Jump to content

Why is measure from the base so popular?


Thesockra

Recommended Posts

I'm pro-AoS (i.e. I like AoS more than Fantasy) but I think the only AoS rules that does not make sense is measuring from Model.

The main problem is what OP mentioned from the beginning. You can build, not 17" but only 5" spear of Lothern Seaguard, for example, will do the trick. You can have 5 ranks of Seaguard of which every ranks can attack while not breaking any rule. Think Macedonian Phalanx.

Another main reason is that measuring from model will have a lot of inconsistency. Models with spears, dendrites, or something hanging over the base will have advantage over plain model. It is also difficult to measure and have mutually conclusion.

With base-to-base measuring, it is easy to tell just for a glance how many inch they are apart and it is more clear. No need to discuss model's facing or the length of the spear it is carrying.

If you cite argument that measuring from bases limits the freedom of modeller to build custom bases. I will argue that measuring from model also limit the freedom to customise models themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This why I like measuring from the model 

(not that I'm aggressively against measuring from the base just a preference as I mentioned earlier) 

It a miniatures game I like it that the miniatures actually matter rather than the bit of plastic that holds them up. When the base becomes more important than the model one might as well be using the paint pots instead of miniatures. 

I find it more thematic and adds an extra layer of tactical thinking. With spear armed models for example I like it that models holding the spears in a fighting stance have better reach because they are holding the spears out, that's how spears works.  It also effectively gives the model (and units ) a facing and adds an extra layer of maneuvre to the movement phase. To gain the best use of the weapons you need to start thinking of wheeling and the like. 

On a more personal level base to base negatively effects how one of my favourite units works. Bloodreavers have 32mm bases and a 1" range they can't attack across each other it massively reduces their output. The rules and points have been calculated from a model to model point of view so a base to base house rule nerfs them in relation to a number of other 25mm based horde troops that they are have similar points to. It also seems a bit daft to think that this horde of blood crazed beserkers are queuing up to attack so that they don't invade each other's personal space (very British though). I'm sure there are other that's just the one that effects me. 

Now just to address a couple of other points

the models are consistent (or as consistent as the bases) GW makes the whole range they are a physical thing and they are the official models just like the bases. 

A 12" long model isn't really an advantage whether it's the model itself or a crazy base. It'd be nightmare to deploy and move (especially if you use scenery and I'd hope most do). It'd be rediculously easy to shoot and also if you're in range so is the enemy, in the earlier example of the spearman it would be entirely likely that you could be in the situation that only your uber spearman is in range but your enemies entire unit is in range, not much of an advantage. Also GW doesn't make any models with 12" spears. 

That said I do very much agree that I'd rather not have people crawling all over my scene bases (not that I've done any on my pure AoS armies for that reason) and I'd not like to see conversions and non GW models curtailed but much like you'd do with bases should you really be going beyond the dimensions of the official model? 

All said and done I'd still quite happily play base to base and will be at the Warlords in September. Blimey if my opponent wanted to mix in up and play base to base for rank and file and model to model for some of their monsters and we discuss it before hand I'd be up for that. It's AoS baby it's really easy to modify to make for the most enjoyable experience for all involved 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, fartsocks said:

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

No you're not.

Measuring to bases is so much cleaner and consistent than to the model. Everyone loves to talk about modelling for advantage (models or basing) on the internet, but in real life it just doesn't come up.

To be honest I think the whole measure to the model is only in the rules because GW probably weren't keen on enforcing wholesale rebasing. An official base size guide would obviously be nice though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lissë-Prime said:

You can have 5 ranks of Seaguard of which every ranks can attack while not breaking any rule. Think Macedonian Phalanx.

I'm pro base to base for simplicity's sake.

However the idea of modelling to achieve a battlefield purpose for one unit (spear wall if you like) I actually kind of like. If you sacrifice something to fulfill that purpose.

