New 32mm Bases - What Does it All mean?

[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.