Melee Combat and Inches

[nightsrage]

Can a unit such as Eternal Guard attack in 3 ranks with a 2 inch reach and a 25 MM base? 

Since my Eternal Guard have a 25MM base, and 25MM = 0.984252 inches,  this means at 3 models deep, that is 2.95 inches away (back of the base), but the front base of the 3rd rank is less than 2 inches away. 

So, if stacked up 3 deep and in a tight base to base formation, do eternal guard attack in 2 or 3 ranks against base to base contact from the front? 

[nightsrage]

Apologies. I meant for this to be in the rules section... 

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

Yes. You are playing base to base so mathematically that is correct. 

[rokapoke]

It's very dependent on your gaming atmosphere. Your opponent may feel you're being "that guy" by gaming to the 1/100th of an inch. Or your opponent may feel like "that guy" for denying you the true range.

Bottom line: discuss it with your opponent. When in doubt, roll off.

[nightsrage]

59 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

It's very dependent on your gaming atmosphere. Your opponent may feel you're being "that guy" by gaming to the 1/100th of an inch. Or your opponent may feel like "that guy" for denying you the true range.

Bottom line: discuss it with your opponent. When in doubt, roll off.

Good point. 

I don't want to be "that guy". 

I wonder if GW planned it this way, or not? 

If it was considered legit and not being "that guy", it really opens up some formation options for the wanderers with Eternal Guard and Wild Wood Rangers 2 inch reach. I guess I am scrapping for leverage with this seemingly difficult army to win/play with. 

[Rob Hawkins]

Bear in mind that if you're using round bases, you can "stagger" them and the second row won't be a full 25mm back, nor will the third row, and everyone will be well within 2" of the enemy.

[RuneBrush]

2 hours ago, Rob Hawkins said:

Bear in mind that if you're using round bases, you can "stagger" them and the second row won't be a full 25mm back, nor will the third row, and everyone will be well within 2" of the enemy.

This   Range rule and measure on the fly is the way I tend to do it, sometimes you'll not quite get the third rank in, but sometimes it'll be fine.

[darkspear]

Isn't this the point of 25mm bases? So you can know your distances without measuring too much?

I personally like it.  It is elegant and precise imo.

[Caffran101]

Is 25 mm the top of the bottom of the bases?

Remember the bases are slightly flared so the bottom rim of the base is a bit bigger than the top of the base.

[Aginor]

I use the following three rules for my Skeletons (same situation):

1. If the bases actually touch each other and the first one touches the opponent's base then you are in range with the third row.
2. If they are staggered a bit it is pretty likely that they will be in range to hit
3. when in doubt they don't hit. Most of the time the pile-in will allow you to move a reasonably big number of models into positions so they clearly will hit (rule 2) so you should do that so there is no argument with your opponent.

[Squirrelmaster]

@Caffran101 Bottom. For circular bases, 25mm diameter, for square 25mm along each edge.

Across the top, a "25mm GW round base" is about 23mm diameter, a "25mm GW square base"  is likewise about 23mm along each edge.

Personally, I would happily give you those three ranks, and I'd generally expect to get 2 ranks of Dæmonettes (25mm round) unless my opponent kicks up a fuss. That said, I'm using circular bases and would stagger them anyway.

[BunkhouseBuster]

Yup, this is exactly something I was considering the other day, and I came to the conclusion that everyone else did.

The 25mm bases are less than one inch each, so 1 inch can completely reach over/through another model on a 25mm base.

A 25mm model with a 2 inch spear can therefore reach over/through 2 models if both are on 25mm bases.

And that's just with putting them up in ranks.  If you staggered, as others have mentioned, then you could easily get 3 rows of models in melee range if the first rank is in base contact with the enemy models.

