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

[Sleboda]

48 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

You say that Dead Scribe has the right to play however he wants. What about people who may have no choice but to play in his group if they want to get a game? Don't they have the same right? Should we all just be subject to the tyranny of the majority, or is it better to have a more flexible and inclusive attitude?

While I do agree that Dead Scribe comes across as overly bro-ish, forceful, and hostile (curious - NYC Warmonger by chance), I do have to say one thing in defense of him and his group.  While it may stink that the only players in one's area won't game with you unless you conform to their standards (which, btw, is notable for the shift in his original "force them" tone to the somewhat softened wording of more recent posts), everyone has a right to refuse to play a given person.  It's a far cry from the "tyranny of the majority" to simply not want to game against like-minded players.

 

Inclusivity is great.  I encourage it. That said, if someone were to come to where I game and ask to play against my painted army using his collection of half-assembled proxies that are unpainted, I would (politely - which seems like the difference between Dead Scribe and others - the idea of basic civility) decline the match, as would many, many players in my area.

Dead Scribe is no more forced to allow his opponents to dictate his preferences than he should be allowed to dictate those of others.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Dead Scribe is no more forced to allow his opponents to dictate his preferences than he should be allowed to dictate those of others.

True, but there's a lot to be said for compromise and meeting people half way. If we all refused to play with people who don't play or hobby the way we prefer to  just because we have the 'right' to do so then there'd be a lot less AoS being played. Better to build bridges than put up walls, etc.

[rokapoke]

1 minute ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Better to build bridges than put up walls, etc.

Well, as a structural engineer, I get paid either way... ?

[Dead Scribe]

We don't force anyone to do anything.  I used the wrong word in my communication.  If any of our members are up at the store and a person requests a game but has smaller bases or squares, we inform them that we are practicing for tournaments.  That usually resolves the entire issue most of the time (but not all the time, which is how I posted this and found out I was mistaken in that matched play does not enforce a standard that I thought it did).  No one is being sneered at or having any uncivil discourse.

If our goal is to get as good at tournaments as we can and that means our practice games are tournament prep games, compromise would mean that we are playing the game in a way that we would not be at a tournament, which is not why we are playing in the first place.  I want all of my games to be meaningful to me which means if I'm just goofing off and not playing a game that is reflective of the competitive meta, that I am not having a meaningful time and don't want to participate.

[Sleboda]

5 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

If our goal is to get as good at tournaments as we can and that means our practice games are tournament prep games, compromise would mean that we are playing the game in a way that we would not be at a tournament, which is not why we are playing in the first place.  I want all of my games to be meaningful to me which means if I'm just goofing off and not playing a game that is reflective of the competitive meta  environment/style , that I am not having a meaningful time and don't want to participate.

Interestingly, other than the one edit I made, I completely agree with this.

It's a big reason why I hate comp and would prefer there be a standard set of tournament rules that all events around the world use.  I hate when I am prepping for an event and know that all of it will be wasted effort by the time the next event rolls around.

Conversely, I have seen the negative impact of tournament prep.  It does end up dictating how every game gets played, just exactly for the reasons you indicated. If there was just One Set of Event Rules, it would open up (oddly) more room for the odd one-off relaxed game.  As it stands, each game leading up to a given event is far too precious to "waste" on a game using different rules.  For those who get lots of games in, please note that in many areas of the US (and other places) it unlikely you'll get in more than one game a week on average.  You can go months without a game and then have a focused weekend where maybe you get in 3 or 4 games - and those need to focus on event prep.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

We don't force anyone to do anything.  I used the wrong word in my communication.  If any of our members are up at the store and a person requests a game but has smaller bases or squares, we inform them that we are practicing for tournaments.  That usually resolves the entire issue most of the time (but not all the time, which is how I posted this and found out I was mistaken in that matched play does not enforce a standard that I thought it did).  No one is being sneered at or having any uncivil discourse.

