Why is measure from the base so popular?

[Thesockra]

Everyone at my game store insists measure from the base is best, and I have tried to explain to them that measure from the model works better but I get stupid arguments like this:

Them: So I can just build a model with a 17 inch spear, walk forward 4 inches, swivel, and then only need a 3 inch charge?

Me: No, because the rule says that no part of the model can move more than its movement characteristic, so by swiveling it you would violate that rule.  Measure from the model gets rid of the silliness of putting a dragon on a base so small I can't legally charge it.

them: no it just allows you to put your models base over mine and ruin my basing job, or allow silliness like a line hanging on the one above to get extra attacks.

me: well you would have to fudge  the dragon thing I mentioned earlier to be able to attack it, so why not rule don't be a ****** and overlap the opponents bases, fudge that instead.  On the models jumping over each other just use a degree of reason or don't play with the kind of people who will violate the spirit of the game for extra attacks.

them: whatever measure from the base is still better

 

why is measure from the base such a big deal?

[TerrorPenguin]

For me, the best thing about age of sigmar is that it did away with endless books of contradictory rules. Measure to model means that you need the additional rules that you described above.

Measure to base is simpler and everyone understands it as soon as you explain it. That's why I prefer it

[wargames101]

I think the game would be greatly improved if GW made base-to-base the standard, but also standardized base sizes. One of the nice aspects of Malifaux and WarmaHordes is that bases and heights/LoS are standardized. It makes gameplay more "platonic" and makes for less ambiguous rules. There's not cheese in putting your models on tiny bases or giving them insanely long swords. Basically, X character has a certain set of characteristics, no matter the modeling. 

Add to that the idea of not scraping off careful basing in the heat of battle.

 

[Cordova]

There's probably a few factors at work here - familiarity (as far as I can remember, all GW games have been measure from the base, so there's an argument of "that's how it's always been done, and I like that"), and a perception that people will try to do "silly things" (which may or may not actually be silly), like stack models to get as many as possible into combat range, with the accompanying fear of having the painted finish being damaged (which may or may not be a reasonable belief).

Ultimately, as long as yourself and you opponent can agree on something you both feel is acceptable ...

[Thesockra]

39 minutes ago, TerrorPenguin said:

For me, the best thing about age of sigmar is that it did away with endless books of contradictory rules. Measure to model means that you need the additional rules that you described above.

Measure to base is simpler and everyone understands it as soon as you explain it. That's why I prefer it

But measure from the base also requires additional rules, what do you do about models that stick out over the base, for example my "this dragon can't be charged because you literally can't get within a half inch of its base and even if it could, can't be attacked because you can't get within an inch of its base?

What about models that because they are bigger than their base have trouble staying in cohesion?  Prosecutors were designed with measure from model in mind, they are difficult to keep in cohesion using measure from the base.

 

Thats why I think measure from base is silly.  it also needs extra rules so why pick a "house rule" that needs supporting rules instead of the ACTUAL rule which also needs supporting rules?

Finally, are you gonna be the person to insist to a new player their perfectly stable Bastilidon model has to be on a base even though the official rules say bases are only there to help the model stand, and therefore are unnecessary in that instance?

[Wundlesprut]

I'm not rebasing my old fantasy stuff, I've rarely got the time.

Until a standard is forced upon me I prefer to measure from the model.

[Rid]

I'm not allowing anyone to stack their stuff on my bases simple as

[Ollie Grimwood]

I prefer model to model measuring, the modelling for advantage thing is a fallacy (as mentioned in the OP), having a miniatures game where the actual miniatures matter is rather nice. I find the only real argument against is the one Rid mentions no one wants their scenic bases wrecked.   

That said I'll still play base to base measuring if my opponent wants to, it's only a preference not deal breaking. 

[bottle]

Everyone from your game store is right. Measuring from the model is a horrendous rule. Not only with base-stacking but it also slows down the game with combat and pile-ins.

With base to base measuring I know that my second rank of 25mm bases troops will always be in range because 25mm<1 inch. So pile-ins are simple and so is counting the troops in range. With model to model measuring I'll have to specifically measure from the closest part of the model to see if it's within 1 inch or not. As 25mm is only slightly under 1 inch this is going to led to lots of close calls and asking the opponent's view. Not only that but when piling-in I am going to have to swivel the model to make sure the closest point is moving forward (to clarify, I am not talking about moving more than 3" by rotating. Simply I need to have the part of the model that overhangs or is closest to the base edge charging in first to ensure I am within 1"). For some models this will mean turning them in stupid ways to ensure it (my wide stance Fyreslayer will start crab walking everywhere).

That's the big one for me. It slows down the game and makes the pile-in phase a chore and makes the table look stupid (side-stepping models).

