Bases and Measurement (Close Combat)

[Bass294]

The only time this has really been an issue is when someone from my area chose to mount their dwarfs (normally on 25mms) on 32mms. He noted after we played that he felt a bit cheated on attacks since they have a 1" range, and someone's gnoblars were on 20mm squares. The simple solution I told him was to just ask his opponents if they cared if he just attacked with the second rank in the same manner as a 25mm base unit, and I told him I wouldn't care if he played me.

 

Liberators are entirely different. They were intended to be on 40mm bases so they shouldn't be able to get as many guys in to attack as skeletons. Any anomaly in their point value can be attributed to their keywords being more powerful allowing them to be buffed by things like the Lord Castellant or benefit from the Stormcast command abilities.

[daedalus81]

Quote

by doing so you are putting a handicap on larger models. This favors smaller models as they get the second rank as intended, while larger models are pushed out of their 1" range.

Let's analyze this for a moment.  

Against an armorless opponent the liberator grandhammer produces 1.33 wounds at the cost of 20ppm.
A FE ghoul produces 0.5 wounds at the cost of 10ppm.

The grandhammer produces nearly 2.7 times as many wounds at the ghoul at only twice the cost.  A ghoul with 3 attacks does .75 bringing it down to 1.8 versus 2, but the problem will be maintaining that unit size for the bonus with a 6+ armor on top of the liberator having rend.

Advantage stormcast.

Bloodreavers appear to be on 32mm bases, but have states like a ghoul - so they must be severely disadvantaged, right?   Yet they are 6ppm, which more than makes up for their size disadvantage, I think.

[WoollyMammoth]

I've updated the image on the original post to be more clear. Take a look at the new image and let me know what you think.

@Bass294
Exactly; larger bases are "cheated", and people are starting to see this. You essentially agreed to play my "virtual base stacking" to correct this issue. I've just gave it a name.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that stormcast were modeled on 40mm to give them less attacks. They only get less attacks if you allow their bases to interfere, while the rules have clearly been built from the ground up with the idea that bases don't matter and shouldn't interfere. Stormcast simply are big - probably only because GW wanted to make them look more epic (and sell their plastic to you at a higher mark up). If you ask a stormcast player to play this way, they are only going to feel cheated.

@daedalus81
That's a great point, however there are too many factors. You are leaving the realm of individual unit analysis and starting to get into synergy and tactics, where you really can analyze all day but it comes down to what happens on the field of battle. Ghouls are easily 3 attacks, re-roll 1s to hit. The can regen models like crazy with a courtier. They can pile in twice with a necromancer spell or get an extra attack with a Abhorrant spell. Stormcast don't even have spells. You can take another order wizard but ... you see how it quickly becomes too much for analysis. 

In regards to Bloodreavers, they just kind of don't do anything, Khorne has no spells and little synergy options. The concept of using ghouls is exciting as a FE Courts player, where Bloodreavers just kind of feel like "paying the BL tax". Ghouls are actually the best of the BL options for Death. I think Bloodreavers are appropriately priced for these reason, and I think they should be allowed to get two ranks of attacks in despite being on 32mm (which is how they are intended due to the fact that bases dont matter). Otherwise I think they are still too expensive and I would really not want to use them at all. If you are a Khorne player, I'd be really surprised if you disagreed.  

[daedalus81]

I think you can still analyze the basics to get a general idea of effectiveness.  Force multipliers are in the realm of 'difficult to pin down', because you can't assume they exist at all times.  If you can reach a relative parity before multipliers then you're probably in a good spot balance-wise.  With ghouls getting more benefits they can still pick up an advantage over the 'stronger' stormcast.

There are way to make bloodreavers "decent" considering they are one of the cheapest models with a rend.  An aspiring deathbring for +1A and a bloodsecrator for another +2A (one for his ability and one for their synergy).  4 attacks a model with 1 rend at 6 points each is nice, but it requires a lot of support that could get picked off.  I don't have the money to try it so that's where my musing ends.

