syph0n Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 UPDATE FROM GW: https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=AoSBaseSizesMkIIJune29&utm_content=AoSBaseSizesMkIIJune29 Following the release of the FAQ: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_base_sizes_en.pdf There has been some frustration over some of the base sizes suggested, or where there's just been straight up inconsistency (eg: a model provided on a round, which is now wrong or a dual build kit with different sizes). I thought, following @RuneBrush's sound advice, that we email the FAQ dept about ones we can collectively agree don't work - particularly with providing experience as to why. It's a discussion point first and foremost, not necessarily 'I'm right, you're wrong' and if that does happen, it's not worth emailing on because... ... Remember, the base sizes are suggestions and that for the most part, it won't affect a game between friends. However, I think like most collectors, we like to make sure things are "right". I can update this thread in this post, if people follow the format below. I'll start: ORDER: Order Serpentis Dreadlord on Black Dragon - currently 105mm oval (supplied with a rectangle in kit) - proposed 120mm oval Darkling Covens Sorceress on Black Dragon - currently 100mm round (supplied with a rectangle in kit) - proposed 120mm oval Reasons - well, it's the same kit! Also, I have my dragons on 120mm ovals and they are significantly more stable. The dragon is tall and then has wide wings, and when I had it on a square similar to the 105mm oval, it constantly toppled. Gameplay wise, I've found it fits far more comfortably into combat for base to base. Also, the high aelf dragon is of a similar size (just more low to the ground) and works well on a 120mm base, which GW are now suggesting (but only in one faction ?) that it belongs on a 170mm oval! ===== UPDATE 29.06.2018 For clarity, I'll list the changes in the thread here. A note - I've divided them into three: Supplied on round/oval, but now changed Supplied on square, but now changed inconsistently/in a odd way Suggested changes to existing rounds My (hopeful) logic is to solve the different problems of each. 1. is the biggest issue, because GW are actively now selling 'odd' bases such as the Medusa or Avatar of Khaine. Maybe some clarification from GW would help here, from a design studio point of view. My only issue here is they're selling odd bases if there's a design reason (addressed if GW repackage obviously). 2. is because it's downright confusing or irritating in the case of dual build kits. Consistency would help to make things simpler for all concerned. 3. is a bit of a wish list, based on experience with modelling or gaming with a miniature which has proven to be a bit odd. I haven't included ones where there's a bit of a debate and hasn't actually changed in the new chart (eg: Bloodsecrator) ==== 1. SUPPLIED ON ROUND/OVAL CURRENTLY, BUT NOW CHANGED: Blades of Khorne Flesh Hounds currently 60 x 35mm - proposed 50mm, they are sold with 50mm bases and Riptooth is on a 50mm base. Karanak currently 75 x 42mm - proposed 50mm, he is sold with a 50mm base and Riptooth is on a 50mm base. Skarbrand currently 120 x 92mm - proposed 100mm, he is sold with a 100mm base. Daughters of Khaine Avatar/Bloodwrack Medusa have similar problem. They were sold with 40 mm bases and now should have 60 mm ones. Revert to 40mm? Abhorrent Ghoul King. He should be on a 32mm. ==== 2. SUPPLIED ON SQUARE, BUT NOW CHANGED INCONSISTENTLY: Order Serpentis Dreadlord on Black Dragon - currently 105mm oval (supplied with a rectangle in kit) - proposed 120mm oval Darkling Covens Sorceress on Black Dragon - currently 100mm round (supplied with a rectangle in kit) - proposed 120mm oval Eldritch Council Archmage on Dragon - currently 170mm oval - proposed 120mm oval Drakeseer - currently 170mm oval - proposed 120mm oval Order Draconis Dragonlord – currently 120mm oval – proposed 120mm oval ==== 3. SUGGESTED CHANGES TO CURRENT ROUNDS Ogors - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Ironguts - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Leadbelchers - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Skaven MOULDER Packmaster - Comes with a 20mm square base. It should probably be on a 25mm. (They’re suggesting 32mm. Workable, but 2 sizes up.