If our goal is to get as good at tournaments as we can and that means our practice games are tournament prep games, compromise would mean that we are playing the game in a way that we would not be at a tournament, which is not why we are playing in the first place.  I want all of my games to be meaningful to me which means if I'm just goofing off and not playing a game that is reflective of the competitive meta, that I am not having a meaningful time and don't want to participate.

While I stand by my belief that being inclusive and accommodating are really important traits that we should all take responsibility for fostering in our communities, I accept that I've been too heavy handed in my criticism. You don't deserve to be antagonised and for that I apologise.

[chord]

SIGH............

I really wish GW never introduced matched play rules/guidelines.  Too much of this kind of discussion is everywhere (real life and internet).  

AoS is a terrible "competitive game".  There are better competitive games out there.    The great thing about AoS prior to Matched Play was the community comp systems.   If you didn't like one make your own.  Now we have the worst of both worlds.  We have AoS matched play , as well as player comp ("correct" bases).

But back to the topic, I would be fine with standard base size if GW would sell things with the proper base size or throw in the proper base size for free.  

 

[herohammer]

What do people think should be done in the case of the “mistakes” on the recommended basing size guide, ie. when a model comes with a round or oval base that is a different size than the one recommended for it? Or have those all been fixed? I remember quite a few like that when the basing guide first came out.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, herohammer said:

What do people think should be done in the case of the “mistakes” on the recommended basing size guide, ie. when a model comes with a round or oval base that is a different size than the one recommended for it? Or have those all been fixed? I remember quite a few like that when the basing guide first came out.

I haven't actually checked but I've heard it said that all the inconsistencies and nonsensical choices have been addressed. Certainly it's been updated in some way at least once since it was first posted.

[Bosmer Nightblade]

2 hours ago, herohammer said:

What do people think should be done in the case of the “mistakes” on the recommended basing size guide, ie. when a model comes with a round or oval base that is a different size than the one recommended for it? Or have those all been fixed? I remember quite a few like that when the basing guide first came out.

Again, GW's rules in the actual base size pack address this.

"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. "

I really feel for gw. They try, but people are apparently resilient to official text.

[bushman101]

12 hours ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:

GW still sells a lot of models on the old squares, including in GW stores. I don't see them changing the basing policy for years (if ever) since we're going to be few years into AOS before GW itself stops selling the old squares with its models.

I want to echo this statement.

As someone who plays a non-updated army (Skaven united), most of my stuff comes with square bases.

I wouldn't envy a new player, who picked up Skaven, built his/her stuff, just to find out its on the 'wrong' bases

[Mephisto]

7 hours ago, chord said:

AoS is a terrible "competitive game".  There are better competitive games out there.   

I think people that play AOS competitively are here for more than just the competition. You can like competition, like to model, and like to have fun. You can fall in love with the setting or an iconic character. Maybe your friends got you into it and somewhere along the way you became addicted to plastic. Or maybe it's none of those things. I suspect everyone here possesses an assortment of qualities in varying quantities that make them enjoy this game/hobby. 

People are strange. This matched play vs open play thing is strange to me. I look at the competitive people and wonder what it hurts to play against some dude's sweet legacy army from the 90s on square bases outside of a tournament. I look at the open/narrative play people and wonder, if they're going to ignore rules anyway, why it bothers them that GW tries to make their rules better. 

Please don't think I'm calling you out Chord. I just find this dichotomy within the community fascinating. I do think the Internet exacerbates the divide due to its binary nature (ha! binary). You talk, I talk, you talk and we do so without the benefit of tone or important non-verbal cues humans tend to require to communicate complex thoughts and feelings.  It means that when you type one thing you must clearly be against the other thoughts that you chose not to type or that someone else has typed. I don't hold to that. I guarantee that most of you disagreeing over bases right now in this thread would still have fun playing each other if you randomly met in some LGS. Do you want to know why I know that? Because AOS is a great game. 

