Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
WoollyMammoth

Bases and Measurement (Close Combat)

Recommended Posts

I'll keep it short and simple. Something my spelling makes difficult to do. So sorry:

 

Base to base measure does fair damage:

I did a bunch of math follow myl ink here.... to see the details https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JE_Q6Gwz75Jg_lCcHO6Qj1lXPtMBPHfftFsAvnDxZuM/edit?usp=sharing

200 points of libs vs 200 points of ghouls:

3.922 wounds taken for the libs vs 3.333 taken for the ghouls

Same but with decimators:

Decimators deal 11.111 damage to the ghouls vs 3.937

SHoulg should always win against libs. Ghouls are jack of all trade horde, Libs are Monster hunter specialist. Ghouls should always lose to decimators because decimators are horde specialist.

Numbers support the way the game should work.

How about we spend some time playing the game.... because we add sweeping generalizations in hopes of balance we haven't seen yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been thinking. 

The simplest way to handle the base to base measurement issues is to increase all weapon ranges by 0.5" and decrease the coherency distance to exactly 0.5"

this means that a storm cast can reach through the gap of two others if not directly through another storm cast and it keeps units from getting too spread out as well. 

It also avoids questions regarding based even larger than 40mm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it. It says in the handbook that you can play BtB or use MtM, it's completely up to the players. Saying that btb goes against intent and the rules is therefore wrong as GW clearly has said it's legit. 

Tournaments will most likely always be BtB because it's just that much simpler. 

Personally I find MtM complete ****** and I hate that it's even considered amongst players. But it is, however, the players choice. Why can't it be left at that? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@rokapoke
No. I'm trying to play the game as intended, or at least the most sensible.

Turning sideways is the same thing as tipping; you tip the model to turn it on its side. So you are incorrect - it is implied. 

Charges and Pile-Ins are forms of movement (also specified in the FAQ). Whether you turn models in the movement phase, or the charge phase or the pile-in phase, it makes no difference to the fact that the second row of 40mm models get to attack. A charge requires at least one model to end within 1/2". Assuming the front row is in a line, even if you halt 1/2" away, the second rank is still only 2.748 inches from the enemy. with the 3" pile in (including tipping the model forward) you should be able to technically get .252" over the enemies base before you factor in the 1" weapon range to reach the target. If you count base you are already there; if you count models the model would have to be 1.252" behind its base edge to be out of range of the second rows weapons - which is unlikely. In summary, your statement "3 inches won't cover all that" does not hold up.  

Of course there are weird situations, for example if you charged in a pyramid formation. But I'm not trying to do anything weird, I'm not trying to claim all kinds of crazy attacks, I'm simply claiming 32-40mm based models can attack in two ranks like 25mm. I think stacking and tipping and anything that affects modeling for the sake of improving the game is silly, so I have adopted a very simple house rule in order to play the combat phase as intended without all that nonsense.

@mmimzie
You can do all the math you like, the fact that liberators are intended to get in a second rank is clear per the FAQ, so taking away their attacks by forcing a strict base measurement is not how the game is intended. You can play that way if you like, but be clear you are changing the game to limit 32-40mm models attacks with a custom house rule.

Also your math is all over the place and you make comments like liberators have rend and are "monster hunters" I have no idea what you are talking about.

@TrexPushups
Thats fine, but the FAQ says you can "turn models on their side" so all the fiddling is not needed unless you have a house rule to prevent that.

@Flogger
you can play B2B but it doesnt say playing B2B prevents tipping, turning on the side or stacking. Theres nothing in the rules that says you can prevent that, other than if you made a house rule.
 

Edited by WoollyMammoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FAQ doesn't care if you decide to houserule measuring bases.

As far as the rules are concerned, bases do not exist, therefore 'being able to fit through gaps' likewise doesn't care about the base, whether you like to call it "tipping the base on the side" or "seeing if the model sans base can get through" doesn't matter. It does make/force/allow you to 'pyramid' your models as you mentioned earlier.

