
Not only because of the sheer number I models I'll inevitably have to re-base, not only because of the added expense doing that will bring to what I hope we call all agree is a already relatively expensive past time.

No, what's really grinding my gears is how this demonstrates that GW put next to no planning into said expnsive past time!
7th edition was conservatively 2 years "early" compared to previous release averages, yet now - less than a year in - GW are introducing an arguably large change (figuratively, I know 7mm isn't factually that large) to their biggest selling line!
I, as mentioned, take this to show ineptitude because I'd rather not believe (despite the mountains of evidence) that this move is the blatant money-grab it must otherwise be.

I truly love your product GW, but man do you know how to push my buttons!

Right there with you mate. Although 7mm doesn't sound like much it is a 28% increase over the prior size so it is significant. The change in the footprint of a 10 man squad will be noticeable as will the squads ability to hug cover. It will also change the effectiveness of blast weapons against these squads as well. It causes one to wonder if this will ultimately roll out to other armies as well. Orks are supposed to be 'big' compared to humans so should they move to 32mm?

[Wolfshade]

Do you suppose if they do increase the marine base size then they will need to re-scale all of the different templates and blast markers to take into account the new larger marine footprint

[ElectricPaladin]

I really, really don't think this is a money grab. It seems... even more imprudent than usual. Consider two things:

1) It's not really a money grab because not everyone is going to bother rebasing their armies.
2) Relatedly, GW's own rules set says that you don't need to rebase your models if you don't want to.
3) Even among those who chose to rebase their armies, many of them will chose to do it entirely or partly with 3rd party bases (which will inevitably appear soon, and the enormous variety of wargames out there means that GW has no chance of winning a lawsuit preventing 3rd party folks from making 32mm resin disks with all sorts of decorations on them).
4) This choice is permanent. This isn't like the screamers - even if that was a money grab and not just poor game design - merely a rule that can be changed later. This is the way the game will be. Forever. And changing it again later will create such incredible backlash that GW will never get over it. They aren't that stupid.

So, you can argue if it's a good idea or a bad idea - personally, while I don't look forward to rebasing those models I chose to rebase, I don't really support stasis for the sake of stasis and I welcome our new 32mm overlords (underlords?) because the models will look better - but I am quite clear that it's not a money grab.

[Houghten]

Well I think GW has just inadvertently stopped me giving them even more money.

Had been planning to base all my new BA minis using the imperialis basing kits, which look very nice. But only fit 25mm and 40mm bases.

Thanks GW :)

I think you might also have been somewhat stymied by the Imperialis basing kits no longer being available...

[40kGamer]

Do you suppose if they do increase the marine base size then they will need to re-scale all of the different templates and blast markers to take into account the new larger marine footprint

I would be surprised if they bumped up the templates. It would increase their effectiveness against all of the standard base armies. Of course I was genuinely surprised by the bump in base size! :)

[Denzark]

Am I right in thinking the rule 'models must be on the bases supplied' was taken out of 7th ed?

[Camden Poole]

Could the changes in bases have to do with units that have the Bulk, Very Bulky, Extremely Bulky special rules just as a way to represent this in the game?

[ElectricPaladin]

Could the changes in bases have to do with units that have the Bulk, Very Bulky, Extremely Bulky special rules just as a way to represent this in the game?

Nope - it's regular marines as well as jump marines. The change is clearly for anything in power armor and/or Astartes physiology. Time will tell.

[DarkSideMammoth]

I believe this change to bases sizes on the marines is a good thing. As a Space Wolves player, all my infantry is in diffenrent dynamic poses and weapons tend to reach way beyond the base. Getting a unit in close combat with another unit that also incluse dynamic models while fighting between two buildings can be very frustrating because they all get tangled up and it can begin to get real messy when you need to remove THAT exact model from the middle of the cluster**** pile because it died.

I was just discussing that issue with a friend I play often with that just increasing th size of the bases on the bigger infantry models could make it easier to get those base-to-base you want without models getting stuck together.

This is clearly not a cash-grab move, as no one is forced to rebase their army and, honestly, there isnt that much profit to be done just by selling bases, especialy with all those third party offering all those nice textured bases.

Personally, I will rebase my entire army. Mostly to reduce the cluster****s of big melees in tight areas. Also, I will use that opportunity to make cooler looking bases as my skills improved a lot since I first started and my old bases are ratter dull.

The only annoyance here is the time needed to rebase an army, because bases aren't that expensive.

