Sleboda Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 hour ago, AverageBoss said: 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. With the base size issues (inconsistency), some of which are mentioned on this thread, I'm not sure how players agree on things enough to get a game in without playing model to model. If GW is serious about competitive play, they really need to mandate base sizes like they used to in 3rd ed WFB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelmaster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Model-to-model has all the problems of base-to-base and more — it's not as if the size and shape of the models is standardised and consistent either, and we'd also have to consider different poses, conversions, and the fact that even if you "ignore" the base when measuring, it is physically impossible to ignore the bases when moving the models around and determining how many you can pack within 1" of a given enemy. In short, m2m is saying "well we can't make competitive play perfectly balanced, so let's give up on it altogether". If you can agree to play m2m and overlook all the problems that entails, you can play b2b and overlook the problems with standardised base sizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aginor Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Agree. M2M is not even an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDemento Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 I think melee range issues should always be interpreted generously (i.e., 25mm<1”, 1” exactly means “within” etc., per comments above) for a couple other reasons in that greater melee damage output: 1. Helps offset the relative power of shooting that AoS is often criticized for, and 2. Makes melees resolve faster. (Our early AoS games seemed to be plagued by big piles of slow melee combats). An earlier thread on this topic made clear that staggered 25s were a no brained, but I really like the addition on this thread that even non-staggered 25s are within 1”. But I hadn’t considered 32s closely and just measured....even 2nd rank of 32s will be within 1” if staggered AND the target models are also in the nook between two adjacent attacking models. This gets a bit wonkier if attacking bases >32mm, and measuring in game can be terribly fiddly and imprecise, so I’d still think about advocating for a generous interpretation that staggered 32s will get a second 1” rank on bigger bases/models that wouldn’t necessarily fit in the nook sweet spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 22 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said: it is physically impossible to ignore the bases when moving the models around and determining how many you can pack within 1" of a given enemy. I'm all for a good debate, but only when facts are involved. The statement above is just plain not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelmaster Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 3 hours ago, Sleboda said: I'm all for a good debate, but only when facts are involved. The statement above is just plain not true. Take a couple of those 130mm circular bases (or make them out of cardboard, or just imagine them since this is just an example). Glue a goblin to the center of each, with no big spears or anything — every part of the model should be within 0.5" horizontally of the center of the base. Now show me (or describe) how you would place those two goblins within 1" of each other, in a way that you would actually advocate playing during a game. When your models are large enough to overhang their bases, you can ignore the bases completely. When one model completely overhangs its base while the other is entirely within "X"mm of the edge of its base, you can have the first model stand on the second's base. When both models have at least "X"mm between themselves and the edge of their own base, the minimum distance between the models that you can physically place them is "X"mm. My skeletons are currently on 20mm round bases (I used pennies). With their spears raised, most of them would fit quite neatly within a 20mm diameter cylinder. I can put two of them pretty much touching each other without overlapping the bases. I can fit a lot more of them within 2" of any given enemy than I would be able to if they were mounted on 32mm bases. It's not just a question of whether we ignore the bases when measuring; The bases themselves would make it physically impossible to place the skeletons any closer together. If they were on 32mm, I would not be able to place them within 6mm of each other. That adds up to quite a bit when you're trying to see how many skeletons from a unit of 40 (with spears) can attack a lone 5-wound character on a 20mm base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Simple. Ignore the base, per the rules. Your points talk about being "within the center of the base" or "overhanging the base" or similar. Your points are still centered around something that effectively, with the rules, doesn't exist. How are the bases, that are not there, limiting proximity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keldaur Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 On 28/10/2017 at 8:14 AM, Sleboda said: With the base size issues (inconsistency), some of which are mentioned on this thread, I'm not sure how players agree on things enough to get a game in without playing model to model. If GW is serious about competitive play, they really need to mandate base sizes like they used to in 3rd ed WFB. Because model to model has its own flaws which are even more annoying than those ? I am speaking about mounted warriors, flying models, etc, etc. Not to speak that piling in overlapping bases look pretty bad and has its own flaws in itself on placing, and/or damaging well done bases and allows for some sort of shenanigans that simply would not happen with normalized bases. I mean, you only need to look at the FAQs to see all the problems that model to model had and has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelmaster Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Sleboda said: Simple. Ignore the base, per the rules. Your points talk about being "within the center of the base" or "overhanging the base" or similar. Your points are still centered around something that effectively, with the rules, doesn't exist. How are the bases, that are not there, limiting proximity? By physically getting in the way of placing the models closer together. The bases are not ethereal. They cannot co-exist in the same 3D space as the models. Does this crude diagram help? Green = bases Red = models Black = minimum achievable distance between models, dictated by the base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aginor Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 ...and it gets even more weird for flyers. If you take the longest pole tjat comes with a Terradon and put it on the base as intended then you are in the weird situation that most small melee units cannot hit it at all. they could (using their bases if I decorated them) block melee units from moving without getting attacked since they would be within 3". Don't get me wrong I'd love that. But then my Ironjawz playing friend would slap me every time I play them and he would be right. Also people would put their models on my beautifully decorated bases. Sucks. And if they cannot put their Grots (for example) on my Carnosaur base they cannot hit me at all? So people would just put a 1.8" rock on all of the bases of their models that have 2" range so they become melee immune against 1" attacks??? No thanks. M2M has major problems that cannot be simply solved. Those two are just examples (maybe