Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I haven't started painting up any of the infantry for LI yet.

Is it important to base them "properly", on 25mm rounds? I'm thinking of just basing them on 40x12mm bases to be consistent with all my other Epic armies that were built for Epic 40k. Also the basing is so much easier on strip bases than round ones.

But if there's a good in-game reason to go 25mm round.... or if people will be unhappy playing with my models being on 40x12 instead of 25mm round, then perhaps I'll just go for the 25mm round.

Everything else (vehicles, titans, knights) I had planned to base up as they come anyway, so no great issues there.

I have already played with the 3rd & 4th edition minis and bases (most of them 40x12mm for infantry), and no issue whatsoever...

In fact, it is easier to know who is engaged with who in big HtH fights.

There could be some advantage in cramming more to combat and board control but lf you are consistent and not a jerk(some with 25mm round, screens on 40mm squares...) likely not issue at home.

Tournaments likely won't accept. Those put house rules at aos/40k forcing bases. No reason to think won't in li

I, personally, wouldn't play you with your minis on non-proper bases, but given im on a continent a world away my opinion won't really impact you at all.

The change in basing will impact the way template weapons interact with your army vs a round-based army. Likewise they have implications with regards to line of sight, how units maneuver around eachother in close proximity (particularly when it comes to close combat engagements) and movement in general - a problem with rectangular basing is that if you rotate the unit about its center 90 degrees and then move, and then rotate it back 90 degrees, you will pick up extra distance on your move vs a round base, etc.

From the book:

if, for whatever reason, a model is fielded on a basesize other than the one provided with it (for example,due to a conversion), then it still counts as being on its standard-sized base for the purposes of the rules.
In such instances, the controlling player MUST have the model’s standard base size ready for use during gameplay for a point of reference.

Bottom line is, yes you can do it, but you need to give some leeway to your opponent when dealing with your infantry,, distances should be measured from center to center, and you might need to reduce the unit coherency range down from the default 2". (there is allso the wholly within and within wording to consider, as wholly within means the entire base)

When you opponent uses a template weapon, you need to use the standard base to determine how many models are hit by it.


But if you plan to do turnys, either local club or regional, you should use the bases that comes in the box.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I, personally, wouldn't play you with your minis on non-proper bases, but given im on a continent a world away my opinion won't really impact you at all.

The change in basing will impact the way template weapons interact with your army vs a round-based army. Likewise they have implications with regards to line of sight, how units maneuver around eachother in close proximity (particularly when it comes to close combat engagements) and movement in general - a problem with rectangular basing is that if you rotate the unit about its center 90 degrees and then move, and then rotate it back 90 degrees, you will pick up extra distance on your move vs a round base, etc.

I will post here what Epic 40k had to say about it:

FAQ: Infantry basing, old vs. new
[Content from Battles Book page 103.]

Back in the old days infantry were mounted on 20mm square bases. We've now replaced these with the new 40mm by 10mm 'strip' bases because we think the new ones look better and they make it easier to paint the figures mounted on them. Veteran Epic gamers are likely to have infantry on the old bases but there is no need to rebase them.

We've found in playing with both types that they work perfectly well together — square bases occupy less frontage when it comes to moving into cover or close combat but they are far more vulnerable to barrage weapons and mega cannon. This seems perfectly appropriate as the squad members on an old style base are more densely packed rather than in the skirmish lines created by the new bases.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I, personally, wouldn't play you with your minis on non-proper bases, but given im on a continent a world away my opinion won't really impact you at all.

The change in basing will impact the way template weapons interact with your army vs a round-based army. Likewise they have implications with regards to line of sight, how units maneuver around eachother in close proximity (particularly when it comes to close combat engagements) and movement in general - a problem with rectangular basing is that if you rotate the unit about its center 90 degrees and then move, and then rotate it back 90 degrees, you will pick up extra distance on your move vs a round base, etc.

Movement is longest distance any piece moved so rotating doesn't help. You measure from point that moves most.

If you just measure from initial position and rotate you are cheating. It's not basing. It's the cheater. No different to just moving round base further than could.

