Base Size Chart - mandatory for matched play? Or optional?

[Dead Scribe]

I was under the impression that the base size chart was required rules for matched play, but I'm hearing that its optional and that people can still base whatever they want and that the base size chart is only a guideline?  I thought that the base size chart was optional for open or narrative play but required in matched play?

We have a player that won't rebase his smaller bases on the 32s because he says the rules don't say that he has to (and we all only play matched play)

[chord]

It's optional (unless I missed a section in the GHB?) 

[AaronWilson]

GW did come out and say there basing guide was just a guide and if you don't want you don't have to, they spoke about this on The honest wargamer. 

[Overread]

It's one of those "you don't have to use it" rules that is really a "well most people playing matched play would rather you did" and "tournaments are likely going to make it mandatory" 

 

 

Basically base size isn't just a visual element; its a core part of the game. If your troops are on smaller bases you can engage more into close combat than those on larger bases. As a result you'd get a benefit from user smaller bases than the standard. Whilst some might be legacy it could also be used to game for advantage. Furthermore whilst you can measure "as if" its hard to guess on the edge of a base that you've not got physically on the table.

 

It is a pain to have to rebase, but I think now that GW has come out with a formal document and the change from square to round is fully done for their product line we can steadily push toward enforcing standard use.

 

If we want a balanced game then its on the gamers to use standard base sizes as stipulated in the games rules. 

[Warboss Gorbolg]

For infantry I would simply ask an opponent to use a bit looser formations and not pile in as tightly if they are on smaller bases. Once you get beyond infantry, the issue doesn't matter enough to worry about (IMO of course). It's both expensive and time consuming to rebase so I can't imagine demanding someone to do so.

To my annoyance, Gargants were boxed with 105x70 ovals in the Ironjawz Thunderfist Battleforce (first release of Gargants for AOS), and I went ahead and based according to this. Now GW is saying 90x52 ovals. I don't plan to rebase as I think the bigger base fits the overall footprint of the model better and it adds some welcome stability to a top-heavy model.

[amysrevenge]

Yeah I'm known for tolerance when it comes to modelling, but for infantry units my tolerance for smaller bases drops down to about zero.  For heroes and monsters and elite units I have more tolerance, and I'm there all day for larger bases

Some armies have a standard where heroes are one base size up from normal troops, while others don't - I much prefer the former, and will often do the heroes up one size regardless of the chart - I'm set to do my new Stormcast and I'm pretty sure I'm doing the foot heroes on 50mm (haven't decided for sure yet, but that Heraldor can be tricky to pick out of the crowd on 40mm).

 

ETA:  As another example after the debacle with Gutbusters, I'm left standing with every unit matching the chart except for some Butchers on 50mm instead of 40mm, and I'm not changing them.

[Wired4War]

I think it depends how competitive/casual your group is. If you are strict about everything else, then you should also do so for bases. I've played quite a few games lately where people had square bases, as they were old fantasy players taking a second look at AoS for the new edition. If I said they had to rebase before it would be fair...then I'd have that many less opponents.

[Skabnoze]

A good rule of thumb is to use the recommended base size as the smallest size.  Go up to a larger base if you wish, but try not to go down.

For example, I am in the process of rebasing my Bonesplitterz and I am considering putting the heroes onto 40mm bases rather than 32mm - just so that they stand out a bit more.

[Jamopower]

As long as they still sell models with square bases, it has to be just a guideline. And as there is a guideline, it's relatively easy to avoid the largest advantages. For example it's easy to play 25mm squares so that you can'tstrike from the second rank with a 1" range. 

[Euphanism]

This is probably a dumb question, but where is the official basing list? I've been using the TGA one for so long I forgot it wasnt official.

[michu]

It's on the Warhammer Community's FAQ page.

[Skabnoze]

32 minutes ago, Euphanism said:

This is probably a dumb question, but where is the official basing list? I've been using the TGA one for so long I forgot it wasnt official.

It is at the end of the Designer Notes for the main rulebook on the Warhammer Community FAQ page.