[Avien]

It would have been nice if GW took this opportunity to address the marine scale issues but such is life.

http://ct.iscute.com/ol/ic/sw/i53/5/8/21/ic_de8cde579876a5673a048daaa7fb5d7a.jpg

Given how ridiculous people's over-reaction to rebasing marines I can only imagine how people would lose their sh*t if the scale of marines changed! There would be rioting in the gw stores

I've been doing a true scale marine force for a few years now and have been accused of "modelling for advantage" ... Yeah, that's why I'm putting a half hour of conversion work into each marine... Not cos they look infinitely better...

I actually probably will rebase these models, they are a tad snug on the current bases.

[DWest]

I've been doing a true scale marine force for a few years now and have been accused of "modelling for advantage" ... Yeah, that's why I'm putting a half hour of conversion work into each marine... Not cos they look infinitely better...
If anything, truescale is modeling for disadvantage-- your models are bigger, so less chances for cover / breaking line of sight. Was your opponent(s) the kind of person who heard something once and thought it was a magic "abracadabra" kind of word to get out of losing?

[ShadowcatX]

Faeit has received a response from GW on this topic:


The Response from Games Workshop
Thanks for the email.
The new 32mm bases were a design choice made by the sculptors, to make the Death Company look more imposing. There is no specific base that you have to use for the Death Company, so should you wish to mount them on the smaller 20mm bases this is fine, but if you would rather have the slightly larger 32mm base, this is also fine.

I hope that this helps, but if you need anything further, please let me know.
Kind regards

[Starion]

Am I right in thinking the rule 'models must be on the bases supplied' was taken out of 7th ed?

In a manner of speaking.
In the Rules book it now says "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on bases they are supplied with". Nowhere does it say models even NEED to be based, or what sized bases they must be based on, only that some players may have used unusual sized bases, or use models of a similar size to gauge what base to mount a baseless model on.

[40kGamer]

Given how ridiculous people's over-reaction to rebasing marines I can only imagine how people would lose their sh*t if the scale of marines changed! There would be rioting in the gw stores

I've been doing a true scale marine force for a few years now and have been accused of "modelling for advantage" ... Yeah, that's why I'm putting a half hour of conversion work into each marine... Not cos they look infinitely better...

I actually probably will rebase these models, they are a tad snug on the current bases.

I can see pitchforks and torches converging on Nottingham if GW were to change the scale of Marines. :p

At some level I'm glad for them to never do this as it allows those of us crazy enough to model the big marines to have unique armies. I haven't found another fluff scale fanatic in my region. Actually I'm not sure how far I would have to travel to find one with 100+ marines and some vehicles... It would probably require a plane ticket and possibly a passport. :p

[HansRichter]

I think you might also have been somewhat stymied by the Imperialis basing kits no longer being available...

Awesome, I have two complete kits to put on eBay. It just gets better :D

[Frontier Wargaming]

I am terribly sorry for advertising and stuff, but we do have an easy and convenient solution for you.
Base adapters. (http://frontierwargaming.com/?product=25mm-to-32mm-base-adapters)
11945

[40kGamer]

I an terribly sorry for advertising and stuff, but we do have an easy and convenient solution for you.
Base adapters. (http://frontierwargaming.com/?product=25mm-to-32mm-base-adapters)
11945

Now that's impressive. Base adapters are available before the actual new bases even hit the shelves!

[xxvaderxx]

Do we actually know for CERTAIN that this is for ALL marines or JUST Death Company?

[40kGamer]

Do we actually know for CERTAIN that this is for ALL marines or JUST Death Company?

honestly it looks like it's still up in the air. I had missed the fact that we are now free to choose whatever base we want out of the main rulebook. I'll be converting my fluff scale marines to 32's but I'm going to leave my Howling Griffons on the custom bases I made for them.

[Path Walker]

I'll be rebasing at least my existing Jump Pack troops and Ork Nobs on these 32mm Bases, I might actually rebase all the Space Marines, I'm not happy with how I've done them right now, its too bland.

[xxvaderxx]

To me, in all honesty, Marines just dont feel worthy of a bigger base. As editions go by T4 sv3+ is becoming ever increasingly more irrelevant. In fact i would venture that the only time that counts for something is actually against other marines.
-Volume of Fire does not care about your defensive stats, because 6s wound everything and 1s fail everything and their game is making you throw enough dice to roll them.
-Poison does not care about your defensive stats either, they completely bypass your T and their game is again to make you roll enough save throws to go down.
-Quality of fire does not care about your defensive stats either, the Taus game is again to wound you easy and make you fail saves, when this is true armywide you will fail those saves.
-Rending does not care about either your T or your Sv its about rolling 6s, in eldars case, with the additional benefit of s4.
-Low AP fire does not care about your Sv and it tends to again wound on 3s or better.

This is in part why, cover save went from 4+ to 5+, because lesser units where getting marine like resilience. Which in my opinion should have happened thou is that save throws should be an additional armor save, not replace it. If you are wearing Kevlar and standing behind a door when shot, his bullet has to go throw BOTH, not EITHER.