Now the house-rule where bases DO matter on the other hand, you won't be able to fit through, because the base is part of the model. It's also generally understood that the base the model comes with or an approximate size is required for this system to work - i.e. nobody bringing 5 foot bases.

You can't use a FAQ for a game that doesn't care about bases and apply logic to a house rule that does - to justify boosting weapon ranges.

Now I think your system is a perfectly fine HOUSERULE but I don't think you will be able to push it to the community at large. This thread is a pretty clear indicator several people do not like arbitrarily increasing some models attack range. Whether you care about the math or no behind it, it removes tactical depth of the game where positioning and pile-ins become moot - because you reach anyway.

 

Edited by Emicus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Emicus
my house rule is only to allow you to get the attack without tipping the model over.

Measuring bases for everything is a house rule to make things simpler and that's fine, but when you change it to represent close combat, you are taking each models footprint - which is supposed to be literally only the size of where their feet meets the ground (like a real solider) and increasing it 20x to represent a giant circle around their feet. for the case of 32mm and 40mm, you are drawing a much bigger circle, pushing them farther away. Well you might say, stormcast are much bigger guys right? well actually no - a liberators hammer can reach exactly 1" from his base, same as a skeletons short sword or a ghouls bare claws. This is like cutting the stormcasts arms off at the elbow to force them to attack with the stubs. Now, if you imagine a bunch of liberators coming at you with stubs, sure I'd say, sure the front rank is going to fall on me and get some attacks in, but the back rank cant reach me with their stubs. But stormcast don't have stubs, they have hammers with long hilts, and they were trained to battle alongside each other in perfect formation, the most trained and organized people in the entire age, and chosen by Sigmar as such. To claim that these super soldiers could not come at you in two ranks with their extra long arms and massive weapons (easily the full  length of a man or longer) is ridiculous and if you tell someone that, you are cheating them. This is not how the rules are written or intended. If this were the ruels as intended, you can clearly see that they would have doubled the length of all stormcast weapons to represent their larger size.  

I'm all for simplifying things to make games flow better but not if it applies arbitrary rules to cheat models out of attacks and slow the game down. If you want to play bases that's fine but be polite and let your opponent have their second row attacks without having to turn their models over to prove it.

Edited by WoollyMammoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WoollyMammoth

The problem I have with your argument... is that your assuming the game was balanced around model to model. Your assuming that when they balance model to model all the models were made so everyone took up only a central cross section of thier base... 

 

If your balance due model to model... the models can be made and based in so many different t ways that will make in consistant attacks. For one if your modes have a large space in front and behind them, then a big gap of it will be over lapped, and some of the base will be part of your measurement.

If you then go into tipping to over come this you could get 3, 4, or even 5 rows of liberates in on a 1" attack. 

 

So the reason I say math matters. Is because you're saying the libs are being cheated out of attacks. With out knowing the exact strategy they used to measure models distances we can't know how many attacks anyone is missing out on. 

But if we math it out and we look at what should happen and see that is skewed then we could probably say, yeah these guys need more attacks. This math would then have to be consistant with all models on that size base. 

Instead of math we could use game data from tournaments and see. Are horde armies getting more wins through more damage than other armies. 

Otherwise bro... your just changing stuff off gut reaction and desires.

 

lastly you haven't been coming at this as your title suggests. Your trying to sell us your pitch. Which kinda makes you come off alittle jerky and rude. You dont actually want our opinions on how we should measure. Instead your trying to tell us how we should measure. 

