What's wrong with square bases?

[Oppenheimer]

I based my models in squares in 8e and I'm not going to tear off all that work. New models I buy I try to put on rounds even if they don't come with them. But, sometimes I just don't have enough rounds and end up putting them on the squares from the box. They do look better on rounds but not at the expense of undoing previous work.

Also I play Kings of War occasionally (although prefer AoS) and want to be able to use some of the minis in both games.

[Sleboda]

Exactly my situation.  For the most part.

[Arkiham]

you gain such an advantage on square bases or rectangular ones its nuts. i got 7 chaos knights into combat on their old bases when lined up compared to 4 with the new oval ones. 

doubled the amount of attacks my chosen got in combat as of the reach. got 3 ranks of chaos warriors got with halberds into combat, got more units under a area of effect ability etc, etc.

It's just physically better to be on squares, 

square bases allow you to squash units in much more, square bases in 8th edition didn't make sense on a lot of units tbh as they weren't rank and file and didn't fight like hoplites, form up shield walls or phalanxes. 

[Josh Meads]

Much prefer them on rounds. 

 

If someone was particularly attached to squares or felt that squares coming in the box meant they could go on squares, I literally wouldn't care enough to make it a problem.

 

Not sure I'm mad keen on the "I want to use them in multiple systems" argument, though.

[AGPO]

A few points that I feel need to be made:

1. How many people have a surplus of both cash and hobby time? Given that the answer is likely to be very few of us, is it really on to expect folks to invest both in rebasing finished minis to meet some unnecessary standard. 

2. The release of Age of Sigmar promised an escape from rules lawyering and a return to cooperation and common sense. Unless someone is clearly modelling for advantage why make a fuss about a relatively small advantage or aesthetic and risk losing the chance to have fun with someone who shares your hobby?

Personally I prefer the aesthetic of rounds for individual models,  although I think ranked up units on squares look pretty epic. I'm certainly not going to rebase 20 years' worth of minis on to rounds when I could use that time on new projects and playing games. I base my minis based on the aesthetic that suits them and what I have available at the time. 

[Shadowspite]

The supposed advantage of square bases in getting more models within striking range only applies if you're already houseruling to forbid bases from overlapping/stacking. By RAW, there's no advantage at all because you can shove your models as close together as the models will physically fit.

If you are forbidding bases from overlapping (in which case you're presumably also measuring base-to-base instead of from the model, so that models like Archaon can actually attack at all), then I see no problem with also agreeing to treat square-based models as though they were on appropriately-sized rounds. I.e. leave some space around the edges when manoeuvering them, always measure from the corners of the square, not the flat edges, etc.

[someone2040]

I think it's honestly a case of the really competitive tournament players not wanting anyone to get an advantage and hence mandating that you need to base things on the correct size. What are people going to do when this 'correct' size inevitably changes will ****** some people off.

 

Personally, I don't care. And I think it's a case of where there's a big crowd, they can afford to mandate this and don't care so much if they alienate a few players who don't want to base on rounds. If you've got a smaller crowd, most people go with the flock anyway but it's less appetizing to tell someone they can't play just because they don't have round bases (When GW clearly mandates that anything is usable). You've just lost 1 of your small group of players who not only isn't going to play, but he's going to tell his mates not to play either and hence you can't even grow your scene.

 

Think it's a bit sad that the community has gone down this path where AoS has largely been about freedom and ease to get into yet the community is only making it more difficult to get into by mandating such a thing.

[Shadowspite]

Part of being an open, inclusive, tolerant community is accepting that there will be some people who want rigidly enforced rules and will form their own little exclusive group within the wider community in order to enforce those rules on each other. Problems only arise if those rigid subgroups then decide that everyone else should also live by their rules.

And, in case it wasn't obvious, that applies to far more than just plastic-elf-games. Human nature!

[RuneBrush]

Personally I'm very much on the fence and happy with either shape. I think any practical advantage when playing base-to-base is marginal at best (you can argue theory till the cows come home - how many times have you had two perfectly dressed units charging each other?).

As a preference I prefer round - but I don't play any system where I'd want/need to use square. I think round has a nicer aesthetic for heroes and single models and using a mixture of base shapes can look a little strange, which is why on whole round is being considered "standard".  GW still do ship round and squares for some models - they've clearly got a stack of squares they're running down but as a miniatures company they're now sticking to a single base shape for all of their ranges.