There are a million and one other niggles too. For example my knights, some have lances pointing forward, some in the air. If I want to deploy them in one rank on my 12" line I am going to have to deploy the ones with lances pointing forward slightly behind (making sure the lance tip hits the 12" line, level with the horse head of my other knights). Another example of a stupid rule making the battlefield look stupid too.

[mmimzie]

First you can model for an advantage. If you have a model that sticks out super far in all directions. You can get your one skelton in combat with like 20 other models. 

Model is not consistent. This is the problem bases are consistent.

If you have someone who has a model where it's tough to get into base contact. Throw down a proxy base stand in for one of your models to get into base to base.

model encourages base stacking which down plays a very important part of the hobby. I'm personal not that big on the painting part, but by encouraging the base stacking of model to model you end up making people have to not make their models look as good as they want or risk damage their bases. Additionally, if your not stacking your bases because you don't want to damage them your being out played.

 

You 12" arguement you are right no part of the model may move further than it's movement. However if my 12' spear charges i can get it into 3" of many of your models, and get half your table side stuck in combat with a little ****** unit.  

Additionally AOE abilities work wonders when your model takes up half the board. 

 

Lastly if i make all my spears so my whole 40 man unit can sneak spears pasted each other and all attack. When normally only 15 or 20 wound. I've basically doubled the damage output of the unit. 

 

Now i know points don't balance the game, but they bring us closer to something like balance, and stuff like scenarios and model count and type restrictions bring us even closer, but if you can't keep it so models act consistently in multiple games there is no chance of balancing units.

 

As @bottle mentioned it also quicken measurement for attacks considerably. 25" mm gets 2 ranks of attacks at 1" and 3 at 2" and so on.

 

I hope this helps you see the reason base to base is prefered. Its more than just one silly  case. its a whole bag of issues that include every sort of hobbyist. 

 

TLDR: Base to Base protects an important part of the hobby where people care about the aesthetics of their models. It Prevents cheesy game play.  It makes units interact in a predictable way so the game points can more closely get to something similar to balance.

[Minkster]

The simple example I use for measuring from model to model as being a bad system is Archaon we must all agree being as diffent weapons have different ranges you measure from the tip of the sword, lance, spear etc well if you have a small statute model in combat with Archaon and you measure from the models weapon he can never be in range to hit that model which is just clearly not how GW or any of us want to play the game measuring from base eliminates all of that grey area

[rokapoke]

The simplest solution, in my humble opinion, is to just count the base as part of the model. This doesn't change "modeling for advantage" like the extreme example given by @mmimzie above. However, it does fix the problem of base stacking without allowing dragons on 20mm rounds to ****** up combat.

EDIT: That group of asterisks replaced a common fastener hardware that is used instead of nails in many situations. Apparently the filter is extra careful on this site.

[daedalus81]

22 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

Model is not consistent. This is the problem bases are consistent.
 

You 12" arguement you are right no part of the model may move further than it's movement. However if my 12' spear charges i can get it into 3" of many of your models

These two points are probably all you need.  A unit with spears can increase it's table footprint by 40% without being cheesy unless they stack on their own models, which is just super fiddly.

Keep it simple.  Keep it consistent.

[Thostos]

30 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

The simplest solution, in my humble opinion, is to just count the base as part of the model. This doesn't change "modeling for advantage" like the extreme example given by @mmimzie above. However, it does fix the problem of base stacking without allowing dragons on 20mm rounds to ****** up combat.

EDIT: That group of asterisks replaced a common fastener hardware that is used instead of nails in many situations. Apparently the filter is extra careful on this site.

  Thats what I do and its quite flawless.

  If I were to run into the example that mmimzie stated,,that person would not get a game from me,simple as that.

  Model and Base would need clarifications as well(for situations noted above) but Base to Bast would need clarification too,,standard sizes to start with.

  And finally,when I play base to base as many prefer,,if they cant get to within 1/2 of my prosecutors or my other large models with parts hanging off them,even though I used the base that it came with(even the new ovals and rounds)then guess what..they dont get into striking range or charge range.So yes when I charge those models in,i go in to were I can get within 1/2 of their base,I get to attack,but when my opponent tries to pile in other models around my base but cant get within striking distance with some,,then those models are Sol.Play it model and base and we are all happy..

 

[KhaosZand3r]

Another simple reason, base to base eliminates the need for the stupid FAQ that GW put out regarding flying models, sayng if your grounded model's melee can't reach the flying one then it can't ever attack. Base to base allows you to view the models as not being static. View the base as being the area the model could move within combat (flying units swoop down, soldiers sidestep to avoid getting hit, etc)

[Arkiham]

measuring from the base was the biggest ball ache ive ever had with table top gaming. i had to measure every part of the model to make sure no part of it moved more than the movement allowance. 

measure from the base is alot easier as its like say 2" from the base. rather than 2" from the very tippy top of the lance, while not stacking bases you are stacking weapons etc, which gives you an unfair advantage getting say 15 models into combat where only 8 or something would previously, it also makes proxies and conversions impractical to use. 

