amysrevenge Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Just used trigonometry and algebra (trust me, I'm an engineer) to figure out that if you line up 32mm models with a 3.5mm gap between them, and tuck the 2nd rank in tight (not in a stupid line, but tucked up snug), the 2nd rank is 1" away from the enemy. Like so: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jabber Tzeentch Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Although you can. It's a bit more friendly to spread them out a bit more so there's no uncertainty. Like a 10mm gap. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted June 13, 2016 Author Share Posted June 13, 2016 Oh yeah. It was more of a subtweet to various theory-hammer I hear on un-named podcasts about 1" reach and 32mm bases and how many attacks you get, where they assume you line them up in crisp parallel lines like they have invisible squares around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Anyone know the thickness of a combat gauge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted June 13, 2016 Author Share Posted June 13, 2016 My home job ones are sadly 0.8mm plasticard. The one I got from 6squared studios is thicker, but still not 3.5mm. Curious about the GW one. Related - I use my 0.8mm one to shove between my models and the enemy when I charge in, so that on subsequent pile-ins there is still room for me to pile-in around the back and still get closer. It's a baby step toward getting accustomed to only needing to be with reach, and not in base contact. "Base contact" is such a 2015 concept that is proving surprisingly hard to shake - just automatically shove the models together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottle Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 People at the Bristol Smash were showing me how to do this with my Fyreslayers which helped to make them more effective! Couldn't get the same advice from my local GW manager sadly (as nice as he is) who told me to just stick the models on top of each other's bases when I complained at the 32mms being too large. I'm intrigued about stopping a charge a half inch out of base range allowing you to pile round the closest model in the pile in. I will try that next game. Wonder what my opponent will say lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted June 13, 2016 Author Share Posted June 13, 2016 There is literally no reason to smush them all the way in to base contact other than an obssession with neatness, or a hangover from previous games. Leaving a gap (as small as 1mm, as large as 1mm closer than the reach of your weapon) opens up various tactical options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Intriguing. I was a bit surprised by how small the value was. Just trying to check how you did it (because that's the part I'm most interested in ;)) I'm assuming you modelled this like an isosceles triangle, with the equal sides being 32mm, representing the center-to-center distance from the front line models to the second rank model. Then the height of that triangle can not exceed 1" or 25.6mm. Pythagoras gives us half the distance between the center of the two front models. 32^2 = 25.6^2 + x^2 The positive x is: 19.2mm. So, the total center-to-center distance is 38.4 mm. Minus the radius from both bases, this becomes 6.4mm, or a quarter of an inch. Of course, if we assume our target is a 32mm base as well, we could get closer. Is that what you did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Ohh, a quick correction. I took 25.6 mm for an inch. It should be 25.4 apparently. I get that confused every once in a while. Redoing the maths: 32^2 = 25.4^2 + x^2 -> Distance center-to-center is almost 39mm or almost 7mm distance between both bases. (slightly over a quarter of an inch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Taylor Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 14 hours ago, bottle said: People at the Bristol Smash were showing me how to do this with my Fyreslayers which helped to make them more effective! Couldn't get the same advice from my local GW manager sadly (as nice as he is) who told me to just stick the models on top of each other's bases when I complained at the 32mms being too large. I'm intrigued about stopping a charge a half inch out of base range allowing you to pile round the closest model in the pile in. I will try that next game. Wonder what my opponent will say lol. Key think to remember is that in the rules, bases don't matter and you can stack models on top of each other. What most people do is measure from the base as it's easier to manage and measure 14 hours ago, amysrevenge said: There is literally no reason to smush them all the way in to base contact other than an obssession with neatness, or a hangover from previous games. Leaving a gap (as small as 1mm, as large as 1mm closer than the reach of your weapon) opens up various tactical options. Yup. I think players from other games are more used to this and I think this is the beauty of the game. The positioning and footprint of a unit is often the make or break of a combat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 5 hours ago, Daeron said: Intriguing. I was a bit surprised by how small the value was. Just trying to check how you did it (because that's the part I'm most interested in ;)) The trick is knowing that with circles, any radius you pick is the same size. The whole thing hinges around the triangle made by joining up the centers of the three bases. Oh, I also copied my own result wrong. 6.5mm, not 3.5mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Right, that seems like a close match. We both used the same trigonometric approach, but you used a Discriminant. I defined Y = (16mm + x/2) and then did: 32^2 = 25.4^2 + Y^2 Y = 19.4638... x = 2* (19.4638... - 16) = 6.9276.. It's not worth flipping a table for... but it's interesting to see such an error margin between both calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.