I've said it in other threads, AOS is a social game. That's one of its super powers. That's why someone might gravitate to this "terrible competitive game" over a better one. Magic the Gathering is a better competitive game from a rules stance to its prize support and accessibility. It does have a higher cash barrier to entry but a lower time barrier (it's also easier to get good at since you can grind out games at home online or play literally ten of them in person in the time it takes someone else to play AOS). It also has dudes that show up to the tournament with headphones on and never say a single word to you. Everything is a secret in MTG - what deck am I playing, you don't know until I begin to put lands down and cast spells. What's my sideboard? You might never find out. In AOS, I hand you a sheet of paper with my army on it. I talk about which side of the board I want when I win the die roll. Talk about saves. Talk about abilities. And so on. In that respect, I think AOS is a fantastic competitive endeavor. The rules have made it easy to run a realmscape tournament. I mean sure, some Realm Rules need to be thrown directly in the garbage from a competitive stance but even if you do that, there's enough meat on them bones for a Good TO or good group of friends to make something special. I think that's a massive advantage over other competitive things. For me personally, it combines the other aspects of me as a writer and a long time GM/DM and pairs it with winning... something else I happen to like. 

And all that said, it doesn't pay for me to be a bag about it just because someone else plays the game differently. AOS is a very robust game and it's capable of accommodating the multitude of playstyles. I'm happy they suggested base sizes. The TOs already had a perspective on that anyway, this just solidified it. But they are "suggestions" so I think competitive players (self included) can ease up some at the LGS. I keep coming back to this one guy's skaven army I see around. It's gorgeous and he's a really intelligent and nice guy. I'm not going to turn down a game with him because his rats are on squares. Just like I wouldn't turn down someone that wants to do some odd number of points narrative thing. "Sure, I got 30 minutes and... 780 points of guys in my glovebox. What story do you want to tell?" But that's my love of the game overiding my love of rules, theorycraft, winning, etc.

[AaronWilson]

I will apologise to you @Dead Scribe as your following posts have explained where you're coming from a lot better and no one is wrong for wanting to play in a certain way. I my self am practising for Throne of Skulls later in the year so I appreciate your viewpoint, sorry again. 

[Dead Scribe]

My poor choice of wording didn't help matters.   

[RexHavoc]

10 hours ago, bushman101 said:

I want to echo this statement.

As someone who plays a non-updated army (Skaven united), most of my stuff comes with square bases.

I wouldn't envy a new player, who picked up Skaven, built his/her stuff, just to find out its on the 'wrong' bases

Not only that, but GW actually still send out squares on models that have been 're-released' as AoS models.

Several of the old undead models were put up on pre-order when Legions of Nagash came out. I picked up the corpse cart which was one the pre-order. I'm sure that they even showed it on a oval/round base on it's new webstore page. Sent me one in the plain mail order box with a square base. Annoyed, as its going to be another €2-4 to get a round base, which I keep forgetting to order(needs to be with a big order, as I am not paying postage on a base!)  I know I could grumble about it to them and have them probably send me one out, but in thirty years I've barely had any issues with anything I've brought, at least nothing that wasn't able to fixed instantly in store, but in the past year I've had to email them about five times with larger issues (damaged items,  web store order got stuck in system for limited time items they had to hunt down replacements etc) and don't want to end up on some list of names of people that ask for new parts every couple of months!

As far as I'm concerned, everything in the entire rulebook is optional, so the basing guide defiantly is. I'll house rule anything I want to make the game suit my needs.

As long as your only basing with in the spirit of the game/rules (ie: not basing to cheat) then I don't see why anyone should have a problem with any bases. Sure they can give reasons as to why, but for every reason why there is a decent answer to say why not.

[chord]

@Mephisto

 Good points.    IMO AoS is a great hobby/gaming system until people try to turn it into a list building game. And that's there it all falls apart.   That is where we see things all come down.    Honestly list building games only benefit the companies sell the things you put in the lists.

[Chris Tomlin]

....and I think we're done here guys.