(this btw comes up with vehicles as is. And "problem" was solved decades ago in 40k already)

 Albertorius wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I, personally, wouldn't play you with your minis on non-proper bases, but given im on a continent a world away my opinion won't really impact you at all.

The change in basing will impact the way template weapons interact with your army vs a round-based army. Likewise they have implications with regards to line of sight, how units maneuver around eachother in close proximity (particularly when it comes to close combat engagements) and movement in general - a problem with rectangular basing is that if you rotate the unit about its center 90 degrees and then move, and then rotate it back 90 degrees, you will pick up extra distance on your move vs a round base, etc.

I will post here what Epic 40k had to say about it:

FAQ: Infantry basing, old vs. new
[Content from Battles Book page 103.]

Back in the old days infantry were mounted on 20mm square bases. We've now replaced these with the new 40mm by 10mm 'strip' bases because we think the new ones look better and they make it easier to paint the figures mounted on them. Veteran Epic gamers are likely to have infantry on the old bases but there is no need to rebase them.

We've found in playing with both types that they work perfectly well together — square bases occupy less frontage when it comes to moving into cover or close combat but they are far more vulnerable to barrage weapons and mega cannon. This seems perfectly appropriate as the squad members on an old style base are more densely packed rather than in the skirmish lines created by the new bases.

If the justification for soecial snowflake basing is "its easier to paint" then it's not a very good justification. Most people do the sensible thing and paint on a popsicle stick and transfer the painted mini to the base when done. If you're less sensible you paint on the sprue

chaos0xomega wrote:
If the justification for soecial snowflake basing is "its easier to paint" then it's not a very good justification. Most people do the sensible thing and paint on a popsicle stick and transfer the painted mini to the base when done. If you're less sensible you paint on the sprue

"Special Snowflake basing" = "The official bases for the last 26 years"

Sure.

But also? I prefer the look. If someone don't want to play because they feel offended by the rectangles, I'd 1) posit that it's them the special snowflakes, and 2) they can kindly go feth themselves. I've never seen that happen, though, not now with LI, not before with squares vs. rectangles, no even with AoS or 40k with the base size changes.

I guess it's another anthill of a "problem"?

given the book specifically calls out how to handle "older" bases its a total non-issue

Though sounds like chaos0omega might be cheating with vehicle moving. He wouldn't worry about rectangle base rotation free movement if he wasn't moving vehicles like that which is illegal.

If so good thing it got caught early

Regardless of shape of model/base regardless of how you rotate can't gain movement.

leopard wrote:
given the book specifically calls out how to handle "older" bases its a total non-issue

Does it? I didn't find any reference on a quick perusal.

think its noted somewhere, sure I read something about using "correct" bases if it matters.

noted specifically for fliers

P.37 is the closest.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaseSize andFigure CountIn almost all circumstances, save for those that donot need bases, a Legions Imperialis miniature will besupplied with a base of the appropriate size within thebox. The rules are designed with these base sizes inmind and it is presumed that players will use them.If, for whatever reason, a model is fieldedon a basesize other than the one provided with it (for example,due to a conversion), then it still counts as being onits standard-sized base for the purposes of the rules.In such instances, the controlling player must havethe model’s standard base size ready for use duringgameplay for a point of reference.The rules account for different numbers of figuresona base, which can change in numbering dependingon the figuresthemselves. In general, the numberof figureson a base should match those shown onGames Workshop officialproducts and should bedistributed evenly across the base; the rules have beenwritten with this in mind. If, for whatever reason,a base includes fewer figuresthan normal then leewayshould be given to an opponent when determiningline of sight.Due to the unique nature of Flyers, their base size isless stringent than other models, though it is advisedthat Flyers should be mounted on 40mm bases or ona standard Aeronautica Imperialis hex base. If a playerwishes to use a different base size, they should check with their opponent before the game to make surethey are happy with it.

may have been one of the online articles, I'm sure they have covered it under how previous edition armies are usable, though as that text notes basically don't extract the urine about it

leopard wrote:
given the book specifically calls out how to handle "older" bases its a total non-issue

Yup. I'm actually pleasantly surprised, there was a golden opportunity there for GW to upset the existing community there and they mention specifically that it is OK, which is kind of nice (and actually what is expected within Epic for the last 20 years or so, as the basing convention is absolutely all over the place).

