Matched Play: Rounds Instead of Ovals

[Sleboda]

Hi everyone,

Now that I've accepted the switch to non-square bases, I find that I vastly prefer round bases to ovals.  For instance, my Boneripper is on round even though some might think he should be on a treeman oval (whatever size that is) because I just like the uniform look of all circles.

In non-matched play games this is not an issue. Heck, even in matched play it shouldn't matter because bases are not dictated in any actual AoS rule anywhere at all in any way. The issue, of course, is that some TOs feel a need to make the game play the way they want it to play, to put their stamp on the experience for everyone else, and so they are mandating bases.  Grr.  I digress.

Point is, I am making three new armies for AoS.  Both kinds of orcs combined, Daughters, and Syvlaneth.

In the Sylvaneth, the treemen and Drycha come with large ovals.  In the daughters, the cavalry come with old cav bases.  In both cases, I want to put them on round bases.  It would just look better.

Aside from the obvious "check with your TO" what is the opinion here? Any issue with rounds in these cases?

Thanks!

 

[N_Watson]

I have no issue with oval bases to be honest. Curious to hear your thoughts on cavalry and chariot bases of old? Obviously they were rectangular and not square. As were some monstrous bases. 

Also, on measuring base to base, to play to AOS rules, you would need to stack bases at some point in order to play the game properly measuring model to model. I am not going to spend all that time making my bases look nice to have people stack their models all over them and mess them up. 
Measuring base to base allows for people to all know where they stand when it comes to measuring. 

The generals hand book even hints at GW regretting the whole "measure model to model" thing. They make it clear that you can house rule with measuring base to base as an example. I would even go as far to say you should expect measuring base to base to be in Generals handbook 2.0. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

I'm not keen on the ovals either, LOTR cavalry came on rounds rather than ovals and looked great. I find the Khorgorath bases particularly unwieldy (although I did learn that theses were chosen because initially the Blood stoker and Khorgorath were going to be mounted togeather on one base).  In fact with oval bases you might as well be measuring model to model as at least that works better with true line of sight.  

I think the accepted way the go with non standard basing is to make sure the ones you are using are the same size or larger than the supplied ones, so it might involve a bit of maths to calculate base areas just to be sure. I think in most case people don't mind as long as it just looks right though. 

 

[Sleboda]

38 minutes ago, N_Watson said:

I have no issue with oval bases to be honest. Curious to hear your thoughts on cavalry and chariot bases of old? Obviously they were rectangular and not square. <snjp>

<snip> I am not going to spend all that time making my bases look nice to have people stack their models all over them and mess them up. 
<snip> 

The generals hand book even hints at GW regretting the whole "measure model to model" thing. They make it clear that you can house rule with measuring base to base as an example. I would even go as far to say you should expect measuring base to base to be in Generals handbook 2.0. 

How do you feel about rounds where ovals are "expected" though?  That's my chin-scratcher.

Not sure what you would like me to comment on when it comes to old cav and chariot bases.  Happy to comment, but I wanna be sure I am addressing your curiosity.

As to spending time on bases (I reeeeeeeeally don't want to derail this, but I'll answer this bit) - my answer is "don't." The rules, the actual rules, tell you that your bases are going to overlap.  It's not like they sold you one thing and then switched it later.  AoS has overlapping bases.  If you opt to go all cool-crazy on your bases (and good on ya!) that's great, but don't be upset when your opponent wants to play by the rules anyway.

GH hint. Yep, they tell you that you can do that.  Sure do.  Still not a rule. 

 

[N_Watson]

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

How do you feel about rounds where ovals are "expected" though?  That's my chin-scratcher.

Not sure what you would like me to comment on when it comes to old cav and chariot bases.  Happy to comment, but I wanna be sure I am addressing your curiosity.

As to spending time on bases (I reeeeeeeeally don't want to derail this, but I'll answer this bit) - my answer is "don't." The rules, the actual rules, tell you that your bases are going to overlap.  It's not like they sold you one thing and then switched it later.  AoS has overlapping bases.  If you opt to go all cool-crazy on your bases (and good on ya!) that's great, but don't be upset when your opponent wants to play by the rules anyway.

GH hint. Yep, they tell you that you can do that.  Sure do.  Still not a rule. 

 

Just wanted your opinion on the fact that most GW game systems have always had various base shapes and sizes across the board. It is nothing new to have a different shapes, so just wanted to know how you have tackled this obstacle that you have bumped into previously. 

The models are sold by GW with ovals. Just like they write a rule mentioning model to model they supply a specific base to use as a game aid. Some would say that it was their intention, as the rules writers that you play with those bases. 