Edit: typed on cell phone sorry for typos I fixed all I could, honest

Edited by mmimzie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mmimzie
Often I make posts as kind of a research project. At the start of this I didn't know what to expect but at this point I clearly understand GW intention to allow all models to attack in two rows. At this point I'm just annoyed at repeating the same facts over and over with flawed logic arguments against it. I apologize for being rude, your math argument is an important factor but I just don't think you can realistically come up with an algorithm because - how do you factor in  ghouls re-rolling next to a Abhorrant, Liberators re-rolling with 5+ models, whether liberators have dual weapons or shields, the 4+ save of a liberator vs the 6+ of an abhorrant, the allegiance where ghouls ignore death vs liberators avoid battelshock (with lower bravery), ghouls greater movement? In reality - you can't factor in everything. I made the point earlier that 1 liberator occupies the space of 4 ghouls on square bases, so 16 ghouls could get attacks into 3 frontal liberators which point wise is 160pts vs 60 points.

GW did balance based on models ignoring bases. This is obvious, the rule since the start has been to ignore bases, they only recently just note that you can use bases for simplification, but they don't go into detail as to what that means. It seems like SCGT used bases as an oversimplification, not realizing the issues with this, and now a large part of the community has taken this rule as gospel. 

Ill say it again - the FAQ says the models in the back have to realistically be able to fit THROUGH the models in the first rank. Not over, not under, but between them. No unit, unless impossibly small, can realistically claim that more than one rank can fit between the first. All my rules do is allow the second rank to attack without modeling, tipping, stacking or any of that nonsense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you are wrong and your arguments are a little weird. Every miniature game out there measure BtB and it works fine, no issues at all. No talk about stacking, tipping or turning on the side, because people aren't that stupid. 

Your argument about stormcasts having stubs for arms and that bases are larger than the footprint is a just odd and on the same level as saying "the models aren't moving, hence they cannot attack". 

I hope you find someone who agrees with you on this and find people to play against. After all, most rules are house rules and this is clearly one of yours.

Edited by Flogger
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm done, I can't keep repeating myself and correcting peoples flawed arguments. I was trying to help by providing a way to play the game as intended without having to stack or tip. My club plays the game as intended, and I'm going to keep it that way. If you want to change the way the game is intended to be played in order to oversimplify by using strict base to base measurement, you can do what you like.

Edited by WoollyMammoth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

I'm done, I can't keep repeating myself and correcting peoples flawed arguments. I was trying to help by providing a way to play the game as intended without having to stack or tip. My club plays the game as intended, and I'm going to keep it that way. If you want to change the way the game is intended to be played in order to oversimplify by using strict base to base measurement, you can do what you like.

@WoollyMammoth

Sorry to hear that. I was enjoying the poke into. As i've said i want to like really look at the consequences of this before i give my seal of approval on. As such i've pretty much adobted it for horde dudes as it's kinda obvious if your base to base you'll get 1" for the most part. I just want to know how it works for the libs.

So far in adopting it i'll give libs the go if they can get in the butt crack of thier forward lib allies as that's really close to 1".  This said.... err it's like this.

I was at the store today and a guy literally just saw the points. He said he's summoning his dyrads are worthless and i know he was super down about it even when i tried to reassure him that running a zombie summoning army i've yet to loose a game. It's like..... if you don't play with the rules there... if you don't try it have test time or atleast if you don't take the time to math it out and work on it or anything. If we make a change that could quickly become more or less law. It'll be tough for us to go back on it. 

So i don't want to ****** on your idea. I like the idea. I've said so in the past that it seem easy to use, but i feel it's buffing something before we know it's been nerfed. Technically the points have only been out a weekend. My math when i've run numbers, and i took the time with lots of units trying to see where we could work on your idea. The math all seems either even or stuff that should win do win and visa versa. 

You feel strong they balanced model to model, but SCGT and other such folks came in who pretty much place base to base as just a matter of course with no base stack. They brought their own painted armies and didn't wanna mess them up, and they had nothing but good things to say. So i feel the rules are balanced Base to Base.