[tea_wild_owl]

I am fine with using 25mm bases as <1", so that you can attack in 2 ranks with 1" and 3 ranks with 2". however, you should be fair enough to use "official" base sizes. I had a discussion with someone who wanted to put bloodletters from 32mm on 25mm bases for the reason to get more models into attacking range...which definitely makes you into "that guy" ^^

[Killax]

15 minutes ago, tea_wild_owl said:

I am fine with using 25mm bases as <1", so that you can attack in 2 ranks with 1" and 3 ranks with 2". however, you should be fair enough to use "official" base sizes. I had a discussion with someone who wanted to put bloodletters from 32mm on 25mm bases for the reason to get more models into attacking range...which definitely makes you into "that guy" ^^

Absolutely, as a rule of tumb for most events using the bases the models come with currently is the best way to go about it.

It sometimes leads to some strange designs but nothing that can't be fixed. E.g. Fleshhounds come on round 50mm bases, which isn't typical for cavalry models and Skarbrand comes with a round base where regular Bloodthirsters come with an oval.

In any case though I think the awnser has been given and indeed it's more or less intentionally designed this way. I think one of the reasons as to why Bloodletters or other daemons are relatively cheap for their power is also because most of them come on 32mm bases and indeed this restricts them a little. On the other side, bigger bases, especially for Monster Generals are actually an advantage for many of them. E.g. The Crimson Crown covers much more area on a Bloodthirster as it does on a Bloodmaster.

[AverageBoss]

1 hour ago, tea_wild_owl said:

I am fine with using 25mm bases as <1", so that you can attack in 2 ranks with 1" and 3 ranks with 2". however, you should be fair enough to use "official" base sizes. I had a discussion with someone who wanted to put bloodletters from 32mm on 25mm bases for the reason to get more models into attacking range...which definitely makes you into "that guy" ^^

The problem with "official" base sizes is that units like Pink Horrors and Bloodletters have had their bases change twice since AoS launched. The Blades of Khorne book even displays the models on both bases. So if someone bought a box that came with 25s (even square), I would not have an issue with them being on those. But they should be treated in combat as if they were on 32s.

[bsharitt]

1 hour ago, AverageBoss said:

The problem with "official" base sizes is that units like Pink Horrors and Bloodletters have had their bases change twice since AoS launched. The Blades of Khorne book even displays the models on both bases. So if someone bought a box that came with 25s (even square), I would not have an issue with them being on those. But they should be treated in combat as if they were on 32s.

I don't see any good, fair way to pretend a base size is different in combat.

[Aginor]

34 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

I don't see any good, fair way to pretend a base size is different in combat.

Yeah that is a problem for me as well.

[AverageBoss]

You just say they get 1 rank of attacks instead of 2.

[BunkhouseBuster]

2 hours ago, bsharitt said:

I don't see any good, fair way to pretend a base size is different in combat.

 

2 hours ago, Aginor said:

Yeah that is a problem for me as well.

 

1 hour ago, AverageBoss said:

You just say they get 1 rank of attacks instead of 2.

I follow the precedent that was set by earlier editions of 40K - play with the base that was supplied with the model.  Back when the games were WHFB and 40K 5th/6th Edition, Chaos Daemons were packaged with both square and round bases.  Bloodletters are already an example mentioned, and they continue to be one - they were packaged with 25mm Squares and 25mm Rounds for bases.  Granted, this was also the time when base sizes for squares were 20mm, 25mm, 25mm*50mm, 40mm, 50mm, Chariot, and Monster bases, while 40K had 25mm, 40mm, 60mm, and Monster/Flyer-sized bases, plus the clear bases for Skimmers/Jet Bikes.  In that time, GW has added in to Rounds the sizes of 32mm, 50mm for infantry size, and a plethora of oval shaped and extra large round bases for Cavalry, Chariots, and Monsters.  By increasing the options for bases, GW is now able to better fit models on bases that look better or better represent that model.