A 2 ranked spear wall for instance is vulnerable to flank or rear charges. Kind of neat.

I'm opposed to a unit of spearmen made only of spears pointing every direction ofc. Or benefits with no drawbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Turragor said:

I'm pro base to base for simplicity's sake.

However the idea of modelling to achieve a battlefield purpose for one unit (spear wall if you like) I actually kind of like. If you sacrifice something to fulfill that purpose.

A 2 ranked spear wall for instance is vulnerable to flank or rear charges. Kind of neat.

I'm opposed to a unit of spearmen made only of spears pointing every direction ofc. Or benefits with no drawbacks.

It's true that it will has this kind of drawback. You can't turn 'any' part of the model more than movement/pile in range anyway.

But they will still have advantage over ordinary (non-modified) unit. The other sides of the unit (i.e. not spearpoints) still have attack potential the same with ordinary spear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lissë-Prime said:

It's true that it will has this kind of drawback. You can't turn 'any' part of the model more than movement/pile in range anyway.

But they will still have advantage over ordinary (non-modified) unit. The other sides of the unit (i.e. not spearpoints) still have attack potential the same with ordinary spear.

This is indeed the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but as I read through this thread all I can think is is that this argument has become very childish. Most of you guys are using extremes that are ridiculous.  Either come to a civil agreement as adults with your opponent or don't play with them. If a person is modeling or basing to advantage then they will not get many games and be weeded out as "that" guy or gal. I won't put my preference on here as I will not add support to one side but my stance in general is that I prefer one but if my opponent wants to do the other then that is fine. Be civil and have fun. Its a game, not life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own preference is base to base - because I'm used to it and as a human being don't like change ;)  I'm also firmly against base stacking as people aren't as careful as I am with their models.

Both systems have pro's and con's.:

> Model to model is fine when most models are roughly the same in pose with nothing majorly overhanging the base (most new AoS models are mono-pose)

> Base to base is fine when people use a sensible sized base for a model - I'm not a fan of models not on a base and it's not like its difficult to create one the right size.

You can easily exploit either measuring systems.  However for casual games I'd happily tell my opponent to naff off if it looks like they're taking the micky.

I do think that most players are pretty sensible - the other week I had a unit of Bloodletters attacking a Phoenix.  My opponents model had the head and wings overhanging the base (not to exploit - it's a big model). Simply pushing my models as far into the phoenix as I could, both me and my opponent were happy they were within 1".  Yes it wasn't the letter of the (house) rules for base to base and actually was a hybrid of m2m and b2b - but it made sense.  Equally when he flew over the unit and set them on fire I was happy for him to use the full width of his wings and not just the base size.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, measuring from the base is so popular because its what everyone is used to and have done before.

I do enjoy some aspects of measuring from models, it certainly gives the game a more dramatic feel to it (for example, I had some spider riders have to climb some trees to attack a frost phoenix once). It does mean you have to give more thought into pivoting, but sometimes having a more cinematic game is cool.

Base to base measuring for me is just easier though, its what I'm used to and I don't have to think about it.

My default mode is base to base, but if my opponent wants model to model, i'm totally up for that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

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

I agree.  IMO, the measuring-from-model rule is a stop-gap until all the models are re-released with round bases.  In addition, model-to-model allows legacy armies to play without immediately rebasing.  My first thought when AoS was released was how easily ogres can be mounted on 25mm bases.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DeadlySarcasm said:

In my opinion, measuring from the base is so popular because its what everyone is used to and have done before.

I'm not doing it, because it is what I've always done.  It's a lot easier to put my tape measure on the table next to the base and measure a distance than to have to hove my tape measure next to the part of the model I want to measure from or to hope I've lined the tape measure up with the feature appropriately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

My own preference is base to base - because I'm used to it and as a human being don't like change ;)  I'm also firmly against base stacking as people aren't as careful as I am with their models.