One thing that square bases do have, is that it looks more impressive to see a unit of skeleton archers or glade guard ranked up shooting arrows towards another unit, it "feels" more realistic (as much as you get in a fantasy world).  You can achieve this with a movement tray too, but they're a little less practical in AoS when it comes to combat.

On 02/09/2016 at 5:27 PM, Terry Pike said:

It's about crushing people at the table and destroying their hopes and dreams!!

The true challenge is doing this without moving a model

[Arkiham]

the problem you have is, the new units who do not come out on square bases will inherently be at a disadvantage.

when people play a game they want it to look nice, play nice and have fun. 

having models piled onto each other just to gain attacks ruins the aesthetics of the game being played and spoils the fun nature of it. so nearly everyone house rules it so bases are not stacked.

if bases are not stacked square bases as mentioned gain an advantage.

[Arathorn]

On 9/2/2016 at 5:25 PM, RossMHoward said:

"Base size for me is only an issue if somebody has tossed out the bases a unit comes provided with and opted for a lower size. Fyreslayers on 25mm rounds instead of 32mm. You could argue that Fyreslayers are hamstrung by their larger base size compared to Dwarves. But armies are all moving towards a large base standard. "

I disagree for a tournament setting. The only reason to play a Tournament is you find the competitiveness and gaining every legal advantage fun. Tournaments are about winning, otherwise people would just play casually. So if Fyreslayers can be noticeably improved by fitting on a 25mm round legal base then that is surely the only way to play them in a tournament if you are willing to invest on more bases. 

Models should be fitted on as small as base as possible to represent authentically as possible the actual distance of one model to the next. There are advantages to be had for big bases too, such as more easily blocking movement lanes etc, which would annoy me more than the use of a smaller base as this clearly isn't representative of the size of the model. 
 

 

[RossMHoward]

16 hours ago, Arathorn said:

So if Fyreslayers can be noticeably improved by fitting on a 25mm round legal base then that is surely the only way to play them in a tournament if you are willing to invest on more bases. 

They can be, but models within the product line which come with a round or oval base should be put on the bases provided. Most tournaments crack down on this and rightly so. 
 

[Chris Tomlin]

I think the issue isn't 25mm squares =/= rounds. It's having a model that should* be on a 32mm round on a 25mm square. The difference there is not marginal.

Unfortunately GW really haven't helped us here. It's clear they want AoS to be a round based game (by releasing/rereleasing all models on rounds & only having round based models in all publications) but have shied away from actually stating this, presumably to try and keep everyone happy.

On ‎02‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 9:22 PM, amysrevenge said:

There won't ever be a formal rule for "Warhammer: Age of Sigmar" that any particular bases are required

In my opinion if there is ever a 2nd edition or a full update etc, I think they may enforce round bases. I kinda see where we are at now as an interim period. Just my thoughts though...even back in WFB, GW had drifted away from enforcing base sizes (think 6th was the last to have a proper base size guide).

Interesting thread for sure. Even without my tournament head on, in casual/club play I dislike playing square based armies. However going back to @Jack Armstrong's original post, I can see the dilemma in wanting to use your models for multiple systems. That is tricky for sure. I guess having round bases that fit into square/rectangular move trays would be the long term solution, but again it requires rebasing in the first place which I can see would appear pointless to some!

Unfortunately I don't think there is an easy answer to this. I can see a continued trend for AoS TOs (myself included) to enforce round bases (with or without MDF tack ons), which in turn will upset players who don't want to rebase. It's not a nice situation really  

Chris

*I appreciate this is perhaps a bad choice of word within the context of this thread, but you get me; a model that GW would pack with 32mm now.

 

[Irisado]

Having played using square bases, both myself and my opponent did find piling in a little on the messy side, owing to the bases, but otherwise there were no issues in terms of game play.  I see where some people are coming from regarding aesthetics, and I agree that round bases look better, but I certainly have no desire to re-base my Empire and Vampire armies, especially since I plan to use them in other systems which do require square bases.

My solution is simply to play casually, as I've never liked tournaments in any case.  I cannot see bases causing any kind of problem in games between friends after all.

I do hope that no specific ruling regarding base type is introduced, as that would certainly put me off playing the game.

[Bosmer Nightblade]

On 03/09/2016 at 8:48 PM, Lissë-Prime said:

Depend on how you define "marginal"

Personally, I would not call 19 versus 20 "marginal".

