New 32mm Bases - What Does it All mean?

[Kesher]

MBG sums up the impact both on the tabletop and in the hobby for the new 32mm bases! http://spikeybitsblog.com/2014/12/40k-hobby-the-burning-32mm-question.html (http://spikeybitsblog.com/2014/12/40k-hobby-the-burning-32mm-question.html)



http://youtu.be/tyvYHIhKT6s

[deinol]

One of the interesting quirks about 40k (I don't know how things are described in Fantasy) is that the only thing the rules say about bases are: "Models must use the base the model is supplied with."

So by the book, nobody can complain when your old metal wraithguard, your classic terminators, or your hundreds of marines are all based the "old way".

According to my local GW store, the new bases are just for jump marines, not all marines. I certainly don't plan on changing the bases on any of my existing models.

The real question will be if the existing assault marine box will start coming with larger bases. Although I won't buy any more of those until they finally make a new kit.

[Gir]

I don't even think that's a rule anymore. From memory it now says "These rules assume models are one the bases they came with" or something similar.

[40kGamer]

I don't even think that's a rule anymore. From memory it now says "These rules assume models are one the bases they came with" or something similar.

Yeah, 7th turns basing into the wild west with essentially 'use whatever you want' for your base. Another part of GW opening up the rules.

[John Bower]

One of the interesting quirks about 40k (I don't know how things are described in Fantasy) is that the only thing the rules say about bases are: "Models must use the base the model is supplied with."

So by the book, nobody can complain when your old metal wraithguard, your classic terminators, or your hundreds of marines are all based the "old way".

According to my local GW store, the new bases are just for jump marines, not all marines. I certainly don't plan on changing the bases on any of my existing models.

The real question will be if the existing assault marine box will start coming with larger bases. Although I won't buy any more of those until they finally make a new kit.

Except that the new BA tacticals look like they are on 32mm as well. I'd like to hope it was just Jump guys; it wold make sense after all but from the pics doing the rounds I have my doubts.

[Brenlak]

White Dwarf Issue 44

On page one new releases:

32mm round base: $6 for 10
50mm round base: $6 for 3
170mm oval base: $6 for 1

Shield of Baals came with a Carnifex on a 170mm oval, WTF! So whats going on then, a W4 monsteous creature goes on a big base? Hashtag Demon Prince Dioramas.

[Rob-O]

Sheild of Baal: Deathstorm came with a new 105mm oval base for the carnifex and a 75mm oval for the broodlord.

75mm Deathstorm Broodlord
105mm Carnifex
120mm Monstrous Creature
170mm Imperial Knight

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=11982&d=1418129075

[Path Walker]

Yeah, rules now are "use whatever base you think looks best"

[40kGamer]

Sheild of Baal: Deathstorm came with a new 105mm oval base for the carnifex and a 75mm oval for the broodlord.

75mm Deathstorm Broodlord
105mm Carnifex
120mm Monstrous Creature
170mm Imperial Knight

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=11982&d=1418129075

First thing I sent out to my local group when I opened the box... lots of new bases! Holy crap, there won't be any consistency in the basing of 40k armies for ages with all of these changes. I'm surprised they didn't go ahead and pump the stealers up to the 32mm base size... and while we're at it Orks need bumped up too.

[Erik Setzer]

First thing I sent out to my local group when I opened the box... lots of new bases! Holy crap, there won't be any consistency in the basing of 40k armies for ages with all of these changes. I'm surprised they didn't go ahead and pump the stealers up to the 32mm base size... and while we're at it Orks need bumped up too.

Eh. Nobz, I'd go along with 32mm bases (though not rebasing any). But even though my Boyz often go over the edges of their bases, I don't think it'd feel right to push up their base size. For one thing, it'd make it a pain to try to deploy a horde of Orks. (And there's no way I'm rebasing that many models!)

[40kGamer]

Eh. Nobz, I'd go along with 32mm bases (though not rebasing any). But even though my Boyz often go over the edges of their bases, I don't think it'd feel right to push up their base size. For one thing, it'd make it a pain to try to deploy a horde of Orks. (And there's no way I'm rebasing that many models!)

I'm thinking base orks are supposed to be big compared to humies so if the old standard 25mm base is the new human/Eldar footprint, then orks are better represented on the new 32's. Although rebasing a full horde would be God awful!