I'm waiting for someone to be outraged that an opponent used older models fractionally shorter than the current ones and that this was somehow the reason they lost

 Albertorius wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If the justification for soecial snowflake basing is "its easier to paint" then it's not a very good justification. Most people do the sensible thing and paint on a popsicle stick and transfer the painted mini to the base when done. If you're less sensible you paint on the sprue

"Special Snowflake basing" = "The official bases for the last 26 years"

Sure.

But also? I prefer the look. If someone don't want to play because they feel offended by the rectangles, I'd 1) posit that it's them the special snowflakes, and 2) they can kindly go feth themselves. I've never seen that happen, though, not now with LI, not before with squares vs. rectangles, no even with AoS or 40k with the base size changes.

I guess it's another anthill of a "problem"?

I was mostly being silly by calling them special snowflake bases. Mostly.

The games not epic though, so saying these were the official bases for 26 years is meaningless. Likewise taking your modern minis provided with round bases and putting them on rectangular ones is kinda special snowflakey vs just using the bases provided with them, which makes it much harder to justify. Not like those minis were on those bases for 26 years and you don't want to damage them by rebasing, which is something I could at least understand. Instead you're making a choice to knowingly use wrong/nonstandard bases and asking your opponents to accommodate you, which is the stereotype underlying the term "special snowflake".

 Pacific wrote:

leopard wrote:
given the book specifically calls out how to handle "older" bases its a total non-issue

Yup. I'm actually pleasantly surprised, there was a golden opportunity there for GW to upset the existing community there and they mention specifically that it is OK, which is kind of nice (and actually what is expected within Epic for the last 20 years or so, as the basing convention is absolutely all over the place).

If you're referring to the bit that Ingtaer quoted, it basically says "you can, but you shouldn't. If you want to, get permission from your opponent and go through these extra steps to make sure youre playing as intended.". Not sure what about that is pleasantly surprising.

 Albertorius wrote:

I will post here what Epic 40k had to say about it:

In Epic 40k it didn't make a huge difference what size the bases were though. Strip bases were slightly harder to get into cover, but if you bunched units up in cover they were also more prone to barrages.

Epic 40k limited the number of units that could gang up on an enemy unit in combat to 2 (i.e. only a max of 2 units could engage 1 enemy unit in combat, the rest would have to support the combat rather than directly fighting). That in some ways made base size/shape irrelevant.

I guess a question is whether Legions Imperialis has rules that would alter how the game plays if a different base size were used?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If the justification for soecial snowflake basing is "its easier to paint" then it's not a very good justification. Most people do the sensible thing and paint on a popsicle stick and transfer the painted mini to the base when done. If you're less sensible you paint on the sprue

It's partly because all my armies are already based on strips, and partly because it makes the base easier to paint.

It's not actually about making the models easier to paint, I tend to paint them separately anyway, it's painting the base itself.

If you limit yourself to the urban basing that is used on the official models, it doesn't make much difference, as you can paint the base first then glue the models down. If you do any sort of textured basing, circle bases are annoying.

Now thinking of mounting my infantry on snowflake-shaped bases

In terms of the base shape, it is stated in the rules that different base shapes are permissible. So if there was a disagreement at a tournament (and, by God, do these sorts of discussions and the others ongoing make me think I would never want to take this game anywhere near one) the 'anon authors', ghost of Rick Priestley or whoever else it was that wrote the book, would be on your side with square or strip bases.

I think there is an element of a clash here with old-time Epic players, whose view on bases is very agnostic as it's been all over the place in previous editions and players coming from other GW games, which have very specific base size rules (and where for the most part you can't change base shape for single minis anyway). But I think most will find that strip, square, round, it doesn't make a difference in practice (at least that's my experience from Armageddon).

 Pacific wrote:
players coming from other GW games, which have very specific base size rules .

Actually GW games have very lax rules on bases. It's the players that enforce additional house rules regarding base sizes.