(The diagram is based on the actual size of the square base (20mm) and equivalent round base (25mm). Attack range is 1")

This isn't correct. In the kits (daemons for example as they come with both base types), it's 25mm sq and 25mm round. They match up precisely. I have them in front of me right now.

 

What you've given in your example is the same as comparing old skink bases versus old saurus bases, except with the latter in round.

 

The one base size where there is difference in size now is cavalry. AoS doesn't seem to use the 40k rounded edge ones either, which are the equivalent of their square counterparts. The new AoS ovals are huge, but that's because they are increasing the model scale of their game.

[Bosmer Nightblade]

12 hours ago, Chris Tomlin said:

I can see a continued trend for AoS TOs (myself included) to enforce round bases (with or without MDF tack ons), which in turn will upset players who don't want to rebase.

For me personally, I'd just not play those events. If that limits me to gw events and the odd other one here or there then so be it.

Ultimately I just base my stuff on whatever it comes with in the box. I'm not going to mind either if I have an army on a mix of bases.

Separately, and not at all gameplay related, I think moving over to these new huge rounds is almost like conceding that AoS is this increased scale skirmish game.

They may take my 8th ed warhammer world, but they'll never take my games that even in 8th felt like skirmishes rather than battles, but now in AoS amount to a couple of units duking it out.

I still find it jarring how in all the lore, they're still describing battles between armies of hundreds or even thousands, but the games we play, even when based on one of those epic confrontations, amounts to 30 guys vs maybe 20 guys.

But that's way off topic.

I don't mind either base aesthetic, but I'd sooner not play at all than have to change my own setup just to please someone else's preference

[EldritchX]

2 hours ago, Bosmer Nightblade said:

This isn't correct. In the kits (daemons for example as they come with both base types), it's 25mm sq and 25mm round. They match up precisely. I have them in front of me right now.

 

What you've given in your example is the same as comparing old skink bases versus old saurus bases, except with the latter in round.

 

The one base size where there is difference in size now is cavalry. AoS doesn't seem to use the 40k rounded edge ones either, which are the equivalent of their square counterparts. The new AoS ovals are huge, but that's because they are increasing the model scale of their game.

Turn the square bases 45 degrees diagonally and count again. Slide the points into the gaps between the circles too. If the rounds are slightly too large for second rank to attack, leave small gaps between them to slide the second rank slightly closer. You can end up with more attackers easily. Neither is necessarily more or less 'neat'.

There are many ways to place bases. Don't get stuck thinking in 8th ed ways. I don't think TOs dictate that lining up has to be done in a specific way. At least not yet.

[Lissë-Prime]

3 hours ago, Bosmer Nightblade said:

This isn't correct. In the kits (daemons for example as they come with both base types), it's 25mm sq and 25mm round. They match up precisely. I have them in front of me right now.

What you've given in your example is the same as comparing old skink bases versus old saurus bases, except with the latter in round.

The one base size where there is difference in size now is cavalry. AoS doesn't seem to use the 40k rounded edge ones either, which are the equivalent of their square counterparts. The new AoS ovals are huge, but that's because they are increasing the model scale of their game.

All of my High Elves and Empire infantry use 20mm SQ base but now come with 25mm round base. It seems there's no 20mm round in AoS.

The Chaos Daemons or Knights are generally larger type of infantry. Though I'm wondering why they ended up the same 25mm base size as smaller one.

19 minutes ago, EldritchX said:

Turn the square bases 45 degrees diagonally and count again. Slide the points into the gaps between the circles too. If the rounds are slightly too large for second rank to attack, leave small gaps between them to slide the second rank slightly closer. You can end up with more attackers easily. Neither is necessarily more or less 'neat'.

There are many ways to place bases. Don't get stuck thinking in 8th ed ways. I don't think TOs dictate that lining up has to be done in a specific way. At least not yet.

That would introduce a lot of pain while playing and will leave a room to argue about whether the gap is actually equal and so on. I think the tournament organiser just want to simplify the rule while making (apparent) equality throughout every players.

With all of the above, I don't have problem about the bases and welcome anyone with SQ bases. Just want to point out there is actually imbalance if SQ bases are used by some players.

[Sleboda]

32 minutes ago, EldritchX said:

I don't think TOs dictate that lining up has to be done in a specific way. At least not yet.