Looking at the changeover from WHFB to AoS, there is a precedent set that the standard infantry square base size was to go up one size when converting to round.  We see 20mm Squares going to 25mm Rounds (Empire/Free Guild, Dwarves/Dispossessed), and 25mm Squares going up to 32mm Rounds (Ardboys, Bloodletters).  The biggest reason that Bloodletters are an issue is that they were at one point supplied with 25mm bases for 40K games, while they are now intended for 32mm bases.

I mean, Space Marines were originally on 25mm bases, as were the earliest pewter Terminators, but they are on 32mm and 40mm respectively.  Ever seen the original Hive Tyrant model for Tyranids?  40mm square base.  Models will get updates to base sizes over time.  What was once on 25mm might be put on 32mms, etc.  And that's not to mention how hero/leader type models are starting to be put on a model size larger than the troops they lead - look at the Khorne Bloodbound heroes and the models from the Dark Imperium 40K Starter Set - unit models on 32mm bases, heroes on 40mm or 50mm bases.

 

... Of course, we could just play measuring model to model, and give that a shot too

[AGPO]

I have kept my lesser daemons on 25mm rounds,  largely because more than €200 and c.800 models moving from squares to rounds I'm damned if I'm doing any more rebasing, but also because GW have said that the change was for aesthetic rather than balance reasons and my old marauder/rogue trader minis would look ridiculous on 32s. Honestly I don't play anything like competitively enough for it to matter and it's never been an issue.

 

[GingerGiant]

Think of it this way: each 25mm base is "less than an inch". Per FAQ/Errata, if the measured distance between the closest points on two models' bases is X inches, then the models are considered "within X inches. Even if the 25mm bases were exactly 1" in diameter across the bottom, the ranks would hold up: 2 ranks for 1" weapons, 3 ranks for 2" weapons. Here's an illustration:

The fact of the matter is that geometrically, as long as your unit has 1" bases or less, you can use base-to-base contact to "prove" which models can attack, without measuring.

• 1" weapons can attack over the shoulders of a single 1" base if the attacker is in base-to-base contact with the intervening base, and the intervening base is in contact with the enemy base.
• 2" weapons can attack over the shoulders of no more than two 1" bases if the attacker is in base-to-base contact with one intervening bases, both intervening bases are in contact with each other, and one of the intervening bases is in contact with the enemy base.

Suffice it to say, you want infantry to be in base-to-base when you can help it because it eliminates much of the measuring. You only need to attack a unit, not a specific model.

[Attackmack]

It always seemed weird to me that they designed this micro-management styled combat mechanic that offer great tactical depth through detailed and accurate measurement, then ruin it all with the "model to model" measurement idiocy that makes bases and base sizes subjective.

And as they did that, at least in the competitive ruleset they could have included details for what sizes bases should be and that base to base is how to measure.

Its great that there are several ways to play the game that isnt too strict, narrative is fantastic IMO, but if I turn to a competitive ruleset I WANT strict rules for exactly how the game is to be played. Not suggestions and examples for me and my opponent to disagree upon, but a strict "one way or not at all" way to play the competitive game for everyone to agree upon.

[Sleboda]

14 hours ago, AverageBoss said:

The problem with "official" base sizes is that units like Pink Horrors and Bloodletters have had their bases change twice since AoS launched. The Blades of Khorne book even displays the models on both bases. So if someone bought a box that came with 25s (even square), I would not have an issue with them being on those. But they should be treated in combat as if they were on 32s.

So ---- maybe just play by the rules of the game and measure model to model?

[AverageBoss]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

So ---- maybe just play by the rules of the game and measure model to model?

I would never get a game in again at my lgs.

Everyone there has played base to base since AoS dropped. Same for every other shop in the area. And the major conventions here.

What I posted was the compromise I had to make to keep using my square based undead in the area.

[GammaMage]

I decided to keep my battleline units on 25" (Bleakswords & Darkshards) , but put my 'elite' units on 32" bases (Executioners & Black Guard). This would make it easy  to see which were which. It only occured to me much later, that the 32" bases mean it's harder to get the executioners into 1"range. I should rebase them probably, but it's a lot of effort to do now.