To sum up, i dont feel marines are worth a bigger base.

[Path Walker]

I think this could help, at least from the look of it on the table, for marines to look more impossing.

And as a primarily ork player these days, 3+ is still very much an important thing, I can throw out 60 Shoota shots at a tactical squad and maybe kill 1 space marine?

There isn't as much stuff out there that can reliably kill marines as the internets mathhammering would have you think.

[DWest]

Mathhammer is good when used responsibly, i.e. "It generally takes X number of shots to take a hull point off that tank, so I had probably better dedicate 3X number of dudes to shoot at it if I want it gone". When it becomes "Well, the spreadsheet says I should have killed it by now, so take it off the table, because the spreadsheet says it's dead", then you're doing it wrong.

As far as the bases themselves go, I'd like to put my Assault Marines on the big bases to get rid of the Dread Faceplant Disease, but that's also going to make Deep Strike more dangerous, so I'm not sure if it's worth it yet or not.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Mathhammer's a guideline at best for whether something is feasible, which is why I don't understand people who calculate that 40 Conscripts under First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire will achieve precisely 2.3412321 dead Marines at 13-24" or other guff like that. The dice sure aren't that precise, so what's the point on making your math so precise?

Heck, I've seen my opponents get scared when I go, "right, that Conscript blob you only shaved 10 guys off is now in Rapid Fire range of your chargers, and I've just passed FRF, SRF. Prepare to take 120 Lasgun shots."

Then only 40 hit, about 15 Wound, and there's maybe 5 dead Marines there in exchange for a whole lot of nothing. Orks are similar - people seem to forget that these cheap, high rate-of-fire guns are weak, have neglible AP, are wielding by the Mr Magoos of the 41st Millenium, or all of the above.

I've had as many times where Terminators or Marines have flatly refused to fail a save and die as I have where squads have effortlessly evaporated due to a handful of 1s.

[40kGamer]

Mathhammer's a guideline at best for whether something is feasible, which is why I don't understand people who calculate that 40 Conscripts under First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire will achieve precisely 2.3412321 dead Marines at 13-24" or other guff like that. The dice sure aren't that precise, so what's the point on making your math so precise?

Indeed! Mathhammer can provide a general guideline as to whether or not something is likely but at the end of the day it can go either way. That's why I'm always willing to toss those hail Mary dice and hope for a statistical miracle. :p

[Defenestratus]

Hell, if you show up with old terminators and Wraithguard at events you can pretty much kiss your Sportsmanship score goodbye now, what do you think will happen if your entire army is on the wrong base.

Seriously?

This is a thing?

I've got buckets of old Wraithguard. I spent metric sh*tloads of money on the old metal *******s. They look splendid on their nice tiny 28mm bases. They look totally ridiculous on 40mm bases. They came with 28mm bases. They look better on 28mm bases. They don't need to be on 40mm bases just because a new kit came out with that different base size.

If someone told me that I was getting a lower sportsmanship score because my models that I bought in 1995 are still on their original plastic discs then I might say something to that person that would be worthy of a lowered sportsmanship score.

[40kGamer]

Seriously?

This is a thing?

I've got buckets of old Wraithguard. I spent metric sh*tloads of money on the old metal *******s. They look splendid on their nice tiny 28mm bases. They look totally ridiculous on 40mm bases. They came with 28mm bases. They look better on 28mm bases. They don't need to be on 40mm bases just because a new kit came out with that different base size.

If someone told me that I was getting a lower sportsmanship score because my models that I bought in 1995 are still on their original plastic discs then I might say something to that person that would be worthy of a lowered sportsmanship score.

I use non standard bases often. My marine bikers are on bigger homemade decorative bases made from the old GW how to where you cut the 40mm base in half and attach it to the 40mm square. They look 100 times better then the new official puny base. Most people are cool with it... most people are even cool with my oversized custom vehicles and my fluff scale marines. But there are a handful that are pretty damn picky about silly details... I imagine it to be the same personality type that *****es about the number of button holes on a 15mm Seven Years War coat, or those that feel inclined to point out that a certain regiment had curved rather than pointed cuffs in a given year. See GW fans, historical gamers have their own flavor of asshats too. :o

[Dave Mcturk]

the whole unfortunate tragedy of base sizes started when they moved to larger plastic models but didnt rationalise base sizes.

everyone must have whole bunches of orcs and genestealers [in particular] that seem to enjoy being a group in a 'twister' stylee!

they could have saved everyone grief by making bases a bit bigger at least a decade ago.

as far as the application of the rules goes common sense and a tape measure can overcome any 'random' size bases.

one trick we use is to put large unstable models [think venothropes / zagstruk etc] on much larger bases but have the 'legal' base inset so that a visible 'true' base is measured from when required [ie rarely]

[Wolfshade]

I can't believe people get upset by this. Will these same people complain that I am using a mk1 landspeeder, or original rhino chasis for my tanks.