 

[WoollyMammoth]

stormcast are not "stronger" than ghouls, or really anything.  Its just a fallacy because stormcast look so mighty, but this doesn't mean anything. Without a proper regiment of Retributors backed by a foot celestant, stormcast are actually pretty weak. Judicators do almost nothing, Azuros is a big whiff, decimators and protectors are continually disappointing, prosecutors are basically just a kamikaze attack. Their strengths lie in attrition, having heavy armor, holding position in cover and forcing your opponent to attack your most defended unit.  

10 ghouls are the same cost as 5 liberators with twice the attacks. The idea that stormcast are strong is only because each stormcast is made to represent two of other models in every way. When you split each stormcast in half, their appeal starts to rapidly diminish and when you punish them for being on larger bases (and taking up more space than two 25mm models), they start to be really weak and unappealing. A 40mm stormcast base is actually the same footprint as 4 20mm square  - which ghouls were on in 8th and still legally can be. That's 8 attacks (12 in a horde) while that lone liberator has only 2 attacks. then you factor in ghouls ability to regen, reroll 1s, get extra attacks and cheat death through banners, command traits and spells, then get a double pile in .. a grandhammer is just not making up the difference here, nor is any of the lackluster synergy available to stormcast.

[pforson]

1 hour ago, WoollyMammoth said:

There is a big difference between "false" and "wrong".
 

Not according to the dictionary.

Quote

False.

Synonyms:

1. mistaken, incorrect, wrong, untrue.

 

[Thostos]

 Been playing it "Base or model, whatever is closest" and havent had any issues at all..actually im not sure if its possible to have an issue with it.

 

 

[daedalus81]

47 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

10 ghouls are the same cost as 5 liberators with twice the attacks. The idea that stormcast are strong is only because each stormcast is made to represent two of other models in every way. When you split each stormcast in half, their appeal starts to rapidly diminish and when you punish them for being on larger bases (and taking up more space than two 25mm models), they start to be really weak and unappealing. A 40mm stormcast base is actually the same footprint as 4 20mm square  - which ghouls were on in 8th and still legally can be. That's 8 attacks (12 in a horde) while that lone liberator has only 2 attacks. then you factor in ghouls ability to regen, reroll 1s, get extra attacks and cheat death through banners, command traits and spells, then get a double pile in .. a grandhammer is just not making up the difference here, nor is any of the lackluster synergy available to stormcast.

You're missing an important part of the puzzle -- stormcast damage output decays more slowly as it is with other multi-wound models (and subsequently its damage per model will be higher). 

10 ghouls can produce 20 attacks that cause 2.5 wounds a 12.5% conversion rate.
5 liberators with grandhammers produce 6.7 wounds of of 10 attacks - 67%.

But giving the benefit of the doubt to ghouls - only four attack for 5.3 wounds.

If the ghouls had 3 attacks each they'd do 3.75 wounds - we'll round it up to four giving the libs 6 back for 4 wounds.  An even scenario given that ghouls benefit from a (one) synergy, got the first strike, and the storm cast did not.

Certainly things play in varied ways on the table so number crunching doesn't rule anything out, but it's a great guideline that allows you to leave the tactical placement of your synergies to get the upper hand as a facet of the game.

Even still I think you're creating a double edged sword here - your intended consequence is to benefit larger bases so they get more attacks, but you're also going to give smaller bases that stack more.  Not as much, granted, but it will be there depending on the weapon.

[WoollyMammoth]

@daedalus81

Thats a good point about the unit decaying slower, but it really dosen't mean you can skip out on half a units attacks and expect to win games. Ghouls come back to life an average of 5 per courtier per hero phase, that's a lot more potent than attacks decaying slower. I play regularly using both - 10 liberators can cause a few non rending wounds, but supported become an impenetrable wall. 20 ghouls can get a surround on things and rip them apart with 60 attacks, and supported by courtiers are no less than an unkillable wall, often even more so than liberators.