Now i'm open to your idea, but.... I.... Need... proof man. I'm sorry if i've discouraged you from wanting to argue it as it's been fun going back and forth with you on it, but i wont sign off on something unless i'm sure it's the right way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mmimzie

Your arguments have been pretty good actually except I just don't think there's really a way to math out whether they intended the back libs to get in or not. Due to the FAQ its clear to me they did.

SCGT is not matched play. SCGT used base for simplification. I don't know if its because they didn't realize the issues this caused, or felt that it caused less issues than making a full page diagram (for a system like mine) would casue. Either way, I disagree with their choice.

In all reality most of the time you can nudge and fudge around, the "move the front rank apart a little to nudge the back forward" idea so I can make due.  Strict bases destroys the foundation of AoS but the reason why is a very complex and minute concept that I can't quite seem to get people to grasp.

GW could not and would not adopt b2b as a rule without rebuilding their rules from the ground up so that it makes sense. If strict bases made sense, it would have been included as a rule in the handbook. They just simply say you can do it if you want in their new way of keeping simplicity over trying to force rules (however key) down peoples throats and listening to people get pissed about it, as I am doing with this post.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you know, the official GW event using Matched Play is base-to-base:

CmhOojVWcAAdXEt.jpg

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

 My club plays the game as intended, and I'm going to keep it that way.

This is the biggest logical pitfall of any argument since the beginning of Warhammer.  You assume intent when you don't understand the author's driving force.  They rebooted a system that was changing bases and provided a way for people to keep playing without having re-basing become an issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the intention of BtB is for quicker and clearer measurements of which models can attack, sometimes it can mean a difference in competition.
I love and hate competitive play. In one way it devolve the spirit of the game, the Narrative and creative games that AoS brought. But I admit it is the most effective way to get many people to be involve constantly with the game system.

I think measuring from models works well in tight battles with lots of obstacles like big ruins. Or enclose space, like building or castle siege.. Make your games like fantasy action movies..

The thing is if your opponent is modelling for advantage like having unnaturally long weapons in a huge block of infantry, just call a spade a spade. Tell that person he is plain cheating. 
Huge block of infantry is the fear, imagine each of them holding a sword that is 2 inch long, all 40 will be attacking if you measure from model. LOL. Ultimate jokester.
BUT I will still play with this person just to show my respect for the fact that he put in so much effort to cheat.
After the game I will throw the ultimate lowblow by saying "How does it feel to know you can only win by cheating? Just Kidding:)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The only "modeling for advantage" when using M2M measurement is when a ranged unit is placed on stands/bases so high above the battlefield that they cant be charged or engaged in melee at all.All other cases of long outstretched weapons, or rediculous shaped models give the same advantage to the models opponent as they think they are getting themselves.

 

  Solve all issues and just do model AND/OR base measurement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shane
Thank you, this is intriguing. 

@daedalus81
I thought the FAQ made the driving force clear, but now I'm not so sure. I asked Age of Sigmar Facebook about this:

"You measure from the model, not the base, so it's possible to fight in two ranks, though most of the time, as you say, Stormcasts may well be restricted to single "rank", as you would expect of hammer-wielding troops."

I asked further questions because this is still quite vague and i want to understand why "turning models on their side" would come into play.  Regardless, they clearly state that Stormcast are restricted most of the time. 

This makes me think about liberators in that they cost only 100 points, while judicators are 160. Judicators can shoot over everything so their models/bases are not a factor. Perhaps Liberators were costed cheaply to make up for the trouble they may have in close combat. 

@Thostos
You make a good point. To clarify; if you model a skeleton with a 2" sword coming off the front of the base, that skeleton has to start 2" from deployment line. It would then move up using the tip of its sword as the point of measurement. However, there is nothing that states a sword cannot "hang over" an opponents base, which means you can move the model 2" over the enemy model until their bases touch. The back ranks then would have all their swords over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, and basically all models legally attack. 