[Brenlak]

Point is does this piss anybody off? As a Tyranid player all my little bugs are safe but the thought of having to redo bases for my MCs (The bases I put the most work into) really grinds my gears. Not to mention none of my Carnifexi will fit in the Carrying cases I have for them anymore, what a mess this all is!

Does anyone have any idea why GW would think this is a good idea? I understand they have this size in fantasy already (Saurus bases right?) but why on earth would they do this? Is there something wrong with the old bases?

[Wolfshade]

There is no requirement to change bases.
When terminators went from small to large bases there was no requirement to rebase them.
When the flying stands went from small hexagonal to large rounds there was no requirement to rebase them.
When bikes went from square cavalry bases to rounded bases there was no requirement to rebase them.
When dreadnoughts went from large square bases to large round bases there was no requirement to rebase them.
Heck, when GW rescult models and make them bigger, terminators, rhinos, etc. there has never been a requirement to replace them.

[Erik Setzer]

There is no requirement to change bases.
When terminators went from small to large bases there was no requirement to rebase them.
When the flying stands went from small hexagonal to large rounds there was no requirement to rebase them.
When bikes went from square cavalry bases to rounded bases there was no requirement to rebase them.
When dreadnoughts went from large square bases to large round bases there was no requirement to rebase them.
Heck, when GW rescult models and make them bigger, terminators, rhinos, etc. there has never been a requirement to replace them.


Yeah, beg to differ with you, chap, but, well, my personal experiences are not what you're describing.

People still throw a fit when I deploy Assault Terminators on 25mm bases because I don't feel like going through the trouble of re-basing them. (I might do it with my Blood Angels Terminators simply because they're not fully painted and are mostly plastic, which makes them easier to swap.)

People are still wondering why I have Dreadnoughts with no base, or Eldar walkers with square bases.

Similarly, they act like my having no bases on a lot of bikes is wrong (even though the bikes didn't come with bases in the past; those only started being used when people figured it was a good way to avoid the models tipping over).

And using my Daemons with their square WFB bases in 40K? Hah. They act like a square base gives you some bonus or something, or changes the game significantly. Speaking of Daemons, my older Greater Daemons - which I usually use as Daemon Princes - and actual Daemon Princes are all on the 40mm bases they came with, and people get upset they're not on 50mm bases because that changed.

40K7 might not have a specific rule about what size base you have to use on each model, but the gamers themselves get pretty picky about it.

[Wolfshade]

I'm sorry your experiance is with people who are overly concerned about a fraction of an 1".

But the rules are rules, and it is one thing that I am thankful for that GW doesn't demand that you upgrade to the latest version of the model each time they upgrade.

[Denken]

In your example Erik the problem isn't GW or even you, the problem is those people who makes a stink. If you don't feel like rebasing, don't do it, GW doesn't ask you too and there are plenty of player who won't make a stink out of it.

I discovered this simple rule while playing WHFB and WH40K, I can't force you to play with me and you can't force me to play with you. Playing with people with whom you are getting along ensure that your gaming experience is more enjoyable.

[woodenronin]

I think I will just use a bunch of flat 32mm washers. That is close to 1 1/4 inch correct?

[Gir]

Also worth noting: Tyranid warriors in Deathstorm are on 50mm bases.

[Brenlak]

Thank you Erik for not making me feel crazy!

I get it GW does not enforce base size, but what about tournaments? I had an Ork warboss I got second hand, and he was on a smaller base than he should have been; I switched it over because I don't want to be accused of trying to get some kind of benefit due to improper base size (I guess I should have come here first because apparently there is no such thing as "proper base size").
But anyways like I was saying before the Wolfshade went...


Point is does this piss anybody off?


Does anyone have any idea why GW would think this is a good idea? I understand they have this size in fantasy already (Saurus bases right?) but why on earth would they do this? Is there something wrong with the old bases?

[Wolfshade]

Noise suggests that it was more artistic than rule based. [There is a quote in one of the other threads discussing this (or BA) that says that]

In terms of the differences that it makes, I think the pros and cons are faily balanced.

The biggest advantage to smaller bases that I can think of is that deep striking terminators have a slightly smaller foot print and therefore a lower chance of ending up having to roll on the mishap table.

[Path Walker]

Model company in "caring about the aesthetics of the models over the rules of a game" shocker.

[Mr Mystery]

Yeah, beg to differ with you, chap, but, well, my personal experiences are not what you're describing.

