Jump to content

Why is measure from the base so popular?


Thesockra

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Before I get into the meat of my reply, let me say two things:

1) I prefer base to base in my miniature wargames, traditionally.  I played WFB from 3rd to 8th, 40K now, War Machine, and others. Base to base makes sense to me. I like it - in those games.

2) My views are just that, my views, and are not meant to try to convince others to change.

Now then.

In no particular order, let me reply to a few things.

People who try to put their models on my bases can take a flying leap.

Oh? Really?  You knew the rules for the game ahead of time.  They are only 4 pages, after all. If you didn't like something so clear and basic to the system, why play it?  If you do play it, why do you think the game, and your opponents, should change to make you happy? Honest question.  Why is your refusal to play by the rules more valid a way to go about things than the desire of others to play by them?

 

Official base sizes.

For many years we, the Warhammer community, wanted official base sizes.  GW refused to provide them after 4th edition dropped. The response to our outcry for official base sizes? Bases don't exist! Typical GW approach - rather than get into the nitty-gritty and be accountable, they remove an option.  Now, that may sound like a slam, and in the past it would have been, for this time I'm actually in favor of it because...

The models should matter.

Yes, the should.  Forever GW said their games were about the models, with the rules layered on.  For the first time, with AoS, they have produced a set of rules that back that up.  AoS is AWESOME because it's about the models.  See a cool model at the shop and want to play with it? Buy it, deploy it, and enjoy.  Job done. The model to model/bases don't exist approach reinforces this.

I love it.  I love that I can play a toy soldier game that really and truly is about the toy soldiers. 

I can't (not really) use chits, counters, or paint pots to "count as" Liberators or Tomb Guard.  I have models for that, and the models matter (not the bases).

Thank you, Games Workshop.

Modelling for Advantage.

Yeah, really, if you don't think basing for advantage is just as abusable, well, I don't know what to say.

Official bases (slightly different).

Just because a kit comes with a base does not mean that base is the "official" base for the model. Why?  Because according to the rules, the base is just a conveyance.  I can toss out the bases that came with the models and put them all on 50mm rounds quite easily and legally because the bases don't matter. Freeing!

Flyers not being hittable.

Love it! I love that to hit that flyer my models may have to race up a wall or climb a rock. That's cool! This system really encourages cinematic conflict, and having the models matter is a big part of that.  Awesome.

 

More.

Hell, there's more, and I may come back and edit, but for now that's enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

People who try to put their models on my bases can take a flying leap.

Oh? Really?  You knew the rules for the game ahead of time.  They are only 4 pages, after all. If you didn't like something so clear and basic to the system, why play it? 

You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong here but that's a truth by omission is it not? 

Nowhere in the rules does it say you are allowed to stack bases. Now, I'm not arguing the validity of the interpretaion, I'm only thinking that, just because something isn't strictly disallowed specifically, it doesn't automatically mean it is allowed. 

Is it OK for me play with loaded dice? It doesn't say no. It says "roll a dice" and even a loaded dice is a dice. 

Silly example, I know, but what I'm getting at is I have a really hard time imagining that they even considered base stacking when writing the rules. 

Personally I wouldn't even wanna play if someone insisted on it. To each their own though. No one is right or wrong, just of different opinions :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From there GHB in the tournament house rules section:

Many tournaments will include tweaks and changes to the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet by instituting ‘house rules’. For instance, one of the most commonly seen house rules asks players to measure distances from base to base, ignoring limbs and weapons that hang over the edge of the model’s base. This changes the dynamic of combat slightly, but can prevent carefully painted and modelled bases getting damaged as they are stacked on top of each other.

Seems quite unambiguous to me, being from an actual GW publication.

In defense of model to model:

You avoid having to remember where a base is if placing is impossible due to models sticking out. Speeds up play because models are always just where they are.