Measuring base to base, you negate all modeling issues. To be clear, my 'virtual stacking' system is a B2B system which simply allows more models to attack, assuming stacking/tipping is legal during pine-in. At this point I'm on the fence about how they intended this to work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole model measuring thing strikes me as one of those things a top dog in the company said has to happen and everyone below them just has to apologize to customers about it and soullessly echo. I think it is ridiculous. Given long enough time I hope it will die out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@Shane
Thank you, this is intriguing. 

@daedalus81
I thought the FAQ made the driving force clear, but now I'm not so sure. I asked Age of Sigmar Facebook about this:

"You measure from the model, not the base, so it's possible to fight in two ranks, though most of the time, as you say, Stormcasts may well be restricted to single "rank", as you would expect of hammer-wielding troops."

I asked further questions because this is still quite vague and i want to understand why "turning models on their side" would come into play.  Regardless, they clearly state that Stormcast are restricted most of the time. 

This makes me think about liberators in that they cost only 100 points, while judicators are 160. Judicators can shoot over everything so their models/bases are not a factor. Perhaps Liberators were costed cheaply to make up for the trouble they may have in close combat. 

@Thostos
You make a good point. To clarify; if you model a skeleton with a 2" sword coming off the front of the base, that skeleton has to start 2" from deployment line. It would then move up using the tip of its sword as the point of measurement. However, there is nothing that states a sword cannot "hang over" an opponents base, which means you can move the model 2" over the enemy model until their bases touch. The back ranks then would have all their swords over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, and basically all models legally attack. 

Measuring base to base, you negate all modeling issues. To be clear, my 'virtual stacking' system is a B2B system which simply allows more models to attack, assuming stacking/tipping is legal during pine-in. At this point I'm on the fence about how they intended this to work.

 

   In response to your Skeleton example...how is this a problem with game play?.Yes all models that can get range to the skeletons swords can attack back.All this is doing is increasing the models footprint.The modeler may think they are getting some advantage or extra coverage but really all they are doing is also allowing more models to have access to attacks on them.Plus this is not unlike medievil combat in ranked up Pike troops..2nd rank and even third rank could get attacks in by going over the shoulder of the troop in front of them.With that,I certainly wouldnt expect anyone to accept games from players that are attempting some sort of exploit with modeling for advantage by building rediculously shaped models,weapons or basing techniques.

  That all being said,,I do agree that GW intends for this miniatures game to measure model to model,and that measuring base to base does,in fact nerf some units melee capabilities.I believe that yes,m2m did negate any issues with rebasing so im sure that figured into this route they chose,but also that the tactics used in pre charge movement,charging and pile-in are all considered enhanced when measuring m2m.This is something that I think GW wants in the game and sets it firmly into the setting(fantasy) and helps to define it apart from 40k.

  Also,B2B measuring is not without issues,it seems every other game I play a problem comes up when a large model attempts to charge or pile-in on another large model with wings,or weapons or something on it hanging over the base and preventing either model from getting within 1" of each others base...and some of these models are AoS releases on the new bases they came with.Im tiring of having to do repairs with players or myself trying to get to a base under the wings of some flyer...

 Finally,I do appreciate your discussion and what you are trying as a fix for this.Though I must say most of those I play with would probably not want to try it,my group and all in my area are pretty much set on straight b2b measurement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shane said:

Just to let you know, the official GW event using Matched Play is base-to-base:

CmhOojVWcAAdXEt.jpg

 

@WoollyMammoth

So this is kind of what i've been saying man. We don't really know how they intend anything for these rules as many of the play testers for this were folks from SCGT and many others who play pretty much strictly base to base. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thostos said:

   In response to your Skeleton example...how is this a problem with game play?.Yes all models that can get range to the skeletons swords can attack back.All this is doing is increasing the models footprint

 Byt they can get an advantage.  If a model with a 2 inch weapon at the third rank increases the attacks available without changing the opponents available attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Thostos   @daedalus81

