amysrevenge Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, syph0n said: It's such a minor thing really, but my god has the inconsistency massively annoyed me! ? Was just saying the same thing elsewhere. They've hit home run after home run after home run in recent times. So this swing-and-a-miss strikeout seems so out of place. (ETA and it's so out of place that I find myself fixated on it, less able to enjoy all those nice home runs. Maybe it's time for me to consciously adjust my priorities over here...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMMachine Posted June 28, 2018 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? You mean that one? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ohYLSaHzf8v5FM7Luou-wNtA5YEPv9DkglbrO_n9ukk/htmlview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syph0n Posted June 28, 2018 Author Share Posted June 28, 2018 I've emailed the FAQ team about the inconsistencies and pointed them to this thread. Hopefully they'll give a timely response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherJosh Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Chaos: Bloodbound The Bloodsecrator (while shipping with a 32mm base) doesn’t balance well at all with a 32mm and really should be on a 40mm. 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...
AGPO Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 +1 for the Skaven characters. I have to say I really appreciate GW's approach on this - repeatedly state that there is no compulsory base size, but if you are the type of group that needs an official ruling (not saying that's wrong) then here's something to work with. I've just gotten through with rebasing a few hundred square based minis onto rounds. Just the idea of redoing all my daemons from 25s onto 32s is making me twitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 35 minutes ago, AGPO said: Just the idea of redoing all my daemons from 25s onto 32s is making me twitch. And the idea that there are people out there who would have been perfectly fine with your 25mm daemons yesterday but would refuse to play you or accuse you of trying to gain an unfair advantage today - just because of this completely unnecessary document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorokyl Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Are people considering that model dimensions are not the only factor when determining what size the base should be? A larger base is a disadvantage for the most part, so it can be used as a tool to balance the power level of the unit. Why are the two black dragons on different bases? Does it have to do with their pitched battle points / relative power? Their role on the battlefield? etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rintrah56 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 3 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said: Chaos: Bloodbound The Bloodsecrator (while shipping with a 32mm base) doesn’t balance well at all with a 32mm and really should be on a 40mm. Also, for those who built from the AOS1 starter set, there was a 40mm base supplied rather than 32mm... I’ll rebase mine if needed, but would be a little annoying to have to mess with it. Might just leave it as it is really, don’t think many people would be too bothered (I’m not likely to go to a rules-focused tournament anytime soon). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syph0n Posted June 28, 2018 Author Share Posted June 28, 2018 15 minutes ago, sorokyl said: Are people considering that model dimensions are not the only factor when determining what size the base should be? A larger base is a disadvantage for the most part, so it can be used as a tool to balance the power level of the unit. Why are the two black dragons on different bases? Does it have to do with their pitched battle points / relative power? Their role on the battlefield? etc. The Sorceress is weaker, but is less points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 21 minutes ago, sorokyl said: Are people considering that model dimensions are not the only factor when determining what size the base should be? A larger base is a disadvantage for the most part, so it can be used as a tool to balance the power level of the unit. Why are the two black dragons on different bases? Does it have to do with their pitched battle points / relative power? Their role on the battlefield? etc. If that were the case (and it's not a bad thought) then base sizes need to be mandatory, not optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyshadow Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 11 hours ago, SigvaldtheMagnificent said: 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. I've put mine on a 32 mm round, he fits okay I think (just). 40mm would be a totally reasonable choice for sure though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMuphinMan Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 The other problem I see is when the model has mount options and the like, Chaos Sorcerer Lord may be at home on a 32 but the horse he can ride might not enjoy it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorokyl Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 20 minutes ago, Sleboda said: If that were the case (and it's not a bad thought) then base sizes need to be mandatory, not optional. It's exactly the reason that most competitive play required round bases, and why i suspect they will now require these guidelines. It's literally in the FAQ with the base sizes: The only possible exception to this is matched play games. This is because matched play games are intended to be evenly balanced contests, and in these circumstances having the same model on a different sized base can become an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, sorokyl said: Are people considering that model dimensions are not the only factor when determining what size the base should be? A larger base is a disadvantage for the most part, so it can be used as a tool to balance the power level of the unit. Why are the two black dragons on different bases? Does it have to do with their pitched battle points / relative power? Their role on the battlefield? etc. This is a terrible idea and only a madman would implement it. GW already have a much more effective and reasonable lever they can pull on to promote balance - points. Points that are now updated on a yearly basis, in recognition of the fact that the requirements of balance and the relative strength of units is ever changing. Why on earth would they seek to correct this ever-shifting balance by pressuring their customers into ripping their models off their bases as a random one-off?? If your answer is 'perhaps it's not just a one off' then I despair. There's no way that this explains the random base size rulings in this document. Give GW some credit. They're not animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Something to consider is that the design team may have new models for certain things in flight and the design team decided to just update the base size doc with something that had already been internally decided and would be released at some later date (could be a lot later). In the past the main driver for base size increases has been model scale creep. Maybe the rules team knows of model design decisions and just decided to get the shock out of the way now. Honestly, if they ever do revamp Ogors from