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayple Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 - Disregard - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killax Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Great topic! Chaos:Blades of Khorne Flesh Hounds currently 60 x 35mm - proposed 50mm, they are sold with 50mm bases and Riptooth is on a 50mm base. Karanak currently 75 x 42mm - proposed 50mm, he is sold with a 50mm base and Riptooth is on a 50mm base. Skarbrand currently 120 x 92mm - proposed 100mm, he is sold with a 100mm bse. Riptooth is the latest GW released Fleshhound from Shadespire. The change to Skarbrand's base isn't in line with the actual sold product or 40K's Daemons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Tomlin Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, Mayple said: Pestilens: Plague-censer bearers: Currently 32mm round, proposed 25mm round. Reasoning: All the other Skaven infantry is listed at 25mm. It seems weird that Plague Censer bearers should be a different base size than all the others, and it makes them very wonky/clumsy to play with. Compared to Stormvermin, who share the 'Elite infantry' role, and who are still at 25mm, the current censer-bearer base size feels way off. This one is incorrect I'm afraid. Plague Censer Bearers have been sold with 32mm round bases since the Skaven Pestilens battletome came out reasonably near the beginning of AoS. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/Pestilens-Plague-Censer-Bearers?_requestid=4161754 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayple Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said: This one is incorrect I'm afraid. Plague Censer Bearers have been sold with 32mm round bases since the Skaven Pestilens battletome came out reasonably near the beginning of AoS. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/Pestilens-Plague-Censer-Bearers?_requestid=4161754 Ah! Well then I stand corrected Thanks for clarifying! Disregard the above post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syph0n Posted June 28, 2018 Author Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Mayple said: Ah! Well then I stand corrected Thanks for clarifying! Disregard the above post That's the point of the thread, so no harm done. I'll update once a day to allow the community to make comment and arrive at some consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aginor Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Abhorrant Ghoul King will probably not fit on the 25mm base they suggest. The base included in the Zombie Dragon kit (with the rock) is 40mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michu Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 CHAOS Skaven Skaven Warlord Warlock Engineer Packmaster When Spire of Dawn was available, all of that characters were all sold with 25 mm bases and now they are on 32 mm ones. also ORDER DAUGHTERS OF KHAINE Avatar and Bloodwrack Medusa have similar problem. They were sold with 40 mm bases and now should have 60 mm ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SigvaldtheMagnificent Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 StoD Chaos Lord doesnt really fit on a 32mm, it should be a 40mm. He is also on a 40mm in the old GHB and GA chaos books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urauloth Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 30 minutes ago, Aginor said: Abhorrant Ghoul King will probably not fit on the 25mm base they suggest. The base included in the Zombie Dragon kit (with the rock) is 40mm. Yeah. He definitely won't. On that note, Ghast courtiers have 32mm bases in their assembly instructions, specifically as a way of deliniating them from regular unit champions (since they're currently the same model) so the 25mm suggestion seems... off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syph0n Posted June 28, 2018 Author Share Posted June 28, 2018 I'm obviously unable to confirm these base sizes myself, so if people can make it really clear where there is currently a base provide that is round which is now changed, that would make my life a lot easier. @Killax's post is perfect for me to follow. For example, the Medusa/Avatar for Daughters of Khaine is already provided with a round base of 40mm, but now listed with a 60mm base. These are the biggest problems for us I think, because they are actively packaging a now incorrect round base! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZakalwe Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 ORDER: Eldritch Council Archmage on Dragon - currently 170mm oval - proposed 120mm oval Drakeseer - currently 170mm oval - proposed 120mm oval Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalesOfSigmar Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Destruction Ogors - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Ironguts - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMMachine Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, michu said: ORDER DAUGHTERS OF KHAINE Avatar and Bloodwrack Medusa have similar problem. They were sold with 40 mm bases and now should have 60 mm ones. Even there is a 40mm Base in the box this is quite small. I put both of mine onto a 50mm Base but was quite surprised about the 60mm 13 minutes ago, MrZakalwe said: ORDER: Eldritch Council Archmage on Dragon - currently 170mm oval - proposed 120mm oval Drakeseer - currently 170mm oval - proposed 120mm oval The same I used for my Drakeseer. The only way I could think of is the wing span after he is flying deep. (In other cases I often used 32mm bases in my projects when normally 25mm was used. In most cases I think it looks a little better) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZakalwe Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, EMMachine said: The same I used for my Drakeseer. The only way I could think of is the wing span after he is flying deep. (In other cases I often used 32mm bases in my projects when normally 25mm was used. In most cases I think it looks a little better) Problem is that the Dragonlord made from the same kit is put at 120mm 2 kits, (black dragon and dragonlord) 5 profiles (Drakeseer, Dragonmage, Dragonlord, Dreadlord on black dragon, Sorc on blacvk dragon), 4 base sizes (100mm round, 105mm oval, 120m oval, 170mm oval) 2 base shapes (round and oval) still supplied with rectangular bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syph0n Posted June 28, 2018 Author Share Posted June 28, 2018 Just now, MrZakalwe said: Problem is that the Dragonlord made from the same kit is put at 120mm 2 kits, (black dragon and dragonlord) 5 profiles (Drakeseer, Dragonmage, Dragonlord, Dreadlord on black dragon, Sorc on blacvk dragon), 4 base sizes (100mm round, 105mm oval, 120m oval, 170mm oval) 2 base shapes (round and oval) still supplied with rectangular bases. Agreed. My personal feeling, owning both kits, is the 120mm is more than sufficient for all of those models. 170mm seems overkill for the Drakeseer etc, 100mm is too small (round) for the Sorceress (wobbly). 120mm is fine. The original rectangles were way too small. They wobbled like mad, both kits. They were more in line with the 105 oval too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonio Rodrigues Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 13 minutes ago, TalesOfSigmar said: Destruction Ogors - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Ironguts - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Just to add: ALLEGIANCE GUTBUSTERS Ogors - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Leadbelchers - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Ironguts - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round one question, on the BCR list the Yethees are on 50mm too, but I think they ate provided with 40mm ones on the Start Collecting / Big box pack... can someone confirm? If yes, this should be on our list too... As for the reason, although the Gutbusters minis are still provided with squares (not repacked yet), on 50mm they look silly, they are big minis but not dinamically posed - they even fit quite well on 32mm! - and most players based them on 40mm round because they used to be 40mm square on the old WHFB... cheers and congratulations for the initiative! AJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMMachine Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 13 minutes ago, MrZakalwe said: Problem is that the Dragonlord made from the same kit is put at 120mm 2 kits, (black dragon and dragonlord) 5 profiles (Drakeseer, Dragonmage, Dragonlord, Dreadlord on black dragon, Sorc on blacvk dragon), 4 base sizes (100mm round, 105mm oval, 120m oval, 170mm oval) 2 base shapes (round and oval) still supplied with rectangular bases. Okay, haven't looked at the basesize of the Dragonlord. So it's the same BS as with Dreadlord and Sorceress In the moonclan Thread there was also mentioned that the Grot Boss is only mentioned with a 25mm Base (but if you use the giant squig it will never fit). The Skarsnik square base was 60x40mm so I would use something comparable in size. Also Fantatics were mentioned: But I think the 32mm Base could be okay for the case of stability. Edit: 2 hours ago, Killax said: Chaos:Blades of Khorne Flesh Hounds currently 60 x 35mm - proposed 50mm, they are sold with 50mm bases and Riptooth is on a 50mm base. Isn't 60x35mm a advantage compared to 50mm, I mean, we choose the bases either for stability or don't like the size change because of disadvantage. I have the feeling it would fit better (compared with other "dog" models) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 3 hours ago, Aginor said: Abhorrant Ghoul King will probably not fit on the 25mm base they suggest. The base included in the Zombie Dragon kit (with the rock) is 40mm. The Start Collecting: FEC box actually comes with a single 32mm base, which can only be for the Abhorrant Ghoul King. He should be on a 32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessio Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 2 hours ago, syph0n said: Agreed. My personal feeling, owning both kits, is the 120mm is more than sufficient for all of those models. 170mm seems overkill for the Drakeseer etc, 100mm is too small (round) for the Sorceress (wobbly). 