It's also that you get a better alpha strike. Changing the dynamics of the game. If i get another 33% or 50% more damage than me activating before you is that much more extreme. I know all of us have had those moment where some one activated on us and dramatically reduced our unit strength before we got to attack back.  Now imaginei f they did 50% more damage on that alpha stirke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a beast of a thread. 

image.png

In all honesty tho, I've always been of the mindset that both measuring from base and from models has its up and downs. Clearly measuring from the model gives advantage to more rediculously posed models. While measuring base to base gives preference to models with small bases. In terms of casual games I say spend literally like 2 minutes agreeing with your opponent how you want to do it and if they are a ****** about it (which people shouldn't be because it's a freaking toy soldier game) then don't play them. 

As far as tournaments go it should be laid out prior as to what's going on and it should be simple so people don't waste the game arguing over who's longer and comparing spears..

 

ok I'm done 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

 Byt they can get an advantage.  If a model with a 2 inch weapon at the third rank increases the attacks available without changing the opponents available attacks.

 

    If we are talking Polearm weapons like SCE Protectors and such then I see no issue with that, as thats what Polearms are supposed to do,get more ranks into range.But if we are talking someone who modeled 2" swords on outstretched arms(basically 12` swords) then yeah,not only is that stupid looking,they wont be getting any games from me or anyone else.

   If players just build the models within the bounds of the options the kits provide then there is no issue with base or model measurement.I think that the occasional extra attack gained by an outstretched sword or hammer arm is what GW intended for the game.It actually gives a sort of facing to the model.But yes,if players were to start taking 2" weapon profiles and modifying the models with those weapons being glued to their fingertips giving not only a stupid look but an undue advantage to a unit that otherwise wouldnt have one,then yeah..there is a problem. Ive yet to see that type of player and if I did I would refuse to play them.

 

 My whole thing is that sure,b2b measurement may speed  up gameplay a bit(not much imo) but it takes away alot of flavor of play in the up close melee of what AoS is all about.Its like b2b measurement works fine for shooting focused games like 40k,,were units are often shot off the board before they even get to melee.But AoS features melee combat with differing weapon ranges and measuring m2m,the top down view of the models profiles are all different shapes and sizes,thats what makes it so interesting to me.As opposed to just fighting different size circles and ovals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thostos said:

 

    If we are talking Polearm weapons like SCE Protectors and such then I see no issue with that, as thats what Polearms are supposed to do,get more ranks into range.But if we are talking someone who modeled 2" swords on outstretched arms(basically 12` swords) then yeah,not only is that stupid looking,they wont be getting any games from me or anyone else.

   If players just build the models within the bounds of the options the kits provide then there is no issue with base or model measurement.I think that the occasional extra attack gained by an outstretched sword or hammer arm is what GW intended for the game.It actually gives a sort of facing to the model.But yes,if players were to start taking 2" weapon profiles and modifying the models with those weapons being glued to their fingertips giving not only a stupid look but an undue advantage to a unit that otherwise wouldnt have one,then yeah..there is a problem. Ive yet to see that type of player and if I did I would refuse to play them.

 

 My whole thing is that sure,b2b measurement may speed  up gameplay a bit(not much imo) but it takes away alot of flavor of play in the up close melee of what AoS is all about.Its like b2b measurement works fine for shooting focused games like 40k,,were units are often shot off the board before they even get to melee.But AoS features melee combat with differing weapon ranges and measuring m2m,the top down view of the models profiles are all different shapes and sizes,thats what makes it so interesting to me.As opposed to just fighting different size circles and ovals.

I can dig where you coming from but m2m brings lots of problems. There are many reasons folks favor b2b some of which I'll list.

If you use m2m the pose of your model effect how well they can do in combat. 

m2m encourages base stack which ruins base painting as they'll quickly become scratched. 

When making conversions you'd be more restricted as all the cool things you can do will either give unfair advantages or disadvantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×