New 32mm Bases - What Does it All mean?

[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!