120mm is fine. The original rectangles were way too small. They wobbled like mad, both kits. They were more in line with the 105 oval too. Totally agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aginor Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said: The Start Collecting: FEC box actually comes with a single 32mm base, which can only be for the Abhorrant Ghoul King. He should be on a 32. Are you sure? I thought mine is bigger than 32mm.... I cannot check right now though as I am not at home. EDIT: Maybe even different ones? That would be weird. Or maybe I am just wrong, which is more likely of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Aginor said: Are you sure? I thought mine is bigger than 32mm.... I cannot check right now though as I am not at home. EDIT: Maybe even different ones? That would be weird. Or maybe I am just wrong, which is more likely of course. Pretty sure. I only took it out of the box a few days ago so it's pretty fresh in my memory. Let's say I'm 90% sure it was a 32mm base - but I'm 100% sure it was bigger than a 25mm. 40mm would actually be ideal for me since that's what I'm planning to base my converted Ghoul King on - half-baked official recommendations be damned! ? EDIT: That said, there's someone on the FEC WhatsApp group who's also saying 40mm, so perhaps I'm wrong after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killax Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 4 hours ago, syph0n said: I'm obviously unable to confirm these base sizes myself, so if people can make it really clear where there is currently a base provide that is round which is now changed, that would make my life a lot easier. @Killax's post is perfect for me to follow. For example, the Medusa/Avatar for Daughters of Khaine is already provided with a round base of 40mm, but now listed with a 60mm base. These are the biggest problems for us I think, because they are actively packaging a now incorrect round base! Also didn't @Ben have a wonderful excel sheet with all the bases as provided anyway? I mean, the easiest way to do this is really to have GW remove the current one for the time being and figure out what the actual plan is or consistent approach is. The whole document raises a lot of questions. To me it's either, do w/e you want or list it correctly, less ideal is this in-between stuff.. 3 hours ago, EMMachine said: Isn't 60x35mm a advantage compared to 50mm, I mean, we choose the bases either for stability or don't like the size change because of disadvantage. I have the feeling it would fit better (compared with other "dog" models) I really couldn't care about "advantages", the thing is really that 40K has them used as 50mm Fleshhounds, the latest Fleshhound (Riptooth) is also on a 50mm base. So why Karnak has a different base as Flesh Hounds who have a different base to Riptooth is again a complete mystery to me. It's the first time I think I've actually see the same 'fluff model' be listed as it being based on 3 different base sizes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, Killax said: The whole document raises a lot of questions. To me it's either, do w/e you want or list it correctly, less ideal is this in-between stuff.. Agreed. GW are saying here there and everywhere that the base size doesn't matter and we should just do what looks good or feels right - then they put out a document that not only contradicts this but serves no useful purpose unless it's to be taken as an official ruling (which they somewhat eyebrow-raisingly claim that it isn't). Its very existence is a source of contentiousness and confusion, before you even get into the internal inconsistencies. Revoke the whole thing and go back to the position that 'we now measure from the base, but the size doesn't matter'. That works perfectly for the community at large in 99% of circumstances. TOs can handle any competitive advantage or consistency concerns for their own events as they see fit. No need for GW to wade into this area half-cocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syph0n Posted June 28, 2018 Author Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Killax said: Also didn't @Ben have a wonderful excel sheet with all the bases as provided anyway? I mean, the easiest way to do this is really to have GW remove the current one for the time being and figure out what the actual plan is or consistent approach is. The whole document raises a lot of questions. To me it's either, do w/e you want or list it correctly, less ideal is this in-between stuff.. I really couldn't care about "advantages", the thing is really that 40K has them used as 50mm Fleshhounds, the latest Fleshhound (Riptooth) is also on a 50mm base. So why Karnak has a different base as Flesh Hounds who have a different base to Riptooth is again a complete mystery to me. It's the first time I think I've actually see the same 'fluff model' be listed as it being based on 3 different base sizes... Agreed. I think removing the existing one is absolutely the most sensible thing to do, and for someone with product knowledge to actually check what is: A) actually in the box B) is this a dual kit box, but across factions (so make them the same) C) do we already have updated based units, used for GHB images etc D) is C) consistent, or did whoever rebased it just pick whatever was closest? It's such a minor thing really, but my god has the inconsistency massively annoyed me! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.