Your argument that the game is designed to be played with stacking bases is fine, but I wouldn't be surprised if this changes soon for Matched play at least. The fact that the entire matched play community that is vocal about their games play base to base, and that community has been involved in the rules writing says volumes. 

For open play / narrative, do what you like. That is the whole point of the game. With the coming of the generals handbook, house rules are encouraged in the matched play section. 

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

The issue, of course, is that some TOs feel a need to make the game play the way they want it to play, to put their stamp on the experience for everyone else, and so they are mandating bases.  Grr.  I digress.

This is what I take issue with. The reason that TO's rule base to base isn't to put their stamp on it. It is to stop people modelling in a certain way to gain an advantage. The rule is also familiar to a lot of gamers, so it helps speed the play of the games. You only get just over 2 hours to set up and play a 2k game at most tournaments. Every tournament report always mention there being very little, if any rules or play disagreements that require a TO to step in. Your above comment, in my opinion is a little insulting as I imagine a lot of time, care and attention is spent by TO's making sure that the games played are enjoyable for all who attend. Heck, even Games Workshop played base to base at Warhammer world Warlords tournament....

 

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

As to spending time on bases (I reeeeeeeeally don't want to derail this, but I'll answer this bit) - my answer is "don't." The rules, the actual rules, tell you that your bases are going to overlap.

Most tournaments score on painting and hobbying. You know the saying "Bases and Faces" for what draws people to a model on the tabletop. I know I personally wouldn't attend an event that encouraged base stacking as I know that all the other events I intend to go to would judge on the level of painting and basing and I wouldn't want it damaged. I would imagine a lot would feel the same. 

 

If you feel that your stuff would look better on rounds, go for it. I disagree and think that you can make them look great on ovals. Just don't expect TO's to allow your models on the wrong bases as it would just take them too much time to make a decision on everyone's models before the event to ensure they aren't gaining an unfair advantage. 

[Bjarni St.]

Assuming the rounds are about the same diameter as the ovals are on the long side then I probably wouldn't mind so much I'd raise any stink about it, but I'd mind a little bit. It comes down to how you play with it.

If you're using the extra base estate to spread your cavalry out wider than they'd normally be able to (for whatever reason) or aggressively hog table space with a nigh-unkillable Treelord Ancient then that'd be uncool but if you're just reasonable about not actively milking the extra base size then it's not a problem.

[Sleboda]

@Bjarni St. and @N_Watson

I think the biggest divide in this discussion is the fixation on Matched Play with base-to-base contact.  Is it fair to say that if we take that away neither of you would fuss about my round bases for cavalry, Drycha, and treemen?

For that matter, is that what would bother others?  The combo of Matched Play plus base-to-base?

I will assume that is the case for my reply.

With that in mind, why would rounds as big as ovals matter? Why mind that at all? There is no official base size anywhere, even if you play base-to-base. the dark elf cavalry in particular should not raise an eyebrow since they are currently packaged with old rectangle bases, so why would rounds be concerning?

 

10 hours ago, N_Watson said:

Just wanted your opinion on the fact that most GW game systems have always had various base shapes and sizes across the board. It is nothing new to have a different shapes, so just wanted to know how you have tackled this obstacle that you have bumped into previously. 

Ah. Got it.  Ok.

Variable base sizes never bothered me after third edition.  In third, all models had a base size listed. After that, as much as I lamented it, there were no official base sizes (unless you count the aborted and never updated doc they put out a few editions later but quickly abandoned).  Since GW had no official base sizes, I couldn't raise a stink.

10 hours ago, N_Watson said:

The models are sold by GW with ovals. Just like they write a rule mentioning model to model they supply a specific base to use as a game aid. Some would say that it was their intention, as the rules writers that you play with those bases. 

Some are, but not the DE cav.

As to being a game aid, yes, they are.  They are there to hold the model upright, not to be a part of the rules. Some might say they had intent otherwise, but the rules, as published in many, many places for all to read, say otherwise.

10 hours ago, N_Watson said:

The reason that TO's rule base to base isn't to put their stamp on it. It is to stop people modelling in a certain way to gain an advantage.

That IS putting their stamp on it. The rules, the actual Thor-given rules of AoS are base-agnostic.  Any TO who mandates base sizes, shapes, and/or contact, regardless of their reason, is forcing their personal will onto a larger group.  Last year, Adepticon (a very large event) just let folks play and the TO said it was bliss. No arguments.  People having fun.  Cats and dogs living together. Now the General's Handbook has arrived and rekindled the dormant hyper-competitiveness that pre-GH AoS had left behind. People are leaping over a great set of rules in an effort to reverse time and fall back into a safe, warm cradle of aggression.  It's bothersome.  Again, I digress.  Double grrr.