Both systems have pro's and con's.:

> Model to model is fine when most models are roughly the same in pose with nothing majorly overhanging the base (most new AoS models are mono-pose)

> Base to base is fine when people use a sensible sized base for a model - I'm not a fan of models not on a base and it's not like its difficult to create one the right size.

You can easily exploit either measuring systems.  However for casual games I'd happily tell my opponent to naff off if it looks like they're taking the micky.

I do think that most players are pretty sensible - the other week I had a unit of Bloodletters attacking a Phoenix.  My opponents model had the head and wings overhanging the base (not to exploit - it's a big model). Simply pushing my models as far into the phoenix as I could, both me and my opponent were happy they were within 1".  Yes it wasn't the letter of the (house) rules for base to base and actually was a hybrid of m2m and b2b - but it made sense.  Equally when he flew over the unit and set them on fire I was happy for him to use the full width of his wings and not just the base size.

 

I love learning new words and phrases from gamers in the UK, I really do :) @RuneBrush what does 

"to naff off if it looks like they're taking the micky." mean? thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Veterannoob said:

I love learning new words and phrases from gamers in the UK, I really do :) @RuneBrush what does 

"to naff off if it looks like they're taking the micky." mean? thanks!

Hehe, as @daedalus81 says, to "naff off" is to tell somebody to "go away".

Taking the micky comes from the cockney rhyming slang for "Taking the Michael Bliss" (which sounds like another word ending in "iss").  So when somebody has done is doing something that is allowed but could be frowned upon - in this case an oversized base or a spear the size of a electricity pylon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Hehe, as @daedalus81 says, to "naff off" is to tell somebody to "go away".

Taking the micky comes from the cockney rhyming slang for "Taking the Michael Bliss" (which sounds like another word ending in "iss").  So when somebody has done is doing something that is allowed but could be frowned upon - in this case an oversized base or a spear the size of a electricity pylon

hehe, awesome, thanks. I learned "taking the ******" last year. I need a word a day calendar :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

 

On a more personal level base to base negatively effects how one of my favourite units works. Bloodreavers have 32mm bases and a 1" range they can't attack across each other it massively reduces their output. The rules and points have been calculated from a model to model point of view so a base to base house rule nerfs them in relation to a number of other 25mm based horde troops that they are have similar points to. It also seems a bit daft to think that this horde of blood crazed beserkers are queuing up to attack so that they don't invade each other's personal space (very British though). I'm sure there are other that's just the one that effects me. 

 

This is in no way true. This is one of those avoiding the issues, or a to subvert an argument here. few things. 

1. no where have i seen gw say "yes using otu statistical annalyze we decided to make a match point game play using model to to calculate points."

 

2. Matched play was at least partially inspired by the SCGT point system. This was a point system that was calculated by base to base measuring, as it was meant to be played that way. As can be noted in thier base trules pack http://www.heelanhammer.com/SCGTdownloads/SCGT16RulesFAQV2.0.pdf . We know it to be the case that the points are similar because for the most models are something like 20x the cost of SCGT accross the board. WIth a few nudges up and down.

3. These rules were made for competitive play. They knew this going into it, and they know lots of folks who play comeptitively watned base to base, and that most of the tournaments played base to.

4. GW is hosting 3(i know 2 specifically, and i feel i heard about a third?? LVO and War hammer world?)  tournaments in the next year. Both of these tournaments use Base to Base.  So if this random nerf you speak of is indeed the case wow they just implemented in tournaments they are TOing o.o. 

So as far as i can tell this is something completely untrue. Now i have been wrong about things in the pasted as have all human beings; so forgive me if i missed the GW press release about model to model being the way the calculated points. I am open and welcoming to being proven wrong.

Now that we can put that point to bed abit,

 

2 hours ago, DeadlySarcasm said:

In my opinion, measuring from the base is so popular because its what everyone is used to and have done before.

