Back to bases

[Hive Bahamut]

So a big part of most models and especially in 9th is the base and footprint of the model. Some excel at move blocking (knight) some excel at Obsec (25mm)

Is there a way we can gauge a relevance to size? This might not even be a thing.. Sort of like points per wound, or dps, but mass/footprint?

Are there units that are better because of the base? Is there any reason why certain bases excel?

Some examples:

1. Obsec is gravy on 25mm and sort of less on anything 40mm+

2. Melee units love being 40mm+ so everyone can join

3. Buffers love 40mm+

4. Upgrading to a larger base usually has more pro's than con's

5. Flying stands are better than EVERYONE on a rock! (Don't be a Jerry)

[Overread]

Whilst this isn't in direct answer to your question, base size is important and generally always has been for warhammer games. AS GW is far more apt to change them right now I'd encourage people to email GW and politely request that they create a Base size Chart for 40K just like they already produced for Age of Sigmar. So that we can get the official current base size. Even if GW always hand-waves with "use the base that game in the box" at us, most events mandate the current base size as being the only legal one and many gamers want to play an honest game. We buy the current rules off GW and if GW has changed a base size we need a clear indication what it is

[xtztxtxz]

Hierodules probably deserve a mention here. Don't need obsec when you have a base so large nothing else can physically move near an objective!

[dranzyl]

Body shaming right here. /j