even ones that could be overcome with effort) but there are more. Don't even get me started on turning models around. Troglodon for example is a long guy. So no I am not going to play M2M. B2B may not be ideal, ok. Everything can be improved. But it is way better than M2M in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuneBrush Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 I think the whole base size debate needs to be dealt with based on the overall army. If somebody has deliberately reduced the size of their bases for in-game advantage then that's breaking Rule 7 in my eyes - even moreso if the bases aren't a GW standard. If they've an army that they've had for a while then they're going to have some different sized bases in there, Bloodletters, Plaguebearers & Horrors are a good examples, they were sold for a long time with 25mm rounds - well after the release of AoS (plaguebearers only got changed this year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GammaMage Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 My models are all still sold with square bases, so I have to guess which ones to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aginor Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 2 hours ago, GammaMage said: My models are all still sold with square bases, so I have to guess which ones to use. I absolutely agree that there should be an official GW base sizes list for all units to stop that confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoollyMammoth Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 A long time ago, even before GH1, I made a post about this, how everyone would be much better off if we just played B2B where 1" = "through 0-1 base" and 2" = "through 2 bases". Of course this resulted in a lot of butt-hurtedness where liberators are getting two extra attacks now and this of course, upsets the entire balance of the game. The problem is that ignoring bases is an illogical and frankly, terrible idea. As long as models are unable to stand on their own, bases are a major part of the game and create the footprint for every model. Simply ignoring this footprint does not work. In order to fairly play where "bases don't matter", then the only logical thing is to stack over your bases and - everybody's favorite - stacking your own models on other peoples bases in order to realistically get the models close. Just about 100% of players don't like base stacking so ignoring bases is not an option, and therefore we would be playing model to model .. minus the invisible bubble preventing models from coming into contact .. the invisible bubble that, well, you can ignore it because it dosen't matter. You just can't ignore it because, well, its creating a bubble. But just ignore it though. Next you have the wonderful modeling exploit that was secured via FAQ to be a thing. Simply put all your spear skeletons on 1.1" stone mounds and they can attack most 1" infantry while they are compeltly incapable of defenging themselves. Then you get into the conundrum of the fact that the outstretched sword got over the grots but its 2" away from the model and therefore, because you didn't model it lower, you cannot physically attack them. You would think he would lower the sword to hit them but, hey, dems the rules. We all love rules that ruin the hobby by forcing you to model or not model a certain way for an advantage don't we? The end result is universally everyone and their mother adopted base to base measurement from day one. Well, everyone except GW. Let's all universally acknowledge the fact that "bases don't matter" is a terrible band-aid GW is required to have since they cannot alienate all the people who put their models on the square bases they came with for the last 30 years. Its a bad transitional rule that is not going to last for much longer. Unfortunately we have a new problem. With the concept of 'bases don't matter' there is no regulation for base sizes. Multiple models come with 2 or 3 different base options. Some things don't even have ovals and you have to make up your own size. When AoS came out, I put a black dragon on a 60mm round base. He looks awesome, and bases don't matter, so who cares. A lot of times I put monsters on smaller bases, because I don't like all the extra negative space for no reason, which makes the models pop more. I'm not trying to cheat I just like my models to look good. Next we have Bloodletters stinking up the show. They are insanely powerful and can get a million models in with 25mm. Recently they have started to be supplied on big 32mm instead of the 25mm they came with for decades. There is no other reason for this other than GW really dig their new 32mm size bases. As a result, many tournament organizers are saying daemons under 32mm are illegal. All your daemons on 25mm have suddenly become Illegal and you have to rip them apart, buy new bases, re-base them and paint and complete all their new bases. Good luck with that. At GW they told me that models that fit on 25 and 32 are completely interchangeable, and its a matter of preference only. I like my daemons on 25, and I will not be re-basing them. My Plaguebearers and Daemonettes are fine as they are. All of this is resolved by simply not being a you-know-what. If I'm playing my dragon, I can set him on a larger base for fairness during the game. It can be as simple as cutting out a large oval out of paper and setting it on the paper during the game. If you have 30 bloodletters on 25mm, just say to your opponent, "I know the tournament organizers prefer to keep them on 32mm, so I'll keep mine spread out to represent larger bases". Its not rocket science here, just play fairly. Hopefully in the next few years with updates we will get a more logical and easier way to measure close combat (like in 40k) and we can put this all behind us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkiham Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 How is this discussion about what it is currently? Like seriously? It was answered in the first few comments, the guy is doing base to base. he is measuring is using known distances on known sizes. Why is it a discussion on "which method is better" or that it doesn't matter which you use or what bases your army is on and why you won't swap etc etc that is not relevant, and has been covered by the same people raising these same points as they did other times always ending in the same outcome as nothing has changed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GammaMage Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Because this is the internet, and we must discuss minutia ad nauseum. But seriously, if model-to-model works for you and your opponents, that's cool. It woudn't work in many other playgroups, including my group, especially as a lot of us like doing fancy bases and would die if someone tried to overlap bases onto other bases. the cool thing about AoS is that we can houserule stuff if we find it doesn't work for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelmaster Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Even if the bases you use are completely flat and devoid of decoration, and even if you are willing to stack the bases, you are still going to have situations where the bases physically limit how close together the models can be. The bases can overlap each other, but whichever base goes on top cannot overlap the other model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuneBrush Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 On 30/10/2017 at 7:04 PM, Arkiham said: How is this discussion about what it is currently? Like seriously? Not just me then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.