You can only take one grandhammer per 5 liberators, the rest are stuck with warhammers that aren't going to do much. If they could all take grandhammers that would be amazing.

The "Virtual Stacking" method actually doesn't really change how 25mm bases attack, they can already fight in two ranks sine 25mm is less than 1". It does prevent them from getting a crazy number of attacks by making them in a big stacked pile though. 

My goal is to just point this out to people and let them decide. I'm going to print out my image and let my opponent decide, and we will play whatever way they prefer. Personally I would choose the virtual stacking method, but the most important thing is to have a clear understanding before the game. 

[daedalus81]

Doh - I wasn't paying attention when I looked at the grandhammer.  If I were going to design against any sort of horde i'd have decimators with a freeguild unit on both sides to limit how much you can get into combat with them.  

A single decimator can easily tag 10 models with the cleave if they're packed in close.  The tools are there now it's a battle of list building and deployment.

[mmimzie]

Just all overly complicated. Just keep it simple like the generals hand book keeps it simple.

If your measure base to base, than you've said the model includes their base, and you can't move a model over another model as per the rule. As such it's just base to base.

Where you can measure model to model changes depending on how you model your model. If you model your liberator with one have back, behidn him, his legs to either side, and his shield in front he'll be as hard to get attacks in with as a 32mm base. If you make them kinda flat than it's easier.

Base just normalizes everyone. So just measure base to base. 

Edit: I also feel it's be illustrated previously that those 2 liberates your showed before would get their attacks if they wet in the cleft of their bothers in arms. 

Edit: bases to bases is a good house rule, it does mess up models and it doesn't punish or reward people for how they build thier models. I think this we can all agree. From there it's best to keep it simple so that new players don't have to imagine silly stuff. Age of sigmar is good because it's simplicity gives rise to complicated tactics. To make it more complicated is simply criminal. 

[WoollyMammoth]

Its actually the most simple of all the others, which require precise measurement.

1" = 2 ranks
2" = 3 ranks
3" = 4 ranks

I showed my chart to everyone at the game today. The consensus was that base stacking is kind of silly, but models should not have to miss out on attacks and slow the game down. Everyone thought the ranks system made the most sense. 

[mmimzie]

BUt if your following the rules, and your measure base to base you can't base stack x.x, as models can't take up the same space, and if your measuring base to base the base is part of the model.

Everyone every where knows base stacking is a terrible idea. No one here or anywhere has ever said base stacking is worth. 

As far as liberators. I feel they work better as 5 man squads x.x 

But i'm not gonna argue it. You seem less like your trying to get anyones opinion, and more like you just want everyone to champion your idea.  Not trying to be mean or put you down, just calling it like i see it. 

 

[WoollyMammoth]

If your following the rules base stacking is completely legal and bases need to be completely ignored for all purposes. If you acknowledge bases in any way you are creating house rules and deviating from the RaW. Thats fine you just have to be aware of it.

My rules allow you to play as if bases aren't there without all the hassle. But you can do what you like, doesn't matter to me. The most important thing is that people are on the same page, which, without bringing this up - they clearly aren't. If you said you wanted to play a game using strict base measurement and no stacking, that's fine by me but I'm going to bring flesh eaters or skaven who generally don't have units on large bases over 3 models as opposed to stormcast, ogres khorne or anything that is often going to lose out attacks.

[RuneBrush]

21 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

If your following the rules base stacking is completely legal and bases need to be completely ignored for all purposes. If you acknowledge bases in any way you are creating house rules and deviating from the RaW. Thats fine you just have to be aware of it.