[Euphanism]

47 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

It is at the end of the Designer Notes for the main rulebook on the Warhammer Community FAQ page.

Thanks! Totally missed that and searching for 'Sigmar Official Base Sizes' wasnt turning up anything at all.

[Nick907]

I think it will mostly be fine to have off sized bases, assuming you know how 'off' they are and can compensate for it. Older armies with the 20mm square bases are much closer together than they would be on 25mm round bases. Probably hard to correct that difference too. 

[AGPO]

Quote

In Warhammer Age of Sigmar, most distances are measured from one model’s base to another model’s base. In the vast majority of games, the actual size of the base is not terribly important, and you can use bases of whatever size or shape you prefer. The only possible exception to this is matched play games. This is because matched play games are intended to be evenly balanced contests, and in these circumstances having the same model on a different sized base can become an issue. To address this, on the following pages you will find a set of suggested matched play base sizes for all of the models in the Warhammer Age of Sigmar range. Don’t worry – you don’t have to rebase your model if it is not on the suggested base unless you want to (that’s why these are suggested base sizes rather than mandatory ones). If you prefer not to rebase your models, just assume that the model is mounted on a base of the appropriate size when setting the model up, moving it, or measuring any distances in a matched play game. For example, if you are a veteran player using an old unit that is mounted on 25mm square bases instead of the suggested 32mm round bases, you should set the unit up, make any moves, and measure all distances as if they were mounted on the larger 32mm round bases when you play matched play games. Although this may sound a bit complicated, in practice it is actually very easy to do.

 

So not required, but you can't for example fight in an extra rank with your bloodletters if they're mounted on the older 25mm rounds rather than 32s. Nor can you control more of the table by rebasing your chaos knights on 90mm ovals rather than 72s. Seems by far the most fair and balanced solution to me.

[bushman101]

I'm a Skaven player and I got a lot of sideways stares for my ClanRats on square bases.

So I'm re-basing.

The rounds do have a better model balance.

But it's a lot of work to re-base a horde army. I've done 160 ClanRats out of the ~280 I own, then it's off do my Giant Rats, Plague Monks and Storm Vermin

[EMMachine]

15 hours ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:

To my annoyance, Gargants were boxed with 105x70 ovals in the Ironjawz Thunderfist Battleforce (first release of Gargants for AOS), and I went ahead and based according to this. Now GW is saying 90x52 ovals. I don't plan to rebase as I think the bigger base fits the overall footprint of the model better and it adds some welcome stability to a top-heavy model.

If you used a larger base for him, I wouldn't rebase him.

In my case, most of my models that normally would stand on 25mm Bases are on 32mm Bases (because in my oppinion it looks better), and in the end it's a disadvantage for me.

[Bosmer Nightblade]

Why is this a topic? The answer is crystal clear from GW on the base chart itself.

"on the following pages you will find a set of suggested matched play base sizes for all of 
the models in the Warhammer Age of Sigmar range. 
Don’t worry – you don’t have to rebase your model if it is not on the suggested base unless you want to (that’s why 
these are suggested base sizes rather than mandatory ones). If you prefer not to rebase your models, just assume that 
the model is mounted on a base of the appropriate size when setting the model up, moving it, or measuring any 
distances in a matched play game. For example, if you are a veteran player using an old unit that is mounted on 
25mm square bases instead of the suggested 32mm round bases, you should set the unit up, make any moves, and 
measure all distances as if they were mounted on the larger 32mm round bases when you play matched play games. 
Although this may sound a bit complicated, in practice it is actually very easy to do."

[Overread]

@Bosmer Nightbladethe thing is:

1) Base size does affect gameplay balance. Therefore whilst it is not mandatory and is optional it will change how the game plays. If two players with the same armies face off and one is on smaller bases then that player has an instant combat advantage over the other.

2) Measuring "as if it were on a larger base" is not practical. An invisible base is hard to work with and would have to be measured for every model for every time it moved, not just when it moves into close combat. So you could do it this way but its going to seriously slow down your playing and make it a nightmare for measuring.