[Wundlesprut]

What stops someone using a custom base for the same kind of advantage as suggested people might use for models?

I guess that's just a nitpick on my part as I agree that, generally, bases are more consistent than models, but I think that particular argument of 'modelling for advantage' to give bases a greater favour is completely flawed.

Anything can be considered 'modelling for advantage' in that they modelled something in order to gain an advantage and a long, thin & pointy base is no less ridiculous an example than a lance or similar example of the same design.

PS: For clarification I wouldn't be against playing base to base. Reasonable discussion is generally the best balance.

[Garxia]

The perfect solution would be measuring from base to base establishing some official "base size".

This way, we can get all the advantages from measuring base to base, and nobody will try to get advantage with bigger/smaller bases, because there will be an official standard size for every miniature.

[fartsocks]

I'm going to mount my general on a 4 foot by 6 foot base so he can fight everyone.

[Thesockra]

41 minutes ago, fartsocks said:

I'm going to mount my general on a 4 foot by 6 foot base so he can fight everyone.

Exactly, if your going to worry about the skeleton with a 12 inch spear pulling a lot of units into combat (so what, the skeleton will get beat down by the huge number of units he engaged), you could make the same argument about a model using a 12 inch base!

[Tommy]

5 hours ago, rokapoke said:

The simplest solution, in my humble opinion, is to just count the base as part of the model.

This, 100 times. No base stacking, warriors can fight their way up steps, and dragons can eat elves on ramparts. AoS at its most cinematic and dramatic is not a 2D game.

I've learned time and again in life that the simplest solution that works is almost always the best one, and this really is all you need here I feel.

[Veterannoob]

Personally, I'm a base to base (b2b) player because that's the mechanic in every game I've played over 21 years. I tried m2m when AoS came out and preferred b2b for simplicity and habit, though when at the GW store I have to ask if my opponent wants to use b2b or m2m and only play m2m if they insist. Otherwise I've never encountered a game where my opponent wants to use m2m.

It's not been an issue, though I tend to forget m2m so have gotten bit by the odd weapon sticking out over the base. Meh. But I encountered that situation I never thought I would see: a flying unit where the infantry were not converted to have spears sticking up so they could not reach the flyer but another enemy model had been converted/counts-as from cav to a flyer so they could fight one another. ...oooook. Didn't affect me, so whatevs  Another thing not worth getting upset over but in these m2m games I see my opponents floating that tape measure around off a fine weapon point or spike. Not as accurate as the base. Then yesterday a long game vs. three units of 5 prosecutor units and we played b2b since the player didn't believe they could fit. Was all good since we clarified before game what footprint those models make and where could they not fly/teleport/whatever in. 

As for  if a model overhangs the base so it can’t sit w/in 1/2 “ we just mark them as there or even turn base around and they can touch butts. I'm very used to this from WarmaHordes trolls vs. Skorne war beasts  I wasn't sure about the move when a large model overhangs the base so I too the example relevant to me from game play where a Magmadroth tail protrudes over the base and submitted that question to GW and it was used in the FAQ, actually.  Most of the time it's been harmless in games, no poor experiences I think because it's such a great group at this store. But I don't think I'll ever prefer m2m or even change my modeling to adapt to that play style.

[Urauloth]

4 hours ago, fartsocks said:

I'm going to mount my general on a 4 foot by 6 foot base so he can fight everyone.

Joke's on you when you find you can't legally set him up in 90% of existing battleplans. Looks like some rando in your army is getting promoted to General.

[daedalus81]

4 hours ago, Garxia said:

The perfect solution would be measuring from base to base establishing some official "base size".

This way, we can get all the advantages from measuring base to base, and nobody will try to get advantage with bigger/smaller bases, because there will be an official standard size for every miniature.

The base the model comes with is offiicial.  Eventually they'll all be on their "proper" rounds.

[mmimzie]

 

Offical base sizes

In the grand alliance books, battle tomes, and app all up to date models are displayed on the right size base for round in case you wanted it. For instance necromancers are on 32mm base size, zombies are on 25mm.  So the correct base sizes are already displayed. LEgacy models do not have these base sizes shown.

If you go by size of model there is no way to standardize model size, as you can pose them in different weird shapes. Bases are easier to standardize than models are. For example.

Lets look at the high elf dragon model. This model has a massive wing span and comes alittle off the end of it's base. If you want to custom build this model you have no choice but to follow this weird dimension if your doing model to model. However. Base to base you can make what ever you want on the base as long as you use the right size base.

 

EDIT and my point on the matter: As official base sizes do actually exist; we can use them. The real question is in your OP you definitly have a Bias toward not model to model. My Question really is why?? what are negatives to base to base?? @Thesockra