My rules allow you to play as if bases aren't there without all the hassle. But you can do what you like, doesn't matter to me. The most important thing is that people are on the same page, which, without bringing this up - they clearly aren't. If you said you wanted to play a game using strict base measurement and no stacking, that's fine by me but I'm going to bring flesh eaters or skaven who generally don't have units on large bases over 3 models as opposed to stormcast, ogres khorne or anything that is often going to lose out attacks.

Think you've hit the nail on the head.  Providing all players are doing the same, and people aren't being silly with base sizes (I'm thinking Gorkamorka bases) it should in theory cancel out any imbalances between the two armies.

[mmimzie]

19 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Think you've hit the nail on the head.  Providing all players are doing the same, and people aren't being silly with base sizes (I'm thinking Gorkamorka bases) it should in theory cancel out any imbalances between the two armies.

See but what imbalances exist here. In base stacking can't i also stack my models on your base. My horde would get more attacks since i decide to throw all my guys on top of your base. The rules don't differentiate between whose base.

When i look at your base stacking image. You don't show any blue guys stackedo n the red bases. Horde dudes owuld have no problem getting 2 or 3 guys on your base. that means the first, second, and third row would all be 1" away. 

I think to prove your imbalance. You'd need to bring out the math hammer. The problem is, we don't know what the numbers are balanced as. Are thier damage numbers balanced aroudn everyone jsut heaping the model on top of each other and doing all thier damage. The best way to do this would be to get various models with as little synergy as possible to fight each other in math hammer.

use all 3 method and compare which gives the most balance results. When i use the base to base you've shown, of gouls VS storm cast using base to base with no synergy they come out pretty even.  Edit: this said your base to base image is abit off as 1 or 2 more of those guys are with in 1" namely the guy in the pocket vs the horde guy in the opposite pocket oyu have marked as 2". edit 2: I actualy took out the bases for that and measured it myself.  the other 2" guy could easily get there with pile is, but i don't know how the pile in worked etc so we'll just add the one guy

If you show it's more balanced numerically, which i'll happily help you throw down some math hammer on. I'll Definitely herald your virtual whatcha call it.

When i do stormcast Vs Ghouls think it's like 20 Vs 10 for pair points. You get even numbers.  after saves are taken. I used the paired weapons, and made my prime a Grand weapon guy(didn't see anything against this).  I did 2 Grand weapons, and 3 normal dude because i counted that dude that is within 1".  Now ghouls heal but libys are monster hunters and are very depressed fighting a horde of any kind. So i have no doubt with synergies ghouls would win, but it's close enough for such a mitch match. When you do the virtual your libies start to win... but should the monster hunters win out over the ghoul horde???

 

[Shane]

GW should have been absolutely clear on this rule. It is an unnecessary hang over from "legacy" and repackaged models.

While your graphs and reasoning back-up your argument, my group (for better or worse) will only be playing with points. And the points are evidently based upon SCGT as a foundation. And they house ruled measuring from bases. So as measuring from bases was a factor when costing units we will continue to adapt that house rule in our games.

We did play measuring from models in the first few games we played back at launch (nearly a year ago now). It worked. But for elegance we kept to measuring from bases.

[Emicus]

Measuring from base to base does "hurt" bigger based models when it comes to weapon ranges and ranks - but bigger based models also typically come in smaller units, mostly cancelling out the "issue".

Indeed models are different to one another, different strengths and weaknesses. Some are better, some are worse. To fundamentally increase the range on all weapons to 'fix big base ranking' seems like a rabbit hole of infinite depth.

What happens when my 3" range Big Monster stands behind 3 ranks of 60mm cavalry bases?

As a sidenote, and possibly even more important - these "issues" hit both sides of the table equally. Having short range on weapons and creating more tactical depth in movement and pile-ins is IMO worthwhile. Especially compared to giving some models tremendous range (3" when solo, 7" when behind other models) and also a confusing inconsistency.

[daedalus81]

@WoollyMammoth

What did you use to make the image in the OP?