People still throw a fit when I deploy Assault Terminators on 25mm bases because I don't feel like going through the trouble of re-basing them. (I might do it with my Blood Angels Terminators simply because they're not fully painted and are mostly plastic, which makes them easier to swap.)

People are still wondering why I have Dreadnoughts with no base, or Eldar walkers with square bases.

Similarly, they act like my having no bases on a lot of bikes is wrong (even though the bikes didn't come with bases in the past; those only started being used when people figured it was a good way to avoid the models tipping over).

And using my Daemons with their square WFB bases in 40K? Hah. They act like a square base gives you some bonus or something, or changes the game significantly. Speaking of Daemons, my older Greater Daemons - which I usually use as Daemon Princes - and actual Daemon Princes are all on the 40mm bases they came with, and people get upset they're not on 50mm bases because that changed.

40K7 might not have a specific rule about what size base you have to use on each model, but the gamers themselves get pretty picky about it.

Dude. If it wasn't that, it'd be something else.

Perhaps they feel your paint scheme doesn't actually match some obscure reference from an obsolete book, and thus your Grey Knights must be fielded, as are, simply as standard tactical Maureens.

Or they feel that your Tyranid Warrior hasn't been built exactly correctly, leading to it's eyeline being a fraction of a milimetre to high.

Or your tanks weapons not having their barrels drilled means the weapons must count as destroyed, and cause a hull point of damage.

Every game has whiners like this - those who try to nitpick their way to victory rather than just sort of get on and enjoy the game itself.

[40kGamer]

Initially I was a bit annoyed by the change. Mainly because it came completely out of left field... pretty typical of how GW communicates with the customer base. However, after getting my paws on some the new bases and looking into the options it offers up, I'll revisit my Fluff scaled marines just because the 25mm base is too small.

I do expect this to be an event issue here in the states. Some people get seriously pissed if you use any basing that could be considered non-standard... and within a couple years, marines on 25mm bases will be 'non-standard'... as will all the nid and whatever other changes play out of this.

[Defenestratus]

Some people get seriously pissed if you use any basing that could be considered non-standard... and within a couple years, marines on 25mm bases will be 'non-standard'...

The only way this type of mentality will change is if we just refuse to accommodate these idiots who complain about superfluous things such as base size.

[40kGamer]

The only way this type of mentality will change is if we just refuse to accommodate these idiots who complain about superfluous things such as base size.

Absolutely. Base size has a mixed impact on gameplay anyhow.

[Erik Setzer]

The biggest advantage to smaller bases that I can think of is that deep striking terminators have a slightly smaller foot print and therefore a lower chance of ending up having to roll on the mishap table.

Ha! You think that's a pro now, but in early 3rd edition (prior to the WD edit giving Terminator armor a 5+ inv. save and the move to bigger bases), plasma cannons would just demolish Terminator squads that were Deep Striking in. And that was when you had to roll to hit a partially covered model. Didn't matter, because you could cover an entire squad of Terminators fully with the PC's blast.

And that's one of the reasons my dad had a Devastator Suicide Squad (four PCs... they'd die every game to their own weapons, but they could maul things like Terminators).

- - - Updated - - -


Perhaps they feel your paint scheme doesn't actually match some obscure reference from an obsolete book, and thus your Grey Knights must be fielded, as are, simply as standard tactical Maureens.

Actually, along those lines, I *did* lose painting points at a tournament a few years ago because my Orks weren't "uniform" enough. I did them as I always had, as a "Waagh!" force, with units painted as different clans (i.e. a unit of Bad Moons, a unit of Evil Sunz, a unit of Snakebitez, a unit of Deffskullz, etc.). And that's really how they used to be painted by GW all the time, and what every Ork army looked like (especially as back in 2nd edition there were rules for different clans' units), and how the fluff said they should be. Well, when you could find fluff, as this was during 3rd edition, when the Ork codex was pretty lacking. But because I didn't paint all my Orks the same, they marked me down in points.

The most "uniform" I'll ever get with Orks is painting all my Blood Axes to have camo... though the type of camo varies by unit.

- - - Updated - - -


Initially I was a bit annoyed by the change. Mainly because it came completely out of left field... pretty typical of how GW communicates with the customer base.

From what I've heard, they didn't really clue the store managers or a lot of other staff in on the change happening, which left them scratching their heads and unable to answer questions on it.