 

I dig your thought, but there are actually reasons for this:

This game is a hobby, many people do massive modifications or complete scratch builds of models. Many folks decorate their bases extensively, and many people barely put their models together in the first place or they fall apart. To allow for all such eventualities base to base provides a uniform way for all your units to preform on the table top. This way you can make your models look like what ever you want. This is the real and true reason base to base exist, and that is to preserve the models we spend hours putting together and painting.

However, again it's a game you can do whatever you  want with friends and such. It actually doesn't matter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Malicth said:

I'm sorry but as I read through this thread all I can think is is that this argument has become very childish. Most of you guys are using extremes that are ridiculous.  Either come to a civil agreement as adults with your opponent or don't play with them. If a person is modeling or basing to advantage then they will not get many games and be weeded out as "that" guy or gal. I won't put my preference on here as I will not add support to one side but my stance in general is that I prefer one but if my opponent wants to do the other then that is fine. Be civil and have fun. Its a game, not life.

I don't think the discussion was childish at all. 

Decent discussion involves examples and some of those might be hyperbolic, but to come to the reasonable and adult agreements you cite, you have to sometimes hash out your disagreements. 

Whether it is a game that is ultimately played for fun or a serious discussion on the state of (and future of) the modern world. 

I didn't notice any hostility here so I think it a bit preemptive to moralise about the discussion. 

PS: Personally I'm a fan of rolling D6's for more unclear issues if there is a pedantic element to the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

This game is a hobby, many people do massive modifications or complete scratch builds of models. Many folks decorate their bases extensively, and many people barely put their models together in the first place or they fall apart. To allow for all such eventualities base to base provides a uniform way for all your units to preform on the table top. This way you can make your models look like what ever you want. This is the real and true reason base to base exist, and that is to preserve the models we spend hours putting together and painting.

However, again it's a game you can do whatever you  want with friends and such. It actually doesn't matter

 

I would be perfectly fine with this argument if GW used a rule like in warms hordes where all models on a base of size x were consider to take up a cylinder or specific dimensions for coherency, range, and most importantly, LoS.  GW doesn't though, they insist on true LoS, meaning that the model matters.  I have been accused of "modeling" for advantage because I posed my Tau Riptide kneeling because "it makes it easier to hide behind cover."  

Was that my reason, nope, didn't even occur to me until they complained.  Why did I do it, because they had one posed that way in White Dwarf and I thought it looked WAAY cooler.

the cylinder thing would also help with the 2 examples that made me care, the dragon of ridiculousness and the keeping of prosecutors in cohesion, because in both cases you just swap a model out with an empty base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

You can easily exploit either measuring systems.  However for casual games I'd happily tell my opponent to naff off if it looks like they're taking the micky.

I do think that most players are pretty sensible - the other week I had a unit of Bloodletters attacking a Phoenix.  My opponents model had the head and wings overhanging the base (not to exploit - it's a big model). Simply pushing my models as far into the phoenix as I could, both me and my opponent were happy they were within 1".  Yes it wasn't the letter of the (house) rules for base to base and actually was a hybrid of m2m and b2b - but it made sense.  Equally when he flew over the unit and set them on fire I was happy for him to use the full width of his wings and not just the base size.

 

This is exactly the approach my opponents and I take when playing a game.

We don't want to waste time micro managing and shifting tiny figures around to gain maximum advantage. A simple compromise between the players mean you know who is in combat and who isn't.  If an opponent couldn't get their figures in because of the size/shape of the figure (looking at you Bloodletters) I am happy to accept they are within range when all bunched up.

I am sure tournament games will require players to be more "exacting" but that is why I don't go them.

 

2 hours ago, Veterannoob said:

"to naff off if it looks like they're taking the micky." mean? thanks!

Naff was originaly a polari slang word.