[mmimzie]

One more thought i had on this. If you use the original rules as your guild for how things should be. The game originally is Model to model stack bases. 

We need an image for this, but if this is the case. the Horde player can put all his models on your bases, and get 3 rows at 1" for horde models.  While the 32mm player would get 2 rows at 1".  However, this damage wise using pretty any unit comes out to vastly favor horde over elite guys. 

 

[WoollyMammoth]

@mmimzie
The image is just loosely thrown together to make a point to see that big models miss out when using strict bases.

 All in all its not a big deal, were talking about a very minor thing here. In most cases 5 liberators are surrounded by infantry, or they can get a surround over a monster, or you can widen the front guys just a bit. Due to it being very minor, nobody is really talking about it. Based on all the data so far were saying a few stormcast might miss out on a few attacks its not the end of the world, but as mentioned earlier you just feel a little 'cheated' - and for no reason given that bases are not supposed to matter and stacking has been cited as "ok" in the handbook. But again, it't not game breaking, i'm just a perfectionist and like to over analyze.

The problem is stacking can lead to people doing stupid things, but the hobby is mostly self correcting in that, if you are trying to exploit your modeling to win games, your local community is going to stop or start adopting house rules to stop you. 

Pretty much everyone knows not to mess with your opponents model in any way, so no one stacks on opponents model. You are just trying to reach their base anyway. 

@Shane
I think its very loosely based on SCGT. There are too many differences to say how close it really is. SCGT just says all distances are measured base to base to eliminate 90% of the nonsense. This still does not prevent stacking. SCGT favored lists with a ton of monsters. Since this is such a nuanced minor thing I highly doubt it was factored in. The Generals Handbook still measures model to model so there is no reason for them to consider this.

@Emicus

This specifically only applies to 25-40mm models. Anything larger can never be attacked through, or it will get crazy. This is mentioned earlier in the topic.

@daedalus81
I just threw it together using adobe fireworks. 


 

[WoollyMammoth]

Everyone who who thinks the stormcast miss out on attacks for being 40mm away is wrong.

Now, you can "tip" all your models on their side, or stack the bases, or you can measure the height and width of every attacking model to mathematically determine of they could get within 1". Or you can use a simple system of ranks to quickly determine the number of attacks - up to you.

[mmimzie]

42 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Everyone who who thinks the stormcast miss out on attacks for being 40mm away is wrong.

Now, you can "tip" all your models on their side, or stack the bases, or you can measure the height and width of every attacking model to mathematically determine of they could get within 1". Or you can use a simple system of ranks to quickly determine the number of attacks - up to you.

Yes i mean i get it, but again if we did model to model bro the numbers would be out of this world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Depending on how you build place, stack models you could get 3 or 4 rows of storm cast attacking, and an equal number of horde guys. Or if you build your model if different ways you'd be hard pressed to get the 2nd row.

 

Now which building way is the best??? This is all up in the air. I've seen blood thirsters leaning super far forward with super extended wips, and axes in the other direction.  This isn't anything.

 

Now if we go base to base. If we say, yeah base stacking (virual or no) is cool. Than i'm gonna throw my hrode guys up your base and get 3 or 4 rows with other horde attacks on you, and you'll get 2 with stormcast guys.  

However,  the way i see it. If you measure base to base. Than the BASE IS APART OF THE MODEL. Models as per the orginal rules can not stack. As such you can't stack your bases. Furthermore, Generals hand book rules completely disreguard the FAQ. For instance in the FAQ they say you can make things auto pass like save and such, but the rules on one throw this out and over ride this. As such Base to Base house rule over rides base stacking. 

 

Lastly, looking at  Libs Vs Ghouls, and ogres vs zombies, and many others the numbers are the most even when you measure base to base. This is just generating there attacks (ignoring casuaties) and then have both side make whatever saves.  Libs vs Ghouls, is pretty much dead even and ghouls come back to life, but libs are MC hunters not horde hunters so they shouldn't be better at fighting horde units.