Give 'em time.  In my experience, most TO's get a special kind of happy feeling imposing how they think the game "ought" to be played on others.

Not that they are doing it consciously, mind you.  Usually there is some self-deluding mask of The Good of All, Balance, Fairness, or other Lofty Ideal of What is Fair and Just...but in the end it's just the egotistical desire to shape the game to look how they think it should look.  IME. IMHO. ETC. YMMV.

[EldritchX]

That would introduce a lot of pain while playing and will leave a room to argue about whether the gap is actually equal and so on. I think the tournament organiser just want to simplify the rule while making (apparent) equality throughout every players.

With all of the above, I don't have problem about the bases and welcome anyone with SQ bases. Just want to point out there is actually imbalance if SQ bases are used by some players.

With respect, that comes with the territory of playing a game with skirmish style movement. Age of Sigmar just tends to involve more models than other such games.

I am also doubtful that adding these multiple house rules actually simplifies the game.

And I don't have a problem with any bases because I prefer to measure from models ?

Sent from my SGP621 using Tapatalk

[gruubii]

With more and more tournaments going round based. Base to base. It is likely to become the standard. I was fine measuring from model or base which ever is closer. Likely because either the model tightly fit the base and the range was reasonable or it overhangs about an inch (lances looking at you) and had a shorter range than reasonable. If your going to change to measure base to base the weapon ranges are significantly different. Add the larger bases then the ranges are further differentiated. Then there is the ok, has to be round/oval, what size officially and forever?  Should we all just base on temporary bases because it will change 1/2 dozen times?

[Guest]

If you want to use square bases so that you can play multiple systems that's totally reasonable, but the trade-off for that flexibility is that you can't participate in certain competitive events. 90℅ of players in 90℅ of circumstances will happily accommodate you. That seems fair to me.

What's not reasonable is deliberately swimming against the tide by using square bases for your own convenience and expecting that you should be entitled to the best of all worlds.

AoS is a very open, flexible and welcoming community, but if you choose to position yourself on the fringes of that community by playing in a way that's markedly at odds with the general consensus then you can't necessarily expect to enjoy precisely the same community benefits as those who play in the full spirit of the game. And square bases are demonstrably at odds with the spirit of a skirmish game for various reasons already mentioned.

These are my thoughts.

[Warboss Gorbolg]

A lot of people seem to miss (or choose to ignore) that the base sizes are also increasing.  20mm squares are now 25mm rounds.  25mm squares are now 32mm rounds.  This is the bigger issue IMO.

Competitive games always include a lot of standardization.  I'm not sure why "competitive AOS" is expected to be different.

 I don't play competitively so I'm not worried either way, but do prefer the new, larger rounds for aesthetics.  

[AverageBoss]

3 hours ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:

A lot of people seem to miss (or choose to ignore) that the base sizes are also increasing.  20mm squares are now 25mm rounds.  25mm squares are now 32mm rounds.  This is the bigger issue IMO.

Competitive games always include a lot of standardization.  I'm not sure why "competitive AOS" is expected to be different.

 I don't play competitively so I'm not worried either way, but do prefer the new, larger rounds for aesthetics.  

Not always true. Ogre moved from 40 square to 40 round for example. Daemon infantry moved from 25 square to 25 round at AoS launch. However Pink Horrors exclusively have moved a second time to 32 round as of DoT launch. Raptors with Longtrikes are mounted on different size bases within the same unit (a 40mm and 2x ovals in a 3 man unit). By the looks of it this was done simply to accommodate the dimensions of the models (the 40mm guy is hold his bow upright, the other 2 are holding them outward with deployed stands).

Until GW moves for standardization, I don't see how standardization can be enforced among the community.

[Spiky Norman]

42 minutes ago, AverageBoss said:

Not always true. Ogre moved from 40 square to 40 round for example. Daemon infantry moved from 25 square to 25 round at AoS launch. However Pink Horrors exclusively have moved a second time to 32 round as of DoT launch. Raptors with Longtrikes are mounted on different size bases within the same unit (a 40mm and 2x ovals in a 3 man unit). By the looks of it this was done simply to accommodate the dimensions of the models (the 40mm guy is hold his bow upright, the other 2 are holding them outward with deployed stands).

Until GW moves for standardization, I don't see how standardization can be enforced among the community.

The Plaguebearers in the Start Collecting Nurgle Daemon box for AoS is on 32s, so that's not exclusive to the Horrors.