Basically while homosexuality was illegal in the UK a slang (polari) developed to allow people to talk about it without being suspected.  Naff derives from Not Available For F*****g, which then went to mean bad or drab and now means "go away" as @RuneBrush says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mmimzie said:

This is in no way true. This is one of those avoiding the issues, or a to subvert an argument here. few things. 

1. no where have i seen gw say "yes using otu statistical annalyze we decided to make a match point game play using model to to calculate points."

 

2. Matched play was at least partially inspired by the SCGT point system. This was a point system that was calculated by base to base measuring, as it was meant to be played that way. As can be noted in thier base trules pack http://www.heelanhammer.com/SCGTdownloads/SCGT16RulesFAQV2.0.pdf . We know it to be the case that the points are similar because for the most models are something like 20x the cost of SCGT accross the board. WIth a few nudges up and down.

3. These rules were made for competitive play. They knew this going into it, and they know lots of folks who play comeptitively watned base to base, and that most of the tournaments played base to.

4. GW is hosting 3(i know 2 specifically, and i feel i heard about a third?? LVO and War hammer world?)  tournaments in the next year. Both of these tournaments use Base to Base.  So if this random nerf you speak of is indeed the case wow they just implemented in tournaments they are TOing o.o. 

So as far as i can tell this is something completely untrue. Now i have been wrong about things in the pasted as have all human beings; so forgive me if i missed the GW press release about model to model being the way the calculated points. I am open and welcoming to being proven wrong.

Now that we can put that point to bed abit,

 

I retract that one sentence you highlighted in bold. Yes I don't know how GW calculated the points.  Although I don't think it's too rediculous an assumption to make to believe that the points were calculated based on the rules.

However the point still stands base to base measuring is a house rule that negatively affects the unit in question over the rules as written.

Dont worry though I'll get over it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I retract that one sentence you highlighted in bold. Yes I don't know how GW calculated the points.  Although I don't think it's too rediculous an assumption to make to believe that the points were calculated based on the rules.

However the point still stands base to base measuring is a house rule that negatively affects the unit in question over the rules as written.

Dont worry though I'll get over it. 

S'all good. Sorry x.x that line of debate is super triggering to me v.v. I apologize if i came of as a ****** x.x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation as I've not heard a full-throated defense of model-to-model measuring.  Base-to-base has been the default position without even discussion in my games.

I think Bottle made a good point.  Base-to-base is preferable, not necessarily because of the extreme possibilities of modeling for advantage and people being manipulative, but because it's more practical in terms of gameplay.  Measuring, piling in, calculating models in range are all significantly easier in a base-to-base game.  I think the game bogs down when you have to consider every spear point and claw sticking out and decide if that is potentially in range or not, etc.  When you're moving large units of pointy dudes and each little twist of any little model needs to be taken into account, blegh.

So for me, it's less about cheating, manipulation or trickery and more about pace and ease of play.

P.S. Those Bloodreavers do alright even on 32's when they're pumping out 4-5 attacks with a Bloodsecrator/Warshrine nearby.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Malicth said:

I'm sorry but as I read through this thread all I can think is is that this argument has become very childish. Most of you guys are using extremes that are ridiculous.  Either come to a civil agreement as adults with your opponent or don't play with them. If a person is modeling or basing to advantage then they will not get many games and be weeded out as "that" guy or gal. I won't put my preference on here as I will not add support to one side but my stance in general is that I prefer one but if my opponent wants to do the other then that is fine. Be civil and have fun. Its a game, not life.

 

Or maybe it is not extreme at all.

IMG_3496.jpg

If spear have 1" range, all 3 ranks of Lothern Seaguards in the left can attack. Only 2 ranks on the right can.
(Due to my limited number of models, let's assume spear has range of 1". But even spear is 2", the outcome is still 4 rank vs 3 ranks.)

That's a lot of advantages.

I normally modify my spearmen like this since 8th edition. (i.e. not meant to be cheating whatsoever because back then they measured from bases)
So the imbalance is always there regardless of you are "that guy" or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...