As such given that the numbers work out. I'd say they probably balanced around base to base as i have presented it. As such you just go base to base as measurements permit no stacking. 

 

edit: if you don't support this with numbers it's pointless. this feeling of being cheated is pointless if it throws the balance gamesworkshop have tried to make, and they've done like to try to make a balance book. Having played it all week it's in a great state right now. To try to change something like how we measure stuff this early on because units are being cheaper is premature. Now if we find libs, decimates, and other such big base units under preform. Then i think we should we visit this topic. I think this is a fair stand point

[WoollyMammoth]

The Generals Handbook adds additional rules on top of the core rules. The FAQ represents how the core rules are to be interpreted. Aside from a just a few things overridden by the "rules of 1", the FAQ represents how all games of AoS should be played - including matched play. As such, we know GW intended the second row of Eternals to be able to attack, and that must be the way they designed the points.

People use bases for the purpose of measuring movement distances simply for clarity. This has almost no affect on the core rules. However, when you use bases for the purpose of measuring weapon distance, you are making a major change to the core rules, a change that makes 32mm and 40mm miss out on second rank attacks which totally sucks. 

The FAQ does not say you can stack models on top of each other and go crazy. It simply says that, if the second rank models can fit through the first you can tip them through the front rank to get them within 1". Once you have a front row of guys with second rank tipped through them, that's a pretty solid wall and it would be inappropriate to say a third rank is attacking through this wall (unless they have 2" range weapons).

In terms of monsters/single models its not really a big deal. I don't know how there could be an issue with a bloodthirster leaning forward, unless you are trying to claim he can attack a model 6" away from his bases which is pretty lame. 

The virtual stacking system I have proposed allows a the proper number of models to attack without anything crazy happening. you can simply use bases and calculate attacks in a straightforward, no-nonsense way without trying to cheat larger models out of their second rank attacks. 

Liberators are in no way MC hunters. They actually have a rule that makes them +1 to hit against large units, so they are better at fighting hordes than anything else. 

[rokapoke]

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

The Generals Handbook adds additional rules on top of the core rules. The FAQ represents how the core rules are to be interpreted. Aside from a just a few things overridden by the "rules of 1", the FAQ represents how all games of AoS should be played - including matched play. As such, we know GW intended the second row of Eternals to be able to attack, and that must be the way they designed the points.

People use bases for the purpose of measuring movement distances simply for clarity. This has almost no affect on the core rules. However, when you use bases for the purpose of measuring weapon distance, you are making a major change to the core rules, a change that makes 32mm and 40mm miss out on second rank attacks which totally sucks. 

The FAQ does not say you can stack models on top of each other and go crazy. It simply says that, if the second rank models can fit through the first you can tip them through the front rank to get them within 1". Once you have a front row of guys with second rank tipped through them, that's a pretty solid wall and it would be inappropriate to say a third rank is attacking through this wall (unless they have 2" range weapons).

...

The virtual stacking system I have proposed allows a the proper number of models to attack without anything crazy happening. you can simply use bases and calculate attacks in a straightforward, no-nonsense way without trying to cheat larger models out of their second rank attacks. 

Yes, by properly situating a second rank you can indeed get additional attacks from Liberators when measuring model to model.  However, nowhere in the FAQ is "tipping" mentioned or implied. The clarification that you are citing is specifically in the "Movement Phase" portion of the FAQ because you won't be able to use it for piling in - you have to pay for however much you rotate the model, then moving the model past its buddies, and 3 inches won't cover all that. It looks like you're reading the FAQ to find justifications that aren't there.

At the end of the day, GW's rules and FAQs are all written with model-to-model measuring in a world where bases do not matter. Apparently most of us (myself included) end up playing base-to-base. And apparently there are several interpretations of that. But nothing in the FAQs will really justify any of the base-to-base accommodations any of us make.