the Warhammer Fantasy version and into an Age of Sigmar version I would not at all be surprised if they increased the size of the models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Skabnoze said: Something to consider is that the design team may have new models for certain things in flight and the design team decided to just update the base size doc with something that had already been internally decided and would be released at some later date (could be a lot later). In the past the main driver for base size increases has been model scale creep. Maybe the rules team knows of model design decisions and just decided to get the shock out of the way now. Honestly, if they ever do revamp Ogors from the Warhammer Fantasy version and into an Age of Sigmar version I would not at all be surprised if they increased the size of the models. I'd say this was plausible, were it not for the fact that there are several examples of things going down a base size or two in this document, like the FEC heroes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said: I'd say this was plausible, were it not for the fact that there are several examples of things going down a base size or two in this document, like the FEC heroes. But, Flesh Eaters are still all sculpts from the World that Was and not released within Age of Sigmar. They simply repackaged some of that stuff into Age of Sigmar boxes and tossed some round boxes into the box. But, it could also simply be the case that they gave that project to an intern who made a bunch of mistakes. Has there been any change in models that were designed and released specifically for Age of Sigmar - or are all the discrepancies for models retained from Warhammer Fantasy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZakalwe Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, sorokyl said: Are people considering that model dimensions are not the only factor when determining what size the base should be? A larger base is a disadvantage for the most part, so it can be used as a tool to balance the power level of the unit. Why are the two black dragons on different bases? Does it have to do with their pitched battle points / relative power? Their role on the battlefield? etc. Nah it'#s just inconsistant across the board: Drakeseer (lightly armoured caster) 170mm oval Dragonlord (combat powerhouse) 120mm oval Dreadlord on black drag (combat powerhouse) 105mm oval Sorceress on black drag (lightly armoured caster) 100mm round. The last one isn't even the same shape... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Sleboda said: If that were the case (and it's not a bad thought) then base sizes need to be mandatory, not optional. I reckon mandatory base sizes would need to be included right on the warscroll. Not in the GHB in the pitched battle profile alongside points, not in some appendix or FAQ or other document on the website. Right on the warscroll where the other modelling information is kept: weapon options, command model options, base size. Right in that first paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmimzie Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 32 minutes ago, amysrevenge said: I reckon mandatory base sizes would need to be included right on the warscroll. Not in the GHB in the pitched battle profile alongside points, not in some appendix or FAQ or other document on the website. Right on the warscroll where the other modelling information is kept: weapon options, command model options, base size. Right in that first paragraph. agree'd. Also i'm not really offended by just about whatever they pick as the base size. Just so long as they pick and keep it that way. That way we can just get it figured. For the most part folks who have already based thier army are okay, and id oubt any one will give them trouble. But it's more a future proofing thing. Also base sizes for stuff shoudl really only ever go up. It's easier to rebase somethign to a bigger base than on a smaller one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilby Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 6 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said: Chaos: Bloodbound The Bloodsecrator (while shipping with a 32mm base) doesn’t balance well at all with a 32mm and really should be on a 40mm. Supergluing a penny under the base solves this problem really well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, Gilby said: Supergluing a penny under the base solves this problem really well! He still looks foolish on a 32 when every other Bloodbound infantry hero - all roughly the same size - are on 40s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlasticCraic Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 13 hours ago, TalesOfSigmar said: Destruction Ogors - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Ironguts - Currently 50mm Round - Proposed 40mm Round Agreed - I would just like to add Leadbelchers to the list as above (very similar sized models, but carrying a cannon). FWIW and to add to the case, the photos of the Studio models all use 40mm bases for these models and they look great. They are completely lost on 50mm and don't distinguish the heroes enough. 1 hour ago, Skabnoze said: Honestly, if they ever do revamp Ogors from the Warhammer Fantasy version and into an Age of Sigmar version I would not at all be surprised if they increased the size of the models. As much as I love the idea of a whole big release for Ogors including new plastic kits across the board, I'd be astonished if that were the case. They already have plastic kits for all of the Battleline so I would have thought that on the slim chance they do get a Battletome release in the near future, the plan would be to make use of the existing plastic kits as a minimum and possibly add to them / replace the finescast in the range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, amysrevenge said: I reckon mandatory base sizes would need to be included right on the warscroll I miss 3rd edition. The book had base size listed right in the unit entry for all units. I never really could get my head around why they stopped doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 11 minutes ago, PlasticCraic said: As much as I love the idea of a whole big release for Ogors including new plastic kits across the board, I'd be astonished if that were the case. They already have plastic kits for all of the Battleline so I would have thought that on the slim chance they do get a Battletome release in the near future, the plan would be to make use of the existing plastic kits as a minimum and possibly add to them / replace the finescast in the range. I agree that the line is pretty recent and they certainly could keep it. It was one of the most recent and complete full plastic lines from 8th edition. It also makes a whole lot of sense to knock out a book using those models and that was something I advocated for in the past. But I also think it is worth considering that GW does seem quite interested with pushing the visual aesthetics of the forces that they develop for Age of Sigmar to particular extremes. The gut buster models are fairly generic and I would not be overly surprised if they decided to scrap them and go for something quite different. Not all of the moves that they have made so far seem like they were the most economical for the time - such as Idoneth Deepkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.