Heck, 7th you don't need to base on the same size bases and GW said that it was for DC to make them more imposing!

[Path Walker]

Seriously?

This is a thing?

I've got buckets of old Wraithguard. I spent metric sh*tloads of money on the old metal *******s. They look splendid on their nice tiny 28mm bases. They look totally ridiculous on 40mm bases. They came with 28mm bases. They look better on 28mm bases. They don't need to be on 40mm bases just because a new kit came out with that different base size.

If someone told me that I was getting a lower sportsmanship score because my models that I bought in 1995 are still on their original plastic discs then I might say something to that person that would be worthy of a lowered sportsmanship score.

The question is, can I still use the cardboard Ork Dread from the 2nd Edition boxed set?

[Dave Mcturk]

my proxy wraithknights are made out of foam card, bit of paint and 'real' weapons - cost about 80p each !

[Mr Mystery]

Biggest load of drivel I've read related to this inexplicably contentious move?

Facebook post claiming it's GW going after the Scenic Base makers....

Let's think about that for a sec yeah? GW don't make their own range of scenic bases. Those companies that do make scenic bases now get to make an additional range, and quite possibly sell a second set of the new, larger scenic base to Joe Bloggs that bought the smaller scenic bases, who feels compelled to rebase his force.

And remember folks. You use the base the model came with. No need to rebase anything at all.

[Wolfshade]

I would prefer to base it myself based on my own materials, hence tactical marine - Frank, missile launcher extrodanaire has a monolith, vulture and land raider on his base, indicating large vehicles that he has missed when at 1" range...

[40kGamer]

Biggest load of drivel I've read related to this inexplicably contentious move?

Facebook post claiming it's GW going after the Scenic Base makers....

Well considering there will still be a host of models using the old base this is quite silly.

[Captain Bubonicus]

one trick we use is to put large unstable models [think venothropes / zagstruk etc] on much larger bases but have the 'legal' base inset so that a visible 'true' base is measured from when required [ie rarely]

Mmm - good idea.

[Erik Setzer]

Ha. "You use the base the model came with." I'd love to have an official rule somewhere I could point to with that.

Let's see, I've got:

- Terminators who are still based on their 25mm bases
- Dreadnoughts with no base
- Bikes with no base
- Wraithlords with 40mm square bases
- Daemons on square bases for WFB
- Weirdboyz on 25mm bases
- MegaNobz on 25mm bases (okay, they're the old ones that looked like Ork Terminators... but they're still cool!)
- A Weirdboy with two Minderz on a rectangular cavalry base

I can get away with some of this because the people I typically play with just don't care. But some people actually try to make a stink of it.

Heck, if I can just base my models however I want, I'm going to roll with that, so I can use more interesting bases in some cases. I don't care about trying to get a game bonus, I want my models to look cool.

[Denken]

The Rule book does say that the rules assume that the models are mounted on the base they are provided with and even goes on saying that some people could have miniatures on unsual base in their collection. It is under the "Models & Units" section of the core rule.

Personally, if I played with old base and someone would make a stink I would just politely decline playing with him or her.

[John Bower]

Ha. "You use the base the model came with." I'd love to have an official rule somewhere I could point to with that.

Let's see, I've got:

- Terminators who are still based on their 25mm bases
- Dreadnoughts with no base
- Bikes with no base
- Wraithlords with 40mm square bases
- Daemons on square bases for WFB
- Weirdboyz on 25mm bases
- MegaNobz on 25mm bases (okay, they're the old ones that looked like Ork Terminators... but they're still cool!)
- A Weirdboy with two Minderz on a rectangular cavalry base

I can get away with some of this because the people I typically play with just don't care. But some people actually try to make a stink of it.

Heck, if I can just base my models however I want, I'm going to roll with that, so I can use more interesting bases in some cases. I don't care about trying to get a game bonus, I want my models to look cool.

Hang on... Why is a Weirdboy on a 25mm base an issue? I got mine 2nd hand and he is like all my nobz on a 25mm base.

[Rajden]

Would have concidered it if they didn't try to make money on the bases in their web-shop, and sold them in about 50-piece-batches for a buck or so. ~

As it stands now, I already have like a gazillion standard bases, on assembled and unassembled models as well as hundred left over ones from "mixed base packs". This is a minor priority to be honsest.

It would be nice to do if only the cost and time you'd have to spend exeeded the actual impact on the game and visuals...