Bases and Measurement (Close Combat)

[daedalus81]

8 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.

And someone who modeled a phalanx where the first rank is shields up defense stance and the back ranks are all reaching with their swords?

It's not going to happen often at all, but the best way to handle things like this is to avoid creating awkward conversations and provide a universal point of reference that overrides all of it.

[bottle]

Food for thought. If you're playing model to model, and you have spearman with the spears tipped forward, I think RAW you can't move the spearmen to have the spears above the rank in front because no part of a model can move "across" another. What does everyone think? 

Note, I would never play like this. I also hate playing model-to-model and always request base-to-base.

[daedalus81]

You can always have the spears in the spaces between models.

[WoollyMammoth]

As far as I know there is nothing preventing your models from hanging over each other, but that could be a house rule to make M2M work without exploit.

From the Facebook:
Q: Is tipping, turning models on the side or stacking your bases during pile-in in order to maximize attacks considered legal?
A:  It's up to you how you want to play this. We've seen it done both ways. We'd advise against tipping models on their side though - it looks rubbish and you'll ruin your nice paint scheme.
 

Kind of annoying since they said to tip models on their side during the movement phase. Most everyone I know of has agreed stacking models "looks rubbish" as well. (This is why I designed the virtual stacking rule).

IN CONCLUSION:
There's no rule against stacking, so you just have to be clear with your opponent before the game (GW has stated it can be played either way)  
B2B is the simplest way to simplify all movement, does not have a clear negative effect on the game, and either way stacking/tipping can be used if agreed upon.

In the end, there is little difference between B2B or M2M, but B2B seems to avoid modeling issues so will likely get adopted (like SCGT and the warhammer world matched play event this year). 

It seems to me that people will just have to get used to B2B, despite several limitations for 32mm-40mm I have researched in detail throughout this topic. In all reality its not the end of the world, there are so many cases where your 40mm are lined up in one rank anyway, or they can simply spread a bit to make due, per this example:



As you can see from this example, simply stacking your 40mm in a zigzag at all times will allow you to get attacks in.

Alternatively, if your opponent is set on stacking, but you don't want to muck up your models, you can adopt my "virtual stacking" concept, in which all 25-40mm models attack in two ranks. You can leave you models as standard B2B non-stacking while generally reaping the exact same benefits of stacking models.

The only important thing is to take a moment to discuss this with your opponent before the game, to make sure there wont be any bumping heads on these details. 
 

[rokapoke]

37 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

From the Facebook:
Q: Is tipping, turning models on the side or stacking your bases during pile-in in order to maximize attacks considered legal?
A:  It's up to you how you want to play this. We've seen it done both ways. We'd advise against tipping models on their side though - it looks rubbish and you'll ruin your nice paint scheme.
 

Kind of annoying since they said to tip models on their side during the movement phase. Most everyone I know of has agreed stacking models "looks rubbish" as well. (This is why I designed the virtual stacking rule).

GW refers to turning models sideways -- not on their sides -- during movement. They're talking about taking a model that's facing North-South and turning it so that it faces East-West for movement to pass through the gaps between other (standing) models.

[WoollyMammoth]

@rokapoke
Sideways
to, toward, or from the side.
"she tilted her body sideways"

synonyms:to the side, laterally More

with one side facing forward.
"the truck slid sideways across the road"

Its a bit of a gray area, but I think you are right. This seems to make more sense. However the argument is in regards to bases, and no mater how you how you turn a round base "sideways" in this way, there will be literally no effect. I tried to clarify what the point of this was but its proving difficult. I'm just kind of ignoring it at this point.

[BrownHammer13]

How we play is:

1" range should be direct to target, up to 1" away and not through any friendly/enemy models. 

2" allows for 2nd rank attacks - can attack through one friendly/enemy model,  with target up to 2" away. 

3" allows for 3rd rank attacks - can attack through up to 2 friendly enemy models, with target up to 3" away

And so forth...

Seems to work really well, seems logical to me that 2" ranges (spears and such) are meant for 2nd rank attacks and 1" ranges are not...also avoids the silly attempts to pile in every single model to within 1" range. 

[FractalRain]

Lots of good discussion here so I'll just chime in with my thoughts.  I had always thought base sizes helped balance attacks as well as provided space for larger models.  So giving a second rank of models on 32 mm bases attacks when they only have 1" range seems to be over-powering that model.  I've played it where 25 mm bases = 1".  So if you have a 1" range, a second row would get attacks as they are 1" away from the enemy (provided all bases are touching).  But if you have 2" range on 32 mm bases you could still get a 2nd row of attacks (like dryads), but not if they only have 1".  I think they are intended for balancing and certainly wouldn't agree to stacking, especially on my decorated bases.

[BrownHammer13]

I don't believe there is any intention to balance the game by giving models with smaller base sizes the ability to get more models into range and therefore more attacks.  GW has been pretty explicit that bases don't matter so I don't think they would put models onto 32" bases to limit their attacks from 2nd rank.  

With the method we are using, 25mm bases will already get more models into attacking range by virtue of being able to squeeze slightly more models around a target.   We're just trying to mitigate the additional attacks they would get by having more ranks in range as well. 

[Blood&skulls]

I haven't had any issue with base sizes but then I don't play in a hyper competitive scene. Iv played a guy who models his skeletons on penny bases so he could more in. He was a nice guy and I didn't have an issue with it. 

Common sense prevails in every case Iv come across. 

[Arkiham]

Necromancy!

 

 

[WoollyMammoth]

On 5/13/2017 at 5:49 AM, Blood&skulls said:

Iv played a guy who models his skeletons on penny bases so he could more in. He was a nice guy and I didn't have an issue with it. 

Common sense prevails in every case Iv come across. 

Unfortunately, what he is doing is exploiting bases to create a more effective army. If he was playing a mirror match, his army would pack a much harder punch and therefore have an advantage. Another thing you could do would be to squeeze 4 skeletons on a 40mm base. In a world where bases truly do not matter, I'd think this is a cool idea. But we don't live in that world. Most people would be greatly annoyed seeing skeletons on non standard mini-bases.

Its like the equivalent of showing up for a basketball game with shoes that make you 2' taller.

Of course, in a friendly game, and when people are objectively 'cool', it doesn't matter. Currently skeletons aren't on anybody's list of 'most powerful unit' . But if you let one guy do it with skeletons, you gotta let the next guy do it with bloodletters. When you are getting beat down with 50% more attacks from a devastating unit, you won't really think this is acceptable. This player is bending the rules in order to have an advantage, and win the game against you. Someone who cares so much about winning is likely going to want to play competitive games, and almost no one with a competitive mindset is going to be okay with this.

Long term, GW is going to change the rules for matched play. They are already adopting B2B in every event because the community has adopted this across the board. You just cannot ignore bases. It was only a band-aid since there are all kinds of square bases and re-based models going on.  So, this guy is just going to have to go and re-base all his skeletons because once the standard rules come out, this type of thing will be clearly illegal.  

[Blood&skulls]

I happen to agree with you the skeleton/bloodletter point but I think that the scene it's done in makes a difference. I play for the joy of playing and if somebody has to do that to win then treat yourself I say. I beat him and it was a good game. 

In a competitive environment then I'd be ruthless but then would somebody try to pull that off?