Playing base to base doesn't always make it easy to know which models are able to attack because there are many ways to position bases. Circular bases can be brought nearer if you arrange them in a triangular instead of square pattern. Legacy square bases can be placed diagonally to allow the third rank to fit the very tip of one corner a diagonal's distance away. Many GW miniatures are still sold with square bases in the box. Along with all the old Warhammer players around, there are likely to be many more people having problems with 'non-standard' bases sizes than people modeling 12" spears for advantage.

Sent from my SGP621 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain I will regret replying to this....

Sleboda is in favor of model to model because:

16 hours ago, Sleboda said:

The models should matter.

I'm not certain how model to model measuring makes models matter more.  Do you mean that the actual form of the model (what's sticking out where, etc.) is important because it helps dictate the way the model plays?  I suppose that's true to some extent.  But then what about conversions and creative modeling?  Or should that not be taken into account since...

16 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Modelling for Advantage.

basing for advantage is JUST as abusable?  It's certainly abusable, but JUST as abusable?  I don't know about that.  I think there's a lot more potential douchebaggery (to coin the Skull Bros) either accidental or otherwise when bases aren't used.

16 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Official bases (slightly different).

This is just a semantic thing...whether a model has an "official" base or not.  GW doesn't want to use base so models don't have an official base size, that seems reasonable...it's not really a reason NOT to use bases...in fact, they go out of their way to let players know to play it however you want.  So this isn't really a discussion about how the game is "meant" to be played, more about the advantages and disadvantages of how different players in the community like to play it.

16 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Flyers not being hittable.

I totally agree, the game plays a lot more 'cinematically'....then again, having to fight an unhittable model because there happens not to be a rock around to climb up kinda sucks.

(shoulda brought shooters then!)

yeah, yeah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who is primarily a modeler but enjoys gaming, I prefer base to base for the same reason that I dislike true line of sight, namely that I want to be free to make my models as I like without affecting the game either way. To my mind the base works as an area of influence for that model.

As far as modelling for advantage goes, the Second Most Important Rule (i.e. don't be a d***) applies here, and most gamers get it. There is no law requiring you to play those that don't. Cheesy examples aside, both offset themselves by and large. With b2b models on larger bases trade of a wider area of influence for the fact that opponents can fit more models into combat with them, whilst with m2m you may extend your range but you also bring more opponents into range of you. 

I stuck my reavers on 25mm squares because I wanted them to fit in with my legacy chaos army. I didn't do it for advantage but if an opponent took issue, I'd simply not count the extra rank as in range. It's that simple. You're playing a game to have fun and ultimately who wins doesn't matter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AGPO said:

As someone who is primarily a modeler but enjoys gaming, I prefer base to base for the same reason that I dislike true line of sight, namely that I want to be free to make my models as I like without affecting the game either way. To my mind the base works as an area of influence for that model.

As far as modelling for advantage goes, the Second Most Important Rule (i.e. don't be a d***) applies here, and most gamers get it. There is no law requiring you to play those that don't. Cheesy examples aside, both offset themselves by and large. With b2b models on larger bases trade of a wider area of influence for the fact that opponents can fit more models into combat with them, whilst with m2m you may extend your range but you also bring more opponents into range of you. 

I stuck my reavers on 25mm squares because I wanted them to fit in with my legacy chaos army. I didn't do it for advantage but if an opponent took issue, I'd simply not count the extra rank as in range. It's that simple. You're playing a game to have fun and ultimately who wins doesn't matter.

 

 

You sound like your largely in the same camp I am.  

I have no problem with b2b so long as the volume of the model is based on the size of the base for LoS.