[Wolfshade]

Ha! You think that's a pro now, but in early 3rd edition (prior to the WD edit giving Terminator armor a 5+ inv. save and the move to bigger bases), plasma cannons would just demolish Terminator squads that were Deep Striking in. And that was when you had to roll to hit a partially covered model. Didn't matter, because you could cover an entire squad of Terminators fully with the PC's blast.

Oh yes there are plenty of cons to it (and some other pros), I was thinking of vs. vindis but yeah any large blast maybe i should have a play with my minis to see what advantages/disadvantages really are. But with the Mishap table now being forgiving, rather than wiping out models it isn't too too bad/

[BeardMonk]

As a WMH player I would have thought that the change in base size would have been a big deal. Base size decides LoS, bigger bases can affect charge lanes, how many models you can get close/in to an objective/zone etc.

Not trying to derail the convo but is it true to say that in 40K, base size is actually irrelevant? How to you decide of a model is definitely "in combat" or "in range" or "has LoS" etc without set base sizes for model types? Im showing my ignorance :-)

[Wolfshade]

Line of sight is from the models eye-line / along the gun to the enemy model. Basically if you can see something you can shoot it. The height of the bases are the same so it doesn't really make much of a difference in that respect. Since if you can see the base of the model but not the model itself you can't shoot at it. Similiarly the range is to the model.

To be in combat you either have to be in Base to Base or within 2" of someone who is and charging is on a squad by squad rather than model by model basis so if one member can get into combat then the chances are they all will.

So there are +/- with it all. So large bases makes it easier to charge multiple targets, but you can't get as many in base to base, but you might be able to get a larger 2" range from that to also be in the combat. The flip side is that larger bases can end up with more models in base to base.

So it is all very much swings and roundabouts.

[Blood Shadow]

Not modelling for a gaming advantage but I'll happily upgrade to 32mm bases, I won't re-base completely but with a bit of trimming and gluing, a little PVA and sand call it done...

I'm looking forward to having bigger bases, most of my BA suffer from wobbly model syndrome due to their awkward CoG on their current bases... I'm all for it, seems like a sensible change. I also don't see the need to upgrade if you don't want to that's fine too!

[Darren Richardson]

ha, we think we have it bad base wise, just think of all the poor historical gamers out there, with different rule sets for the same period having differing requirements for how their figures must be based...

Typical instance: Fed up of the rule set you've been using, and want to change to a different set such as ours do you sir, well sir, you can't play until all 500 of your greek hipolites are correctly based to OUR ruleset sir....

We've got it good guys, just remember that, almost all the Sci-fi mini games out there are using similar bases to ours...

:p

[Wolfshade]

Maybe we should all just use subbuteo bases

[40kGamer]

Maybe we should all just use subbuteo bases

Had to google this but it was worth it! :p

[Brenlak]

Bah Ha ha, Can you imagine trying to get LOS against a weeble wobble base!

[Erik Setzer]

Line of sight is from the models eye-line / along the gun to the enemy model. Basically if you can see something you can shoot it. The height of the bases are the same so it doesn't really make much of a difference in that respect. Since if you can see the base of the model but not the model itself you can't shoot at it. Similiarly the range is to the model.

Range is base to base. ("Distances between models and all other objects (...) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base. Distances between units are always measured to and from the bases of the closest models in each of the units (...)."

Under "BLAST MARKERS AND TEMPLATES" it specifically notes: "Remember that a model's base is counted as being part of the model itself, so all a template or blast marker has to do to cause a hit is to cover any part of the target's base."

Now, it is true that you check LOS from/to the body of the model (not anything sticking out of the body, just the main body). So base size shouldn't matter much there. But it can matter in terms of spreading a unit out, or (if you put an oversized base on a walker, for example) make it easier to hit a model.

[40kGamer]

From some of the pictures floating about it looks like Necrons are likely migrating to the new 32mm base too.

[lobster-overlord]

So, I have these 32mm bases from my Deathstorm set, and 400 marines. I am thinking for uniformity, that I may give these 5 to my sanguinary guard and put Dante on one, or... My xmas present to myself will be giving me time to cast the other 395 I need.

That would actually be fun. Make about 20 masters, and the decorate them, and then cast those over and over.

John M>

[John Bower]

From some of the pictures floating about it looks like Necrons are likely migrating to the new 32mm base too.

No those are just converted 'crons from this week's WD (and last week's too). I think (hope) it will just be *** mrns on those.