Point: Events are happy with no extra layers of rules that are not actually printed anywhere, but "the community" is perceived as wanting to morph AoS into 8th, so events are acting like subs and putting on collars and shackles in order to please their exacting masters, and..... here's the saddest part ... the hobby is paying a price.  So sad.

 

Last bit 

{quote] Just don't expect TO's to allow your models on the wrong bases[/quote]

Wrong?  According to.... what? Oh, yeah, TOs imposing their views. In the rules of the game, including in the GH, there are no wrong bases.

[N_Watson]

Games workshop grand tournament base to base. 

 

[Stevewren]

I'm planning on taking my Sylvaneth for Heat 1 and all my treemen and Drycha are on round bases (100mm diameter) - I hope there is no issue with it and i certainly won't be rebasing. When Age off sigmar hit I basically used rounds for everything due to the aesthetic appeal. 

[N_Watson]

10 minutes ago, Stevewren said:

I'm planning on taking my Sylvaneth for Heat 1 and all my treemen and Drycha are on round bases (100mm diameter) - I hope there is no issue with it and i certainly won't be rebasing. When Age off sigmar hit I basically used rounds for everything due to the aesthetic appeal. 

As long as you aren't putting them on a round that is smaller than the oval it comes on, reducing the amount of models that can get in range, I don't see their being a problem. 

Not seen any cases where putting a model on a bigger base when measuring base to base, gives an advantage, but putting them on a smaller base does. 

[Aezeal]

1 hour ago, N_Watson said:

As long as you aren't putting them on a round that is smaller than the oval it comes on, reducing the amount of models that can get in range, I don't see their being a problem. 

Not seen any cases where putting a model on a bigger base when measuring base to base, gives an advantage, but putting them on a smaller base does. 

Well abilities that have a range... say a powerful ability like big D ranged attack... would have extra range ...

[N_Watson]

1 minute ago, Aezeal said:

Well abilities that have a range... say a powerful ability like big D ranged attack... would have extra range ...

Not seen that happen in any of my games, but yes, you are right. That would be a problem.

Issue I have come across as an Ironjawz player (no shooting), is people either deliberate or not, having durable characters on smaller than intended bases. Ruins the game when you can't get many models in range to do damage. 

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

That IS putting their stamp on it. The rules, the actual Thor-given rules of AoS are base-agnostic.  

Games workshop play their matched play tournaments with base to base measurement. They did it at Warlords, and I am expect that they will at the GT heats. If GW put their stamp on their own game in such a way, do you really expect the majority of the community not to follow suit. 
 

Nobody will ever try to stop you putting a model on a different base. I play open and narrative games as well from time to time and have played model to model before as I play primarily at a GW store.  I didn't enjoy playing model to model as I came across too many situations where funky things like models with big staffs reaching over but you can't hit them back because your 1 inch range can't reach the tip of the staff but the staff 2 inch reach can reach you, or flying models that goblins can't reach etc. In my own gamin experience, base to base works easier and you never get surprised. 

That being said, back to your topic. I still maintain that so long as you gain no advantage from a different base size/shape, I would have zero issue with it. From  a TO perspective, I guess the issue they would have is how do they enforce it. If they say that it is fine for different base sizes, what is to stop people putting thunder tusks on the giant 160mm bases to get an extra 1.5 inch range on their attack. This would make them a lot stronger as they can already reach the back board edge with good rolls. 

[AGPO]

You still have to fit the Bigger bases in your deployment zone, so that range isn't giving you an advantage for most of the game.

I'd think the social contract amongst gamers, as well as sportsmanship points are fairly well proven disincentives against modelling for advantage

[Ratamaplata]

1 hour ago, AGPO said:

You still have to fit the Bigger bases in your deployment zone, so that range isn't giving you an advantage for most of the game.

Innit. At best you get a few mm extra across a few degrees. Plus any increase in range also puts you in range of more stuff.

[N_Watson]

27 minutes ago, Ratamaplata said:

Innit. At best you get a few mm extra across a few degrees. Plus any increase in range also puts you in range of more stuff.

But is it good for the game to have those variables? 

Don't really see the point in the discussion on this to be honest. It's been beat to death by this point. 

[Ratamaplata]

2 minutes ago, N_Watson said:

But is it good for the game to have those variables? 

Don't really see the point in the discussion on this to be honest. It's been beat to death by this point. 

Unless you're using some sort of laser system there'll be more variation due to inaccuracy when measuring movement than base size.

Using bigger bases for area denial or smaller bases for melee advantage are much bigger issues than anything involved in ranged combat.

I've never had this discussion before.

[N_Watson]

1 minute ago, Ratamaplata said:

Unless you're using some sort of laser system there'll be more variation due to inaccuracy when measuring movement than base size.