If we are to use true LoS then I feel m2m is a must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I measure base to base because a) It's quicker, and b) it saves me a lot of arguements because you can easily calculate number of rows involved by the base width (so 25mm get 2 ranks in, 32mm = 1 rank, 40mm need 2" to get 2 ranks in, 50mm are SoL unless they have 3")

Plus saves the isssues where you can't attack some fliers, or be attacked by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lucio said:

I measure base to base because a) It's quicker, and b) it saves me a lot of arguements because you can easily calculate number of rows involved by the base width (so 25mm get 2 ranks in, 32mm = 1 rank, 40mm need 2" to get 2 ranks in, 50mm are SoL unless they have 3")

I see this argument put forward quite a lot, and the simple fact is that this is not true. With round bases, the closest arrangement does not in fact involve bases being their width apart. If you pack the bases in in a hexagonal/triangular formation, you can see that the closest edges are significantly less than a base width apart. In addition, unless your opponent's models are perfectly spaced or packed in, you're not going to be able to line up against them in a perfect formation either, which means that you still need to fall back on measuring individual bases, saving no time relative to measuring model to model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fair, but processing this strategy seems more likely to slow things down, rather than speed them up. Also, I've found that the whole 'my models are actually here in this formation, but I can't actually fit them together that way because they stick out from the base, so we'll just have to remember to move them from the actual position the next time/turn' thing causes a lot of issues, slowdowns and even take-backs/re-dos in actual play. This my primary reason for preferring model-to-model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EldritchX said:

I see this argument put forward quite a lot, and the simple fact is that this is not true. With round bases, the closest arrangement does not in fact involve bases being their width apart. If you pack the bases in in a hexagonal/triangular formation, you can see that the closest edges are significantly less than a base width apart. In addition, unless your opponent's models are perfectly spaced or packed in, you're not going to be able to line up against them in a perfect formation either, which means that you still need to fall back on measuring individual bases, saving no time relative to measuring model to model.

Oh dear lord, you mean people actually measure and not just make common sense estimations?

I just count the models "touching", and add on the ones in the next row(s) depending on base size as noted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lucio said:

Oh dear lord, you mean people actually measure and not just make common sense estimations?

I just count the models "touching", and add on the ones in the next row(s) depending on base size as noted

I think this would largely depend on your local gaming group, or where you are gaming.

I tend to not measure at my gaming group, but we are very much a "beerhammer" group. However, if I was playing at an event/tournament I would be more inclined to measure.

I also think it will depend slightly on how long you've been gaming for, vets know how long 1/2/3 inches is without measuring, whereas newer players are more likely to be less familiar with the distances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have anyone played WM/H? I think it's a great solution for measurement. Never a single time have players ever argued about distances, line of sight, etc. and people have fun decorating their base and models. Making a small hill on the base and stand the model on top of it doesn't change any gaming advantage. Where in GW I'm hesitate to decorate anything that will cause the model taller because the model will be subjected to the missile.

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 16.13.26.png

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 16.13.32.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malifaux and Infinity do similar things and it works very nicely/efficiently. GW's rules writing is unfortunately not to that level (and I don't buy the whole "we are a model making company" - they still make games and are called GAMES Workshop, so the rules should be important).

IMO it's completely lazy to say bases don't count and as (I think) I mentioned previously, I'm sure it was just to try and stop people getting upset about rebasing square>round.

Fair play if people are having fun measuring to every individual weapon and not being able to attack fliers etc. Sounds utterly awful to me personally, but each to their own of course :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, WarbossKurgan said:

Why not use both? Count the base as part of the model, and measure to whichever is closest.

This stops "larger bases = models can be attacked" and stacking bases in one simple house-rule.

I agree.  Seems fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, WarbossKurgan said:

Why not use both? Count the base as part of the model, and measure to whichever is closest.

This stops "larger bases = models can be attacked" and stacking bases in one simple house-rule.

Because that still advantages models that overhang the base...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, WarbossKurgan said:

I don't really see how though. Yes, a model with a level spear is closer to the enemy by the length of the spear. But surely the enemy can also attack by measuring to the spear as well?

Envision on army with no models with overhang.  And another that has lots of them.  The army with lots of overhang exerts greater board control by occupying more space with their models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...