Oversized Bases

[pforson]

Hi,

At the Warlords tournament last weekend I had several miniatures on oversized bases, because it allowed me more space for conversions etc. No one seemed to mind. In fact, no one even commented!

Now I want to base an entire army on oversized bases (because I think they look better). Dwarfs on 32mm instead of 25mm.

I realise this will be a disadvantage to myself in terms of gameplay, but to be honest, I don't play often or competitive enough to really care. However, my question is - Is this allowed? Accepted? Looked down upon?

What is the general consensus regarding oversized bases?

Thanks,

Pete

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

I think people in general will accept it but some will frown upon it. Especially in a competitive scene as it may appear that you are getting an advantage (even if you are not).

Larger bases take up more space on the battlefield allowing your unit to block a bigger area around an objective for example. Now the difference may be minimal or none at all but it will certainly stick in a competence gamers mind.

I think on characters and anything not yet Reboxed it's fine. But really for anything that comes with a round base you should use it.

Also there's no dwarfs that have been released on 25mm and I doubt they will be when reboxed.

[Paul Buckler]

I'm all for rule of cool, if it looks good I am happy.  EG my bullgors, they used to be on 40mm squares, so the 'technical' new base would be 40mm rounds.  They just dont fit, and wobble all over the place.  So mine are on 50mm rounds, which just look a lot better.  All my duardin are on 32mm (they look better too for me), and only comments I get are people saying how I have dis advantaged myself.

 

 

[amysrevenge]

Sometimes it's hard to reconcile between "ought" and "is".

As long as you're making reasonable base choices based on reasonable concessions to aesthetics and gameplay, nobody ought to care.  BUT, there are some people out there who do care.  Care a lot.  So you have to be aware of that. 

You can, like I do, still make those same choices anyway based on aesthetics and gameplay, but you have to do it with your eyes open - there will be someone, somewhere, someday, who will give you a shocking amount of grief over even just one model on the "wrong" base.

[amysrevenge]

FWIW I'm putting together some 3rd party proxy models to use as Yhetees and I'm putting them on small cavalry ovals (I can never remember what the mm are for those - the smallest "normal" ovals) because of the way their feet are arranged.  They probably belong on 40mm or 50mm round - don't know which, don't care.

[daedalus81]

There are a handful of units where it would be explicitly bad to take an over sized base - name the gorebeast chariot.

[hobgoblinclub]

I think there should be some flexibility as to the size of base old minis go on so people can decide what looks coolest. However, I'd agree that any minis that come on round bases already should use those bases.

[pforson]

3 hours ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

Also there's no dwarfs that have been released on 25mm and I doubt they will be when reboxed.

Sure, but in the GA: Order book they have been rebased for the photos and they are definately on 25's. So the assumption is that if/when they get reboxed, they will come on 25's.

 

2 hours ago, hobgoblinclub said:

I think there should be some flexibility as to the size of base old minis go on so people can decide what looks coolest. However, I'd agree that any minis that come on round bases already should use those bases.

And that's the rub. At the moment I'm free to do as I please. But if in 6 months the Dispossessed get rereleased with round bases, then people will expect them to be on those and I don't think they'll accept me saying "oh but I based them before the rerelease!"

I guess the question really is:

Are larger bases in general more of a disadvantage or advantage?

[AGPO]

Ultimately if I model my clanrats with spears pointing down rather than up it would make a bigger difference and nobody would mention it because it's out of the box. If I do re-base them all on rounds then I'm putting them on bigger bases (GW's smallest round is 25mm, as opposed to the 20mm square they come with.) Again probably nobody would mention this as GW has put all its studio armies onto rounds that don't come with the box yet. 

My first thought if somebody set up their models on slightly bigger scenic bases would be about how great it is to play against a cool army someone put so much effort into, not what minuscule advantage you might get over me in a game of toy soldiers. Someone who has the opposite reaction probably wants something very different to me from a game.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

And that's the rub. At the moment I'm free to do as I please. But if in 6 months the Dispossessed get rereleased with round bases, then people will expect them to be on those and I don't think they'll accept me saying "oh but I based them before the rerelease!"

I guess the question really is:

Are larger bases in general more of a disadvantage or advantage?

My point really is that it doesn't matter if they're an advantage or disadvantage, it's how your opponents perceive it. Because GW have stated that bases don't matter but they are commonly house ruled for competitive gaming it leaves it up to the players.

I think it probably evens out and doesn't matter in game either way, but it may be seen in game as basing for advantage. If you want to remove the risk of that happening go with the safer bet.

When AoS started there were people basing on 20mm rounds because "bases didn't matter" but it was soon obvious it gave a massive advantage in combat.

[KhaosZand3r]

It depends on if you are playing Base to Base or Model to Model. In BtB, larger bases are a disadvantage as you are able to get more models surrounding it (potentially). However, in MtM, it is a huge advantage as you may not be able to get the models close enough without overlapping bases, which people with decorative bases may take issue with.

[Oppenheimer]

It's true. Technically you measure model to model so bases don't matter at all. You could have one of any size you wanted and RAW say that's just fine. People will just stack their models on your base.

[amysrevenge]

As a very fine point, whether there are advantages or disadvantages to various base sizes varies depending on the model and unit.

Ironbreakers would probably be better bang for your buck on 32mm bases than on 25mm bases, as their main thing is to stand there and take up space, preventing the enemy from standing in that space.  On a bigger base, they take up more space, hence doing their job better.  The extra handful of enemy attacks back because of their bigger frontage will often be negligible. 

Actually, assuming you're doing the tank build with rerolling armour and 4+ ward, Fyreslayers probably are in the same boat - they'd be less good on 25s than they are on 32s, because number of attacks they make per unit area isn't what they do - it's about controlling the most area with the fewest models.

[BrAiKo]

7 hours ago, Oppenheimer said:

It's true. Technically you measure model to model so bases don't matter at all. You could have one of any size you wanted and RAW say that's just fine. People will just stack their models on your base.

TBH I think this rule is on the way out; first GW official matched tourney measures BtB...

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

It's true. Technically you measure model to model so bases don't matter at all. You could have one of any size you wanted and RAW say that's just fine. People will just stack their models on your base.

I think the people people who are likely to take issue with this are the ones playing base to base, which seems to be the majority of the player base to be honest.

Like I said before, stick with the base that comes in the box if it's round. If not, one step up from the square size is a safe bet however this changes for larger base sizes.

20mm square - 25mm round

25mm square - 32m round

40mm square - 40mm or 50mm round

[Arkiham]

If Base to Base was the comp by the gw event, will it be safe to say that it will be the standard from now on? 

I don't always play wysiwyg and b2b allows me to build models which look cool rather than fit the units requirements 

[BrAiKo]

I feel the majority of the player base base their base opinion on the basic familiarity that base-to-base provides. And this from a player based in Australia with minimal experience from a competitive basis to base their opinion.

[KhaosZand3r]

^LOL

[Lissë-Prime]

Large bases generally give you disadvantage rather than advantage (With few exceptions like Goreblade Chariot, for example). So people rarely complain because it does not matter for them.