Bases and size

[ChrisT]

Although i appreciate that out of the book AoS says bases don't matter.  Is there a general guide to what size bases models should go on?  

For example i re-based my Deamons onto 32mm as it looked better than the 25mm they were supplied with.  But i put the Juggernaughts on 75 x 43 oval as this fitted the best (and was quite cost effective).

Having glanced at the SCGT 2016 rules i saw that i would now be penalised for putting the Juggernaughts onto this size of base as they are "too small" (even if they look right) i.e. i went from 75mm x 50mm square to 75mm x 46mm oval which i think is closer than going up to a 90x52mm oval.

Is that now a "standard" especially as at the time of rebasing no rules existed in the tournament scene that i was aware of nor did the models in the shop come with an oval?

Is there any wiggle room?  

I am not trying to gain any advantage here, but by virture of "reach" for the attack there must be a benefit to the smaller base on maths alone when playing to the base rather than the model.  However, I was trying to be efficient both cost and from a look perspective.

[Rufio]

1 hour ago, ChrisT said:

Although i appreciate that out of the book AoS says bases don't matter.  Is there a general guide to what size bases models should go on?  

For example i re-based my Deamons onto 32mm as it looked better than the 25mm they were supplied with.  But i put the Juggernaughts on 75 x 43 oval as this fitted the best (and was quite cost effective).

Having glanced at the SCGT 2016 rules i saw that i would now be penalised for putting the Juggernaughts onto this size of base as they are "too small" (even if they look right) i.e. i went from 75mm x 50mm square to 75mm x 46mm oval which i think is closer than going up to a 90x52mm oval.

Is that now a "standard" especially as at the time of rebasing no rules existed in the tournament scene that i was aware of nor did the models in the shop come with an oval?

Is there any wiggle room?  

I am not trying to gain any advantage here, but by virture of "reach" for the attack there must be a benefit to the smaller base on maths alone when playing to the base rather than the model.  However, I was trying to be efficient both cost and from a look perspective.

Id say it doesn't matter too much. It does mean you have a smaller frontage but in reality i dont see where it makes all the difference. Rob Perring for instance has 2 great unclean ones. One is the citadel model on a 50mm round and the other is the forge world one on a large oval. I think you are ok with that but then im fairly easy going. After the weekend as well id say AOS isn't as gamey as 8th. The double turn means you just have to react meaning the calculated gamey players cant do well? 

[Beardyface]

I'm with Rufio on this. As long as it looks right I don't have a problem with it. Only weird thing i saw at the weekend was a Tzeentch Herald on disk balancing above a 25mm base! 

[StoneMonk]

Simplest answer I think is go with whatever GW has released the model on. Just simple for everyone. 

Eyeballing it, the 25mm square corners hit the edge of the 32mm round. I think you did it right for the daemons. They've also been repackaged with 32mm rounds. It's same with rectangles to ovals I think. 

I put my 5 graveguard on 32mm cuz models are orruk skellies from titan forge and look stupid on 25mm rounds. But on 32s I can fit 20 skeletons inside a bubble of my 10 graveguard and have better board coverage/control, but can't attack in the second row and have larger 'frontage' to take attacks. 

 

[ChrisT]

10 hours ago, StoneMonk said:

Simplest answer I think is go with whatever GW has released the model on. Just simple for everyone. 

I agree, but for example when I re-based the blood crushers they were still being sold on 75x50mm square bases (that's having bought them while on 50mm square).  - I even asked the helpful GW staff who told me bases don't matter in AoS! 

Also no idea what they come on now as I don't think there are any size charts anymore (which was sort of my original point).  What I guess i was saying is now i have re-based them once i don't want to do so again,   Is that an issue?  

Likewise i changed my nurgle beasts of chaos from a 40mm square to a 50mm round as this looked better. 

 

[CanHammerChris]

I purposely am not re basing anything until I see a re-released picture in a GW publication.  There are so many ovals it is hard to pick the correct bases. Seems like most stuff is going 32mm for infantry.  In 40k if people use the wrong base we generally just try and work it out.  It really only comes into play with model reach and fighting through other models.    

[Ben]

If someone wanted to make a base size chart it would make an awesome addition to the site! 

I guess a good place to start would be the SCGT or Clash spreadsheet and just swap the points costs to base sizes!

 

[Terry Pike]

Included size chat image below

[Ben Johnson]

This is a good starting off point, or as others have said take a look at the Grand Alliance books for reference.

Events and TO's will allways do there own thing to, best advice is don't take the piss or model for advantage. 

 

[StoneMonk]

That's the best chart I've seen for this. Almost looks official.

[Ben Johnson]

4 hours ago, StoneMonk said:

That's the best chart I've seen for this. Almost looks official.

It definitely isn't, robbed from Google images when AoS first launched. 

[scrubyandwells]

Awesome thread. Excited for TGA.

[Fisdantilus]

Looking at Goblin Chariots in the Destruction book it looks like they are on rounds and GW's site still says they come on 50x100.  Are those 60mm rounds? 

[drjonson]

Can only agree. Great thread. just ordered a lot of round and oval bases from Sarissa Precision. Age of Sigmar, here I come!

[Zbrojny]

Well... as the official rules go, it doesn't matter one bit, just remember that by the official rules nothing's there to stop your opponent from putting his bases on top of yours if he thinks that will make him pile more models in - which means the smaller the better, but purely for comfort (of not having your sand piled off) reasons.

As for tournaments, it's up to the organizers to provide limits (if any) - those limits usually go along the line of "what was provided with the model", with some allowance for square/round fidelity. It's worth noting that if the tournament rules state you measure distances from bases, putting your model on a base bigger than the "right" one is almost uniformly a disadvantage - it's more difficult to pile in, and it allows more enemy models to pile in in turn - so I don't think anyone will mind if your bases are larger. 

Just to give you an example (assume a tournament with base to base measurement), if you have models with 1" melee weapon range, having them on 25mm rounds would allow a second "rank" of models in range, which is potentially double the attacks as compared to the same models on 32mm rounds. For this reason, putting models on bases smaller than those provided will often be considered "modelling for advantage".

On top of that, competitive or not, few people will mind any base sizes, as long as you don't try to use them to get an (unfair) advantage.
 

[Terry Pike]

Having your models on larger bases also provides an advantage in some ways.

• Aura buffs have a larger coverage on the board
• wider casting arc for spells/shooting
• models can clip aura buffs while being closer to the target they intend to charge/fight/shoot
• You can block more board space which is one of the most important parts of playing competitive Age of Sigmar. Blocking space stops charges, teleporting, objective control, ambushing etc

It has its draw backs, but there are advantages to having bigger bases, also in most cases bigger bases look better