In the end I can see people putting models on new bases, putting a small base atop a big one or just rebasing. I can see it being mandator and I suspect the only reason GW hasn't made it mandatory is to avoid backlash from the established community (esp since GW has randomly changed some bases even after the shift to round bases from square). In a few years I suspect the base rule will become standard as the game advances; however right now its not. 

I fully expect this to be the kind of thing that steadily becomes the standard through tournament events and, lets be honest, we asked GW to make a more balanced game for us with proper rules. Players themselves who are asking and wnting that from GW kind of have to rebase or otherwise modify to fit with the established formal standard in order to make use of the balance in the rules that we've asked GW to write 

[Guest]

It's mandatory if there's a person or people controlling your play experience and they decide that it's mandatory - whether that's a a tournament organiser or just the majority groupthink of your local gaming group. In all other circumstances it isn't mandatory. Simple.

[Bosmer Nightblade]

33 minutes ago, Overread said:

@Bosmer Nightbladethe thing is:

1) Base size does affect gameplay balance. Therefore whilst it is not mandatory and is optional it will change how the game plays. If two players with the same armies face off and one is on smaller bases then that player has an instant combat advantage over the other.

2) Measuring "as if it were on a larger base" is not practical. An invisible base is hard to work with and would have to be measured for every model for every time it moved, not just when it moves into close combat. So you could do it this way but its going to seriously slow down your playing and make it a nightmare for measuring.

In the end I can see people putting models on new bases, putting a small base atop a big one or just rebasing. I can see it being mandator and I suspect the only reason GW hasn't made it mandatory is to avoid backlash from the established community (esp since GW has randomly changed some bases even after the shift to round bases from square). In a few years I suspect the base rule will become standard as the game advances; however right now its not. 

I fully expect this to be the kind of thing that steadily becomes the standard through tournament events and, lets be honest, we asked GW to make a more balanced game for us with proper rules. Players themselves who are asking and wnting that from GW kind of have to rebase or otherwise modify to fit with the established formal standard in order to make use of the balance in the rules that we've asked GW to write 

But the thread title is "base size chart - mandatory for matched play, or optional?"

This precise question is already answered by GW, in their official rules, on the base size chart, where they go at some length to stress that it is not mandatory for matched play.

In get that people might want to house rule their own rules. That's up to them. That isnt the question here though.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bosmer Nightblade said:

In get that people might want to house rule their own rules. That's up to them. That isnt the question here though.

True, however the answer that you give to that question should, if you're genuinely trying to be helpful, depend on whether the question was asked for theoretical or practical purposes.

Theoretically, you're right - the question is answered clearly by GW, and base sizes are not mandatory under any circumstances.

In practice, people will decide that base sizes should be mandatory in certain situations. If you tell someone that base sizes don't matter and let them go ahead and base their entire collection on the 'wrong' bases, knowing that they might face difficulties with other players down the road, then your answer isn't remotely helpful.

[Moonlightwolf]

20 hours ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:

To my annoyance, Gargants were boxed with 105x70 ovals in the Ironjawz Thunderfist Battleforce (first release of Gargants for AOS), and I went ahead and based according to this. Now GW is saying 90x52 ovals. I don't plan to rebase as I think the bigger base fits the overall footprint of the model better and it adds some welcome stability to a top-heavy model.

They updated the base guide because it had a lot of mistakes in its first release Gargants are back to 105x70

[Sleboda]

46 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Theoretically, you're right 

It isn't a theory.

Sorry, but my best friend does this all the time and it is annoying. You show him the rule in black and white and he replies, "Technically you are right, in theory, but it could be argued the other way."

Yes, if you change the words and create a new discussion, you could ignore the words I have just shown you and argue this new, imaginary way, but short of that, there is nothing theoretical about the rule we have just read.

[Dead Scribe]

Ugh I hope they change this soon.  Being able to base your models on whatever you want is definitely not good for the game.