LI is actually strictest game so far in terms of bases for GW games...

tneva82 wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
players coming from other GW games, which have very specific base size rules .

LI is actually strictest game so far in terms of bases for GW games...

Really, I wouldn't say so when there is a full page in the rulebook explaining how one can use the old bases...

SU-152 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
players coming from other GW games, which have very specific base size rules .

LI is actually strictest game so far in terms of bases for GW games...

Really, I wouldn't say so when there is a full page in the rulebook explaining how one can use the old bases...

Compare to 40k's gw's rule. Model came with that base? Can use. No "play it as it were other size". You just play it as it is. No need to approximate or anything like that.

Li you measure infantry as if 25mm round and if in doubt opponent's favour.

40k 25mm round marines are played as if they have 25mm bases.

Anything beyond above in 40k is player based house rule.

tneva82 wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
players coming from other GW games, which have very specific base size rules .

LI is actually strictest game so far in terms of bases for GW games...

Really, I wouldn't say so when there is a full page in the rulebook explaining how one can use the old bases...

Compare to 40k's gw's rule. Model came with that base? Can use. No "play it as it were other size". You just play it as it is. No need to approximate or anything like that.

Li you measure infantry as if 25mm round and if in doubt opponent's favour.

40k 25mm round marines are played as if they have 25mm bases.

Anything beyond above in 40k is player based house rule.

So square bases are allowed in 40k? because they are allowed in LI.

LI also has the "Model came with that base? Can use" so what are the differences between 40k and LI ? (I don't play 40k and I have no idea).

well in LI you are meant to act as if they have the 25mm round ones, where as in 40k you are meant to have an argument over it

It's not a tournament game nor will it become one and like all other Epics before it, the meaningful differences between various basing conventions are basically zero in real world practice. Base as you personally wish to base, close enough is fine if done for aesthetic reasons.

People who won't play a casually fluffbunny game against nicely modelled armies due to woeful fears of extra millimetres here or there are simply not worth wasting both of your time with. The rulebook statement is there to alleviate any particularly weird interactions that might rise, but if it'd really be a sticking point from the getgo I'd just play with other people at that point.

On practical note, I've seen a fair bit of FoW bases with round corners upping their popularity around here.

I dunno seems like crablezworth is trying to turn it into a competition game

Yeah, good luck with that.

The size and dimensions of bases in LI is very significant to the way combat plays out. You can almost halve the amount of damage you take in combat with strip bases versus round ones in a situation where you're being assaulted from the front, because you can only ever kill what you can get into B2B with.

Strip bases would be more vulnerable against units with reach, but there are only two models in the game that have that rule at the moment so that's rarely going to come up. The rest of the time there is a definite defensive advantage to them - if it's a super casual friendly game then whatever, but I wouldn't expect them to be allowed in organised events and I think OP is probably better off biting the bullet and sticking with round bases if building an army for LI.

I'm not sure that is correct Eldar Vampire Hunter on two counts: Firstly, the rulebook itself states that for purposes of measurement you should imagine the bases are their original size. So if for some reason I had arranged my units 'for advantage', perhaps trying to stop other units getting melee, then if it reached that point of contention you would allow enemy units to 'step through' your units to reach ones behind, as if they are on thinner frontage. But, like several have said here from many years of playing Armageddon, in practice it doesn't really matter.

Secondly in most cases the player being charged would actually want to get into B2B with the rest of their units (as a pile in move, as the new game calls it) - extra D6 in combat is massively powerful, it was how in previous versions of the game units of bog standard guard and orks wiped out Terminators and Genestealers, so there is a big advantage to making sure your own units can gang up on enemy units in melee.

I actually just realised I have painted up my Night Lords on a complete mix of base types as I thought each type suited the different sort of unit. In the same way I'm doing some Death Guard and Solars on square bases, as I like the idea of them being ranked up and marching forward (similarly you can imagine the NL in round bases as less organised 'death squad'-type approach to their deployment). Hopefully that won't drive anyone into a paroxysm of fury (that's a word I learned from a WD Epic battle report! ) although as said I'll only be playing local club games, and not someone at a tournament who I guess might think I am just trying to game them with a few mil on unit frontages..