Using bigger bases for area denial or smaller bases for melee advantage are much bigger issues than anything involved in ranged combat.

I've never had this discussion before.

If you look at my earlier posts, I mentioned exactly this. 

"Not seen any cases where putting a model on a bigger base when measuring base to base, gives an advantage, but putting them on a smaller base does"

It was @Aezeal that initially mentioned ranged uses. 

[Sleboda]

14 hours ago, N_Watson said:

Games workshop grand tournament base to base. 

 

Did that event have an official listing of officially dictated bases sizes and shapes, officially?  ?

Seriously, though, did they? 

Cuz if GW is mandating base to base, they pretty much hafta enforce sizes, which was something they seemed to be very, very happy to have left behind when they killed WFB.

[Rhellion]

On 12/24/2016 at 3:44 PM, Sleboda said:

The rules, the actual rules, tell you that your bases are going to overlap.  It's not like they sold you one thing and then switched it later.  AoS has overlapping bases.  If you opt to go all cool-crazy on your bases (and good on ya!) that's great, but don't be upset when your opponent wants to play by the rules anyway.

You actually think people overlap bases in tournaments?

Or do you just think that they should?

I personally think they should go on the bases they came with. I wouldn't mind rounds if they were slightly larger... even though there is advantage to gained (both ways larger or smaller) depending on the model / model rules.

[TerrorPenguin]

I never got model to model - from an immersion point of view, the area covered by the base represents the models 'area of effect'.

Some of the models are in poses which do not represent how their characters would actually be for the majority of a dynamic battle (e.g Archaon ) and the base represents the space they would 'usually' take up. 

[N_Watson]

7 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Did that event have an official listing of officially dictated bases sizes and shapes, officially?  ?

Seriously, though, did they? 

Cuz if GW is mandating base to base, they pretty much hafta enforce sizes, which was something they seemed to be very, very happy to have left behind when they killed WFB.

They said in the warlords rules pack that they would be playing with the house rule of Base to Base. The only comment they make on how things should be assembled/based /painted is that they should all be games workshop models. 

As games workshop ship most "non compendium" models with their own round/oval bases, their intent is kinda clear there. For models that don't come with rounds, a common sense approach is probably expected. 

Really wouldn't be bothered personally if my opponent was using a different base other than intended, so long as they are not deliberately trying to gain an advantage. 

Just never understand the argument of TO's being the bad guys when enforcing rules like this. 

Pretty sure if you don't like the rules of a certain event, don't go and make your own event. If lots of people go and enjoy your rules, it might become the norm. 

That is what has happened up to this point lol... 

[Ollie Grimwood]

The reason for model to model is that it is really easy to explain in conjuction with true line of sight in 4 pages of rules.  When one starts doing base to base properly you need to have the model volume thing (like Warmachine or infinity) which takes up quite a lot more room in the rules.  Model to mode also isn't an abstract so it's a lot easier to explain to people who have never played before.  They might add a section to the GHB for Matched play I doubt they'll change the basic rules  

Oval bases with the same area coverage as round ones actually provide the gaming advantage as depending on placement you can make them wider or thinner in certain directions which helps in combats and movement. Rounds can't do that.  TBH ovals are quite nice for that they mean you don't loose the positioning element that model to model gives you, they just don't look as nice in my opinion.  Which means they ain't as cool and that's what matters. 

[polarbear]

I think they did model measuring for two reasons:

1. GW are a model company. They want people playing the games with their models. They don't want the models to be tokens where all that matters is the base size.

2. They were selling boxes with a variety of base types (squares and rounds). They were clearly moving toward rounds but in the meantime couldn't enforce something that isn't stocked on their own shelves.

However, it's great that the community and GW now seem to be all about base measuring, because model measuring will never make sense to me. It is pretty amazing stacking bases actually made it into the rules, and I think it speaks to a very heavy command from up top that the rules must be made around the models.

[BrAiKo]

On 12/25/2016 at 6:09 AM, Ollie Grimwood said:

I find the Khorgorath bases particularly unwieldy (although I did learn that theses were chosen because initially the Blood stoker and Khorgorath were going to be mounted togeather on one base).  In fact with oval bases you might as well be measuring model to model as at least that works better with true line of sight.   

 

I hadn't put together my Khorgorath yet because I thought the diagonal cavalry base just looked off.  So today I just put him on a 60mm round and now I actually like the model.

And I don't mind ovals at all, where appropriate (i.e. cavalry).  I used the cav base the Khorgorath came with for my converted Skullmaster hero on juggernaught.

[Sleboda]

To make it hyper specific - Do most folks believe a 50mm round is enough for cav?