Matched Play: Rounds Instead of Ovals

[Rhellion]

On 12/26/2016 at 5:36 PM, Sleboda said:

To make it hyper specific - Do most folks believe a 50mm round is enough for cav?

I think so. 60mm might be overkill for normal cav size.

[EldritchX]

On 12/26/2016 at 5:39 PM, N_Watson said:

They said in the warlords rules pack that they would be playing with the house rule of Base to Base. The only comment they make on how things should be assembled/based /painted is that they should all be games workshop models. 

As games workshop ship most "non compendium" models with their own round/oval bases, their intent is kinda clear there. For models that don't come with rounds, a common sense approach is probably expected. 

Really wouldn't be bothered personally if my opponent was using a different base other than intended, so long as they are not deliberately trying to gain an advantage. 

Just never understand the argument of TO's being the bad guys when enforcing rules like this. 

Pretty sure if you don't like the rules of a certain event, don't go and make your own event. If lots of people go and enjoy your rules, it might become the norm. 

That is what has happened up to this point lol... 

You come across as really wanting to read your preferences in what GW does. I don't think you can read intent in how they ship their models - what would a realistic alternative be, sell models without bases? Sell models with bases packed randomly? Sell models with multiple bases included? I could make a similarly weak argument by saying that because GW sells a variety of bases separately, they intend for people to be able to choose whichever base size they like for any given model. 

Also, not all competitive players prefer base to base. I strongly prefer model to model, and measuring base to base does not, in fact, save time when determining who can attack in a skirmish style game, unless moving in close formation is also mandated. I don't have any 'sky is falling' fears about people modeling for advantage.

If anything, I think model to model is a simple, elegant method that solves a lot of problems in tabletop miniature gaming, like measuring range between models at different heights, and being unable to physically place models in their actual positions due to parts sticking off the edge of the base.

 

[N_Watson]

@EldritchX

My next paragraph after saying a common sense approach should be expected, goes on to say that I wouldn't care so long as no advantage is gained. Nothing wrong with that surely? 

Who cares what base you use if you gain no advantage. Just don't know why people cry when a TO decides they want games played in a certain way at an event they are organising. 

Is they want everyone to bring an army build in a way of their liking, so what? 

That was the point I was trying to make. 

I'm of the "like it or lump it" camp

[ThePhyx]

Pulled right from the Warhammer World Grand Tournament package:

At  this  tournament,  we  will  measure  all  distances  between  models  using  their  bases  as  a  reference  point. This  is  commonly  known  as measuring  “base-to-base”.  When  measuring  vertically,  you  should  count  the  model’s  own  torso,  arms, legs  and  head  as  well. Wings, Weapons,  Banners, and  so  on  should  be  ignored. 

 

Therefore even GW intends for base to base to be used in match play. THIS is why using appropriate bases is important! 

 

A square = a circle.

A rectangle = an oval.

There are extensive lists, including one found in this forum, that shows the appropriate conversion. If you choose to use whatever base you feel like, then you cannot ****** if a T.O. tells you no. We are all allowed to model however we want, but the game has rules, and tourneys must have additional rules to try to make things as fair as possible. 

[Nico]

It's worth noting however, that GW have (rightly) permitted models to be on larger bases than normal (not smaller) where this isn't obviously for some kind of exploit.

So for example, putting a centrepiece model on a larger base (within reason - e.g. not a New York City manhole cover) because you want to make it look better is generally allowed (and should be allowed).

One of the reasons why this should be allowed is that it is more likely than not that the player is putting itself at a disadvantage by having a larger base than normal - difficulty of obtaining cover saves and above all maneuverability (look I spelled that right first try!) - sometimes you need a helipad to land - are big factors.

Conversely (and I've never seen this happen - it's a hypothetical), putting 3 Moonclan Grot Netters on 100mm round bases (while the 17 regular Grots stay on their 25 mm bases) so that their -1 to hit debuff would be way bigger is plainly exploitative.

Hopefully, the difference is clear and most people find this uncontroversial. Obviously an individual TO is free to be as strict as it likes regarding oversized bases, but it will trip up the more adventurous hobbyists out there for negligible benefit. 

[Dangermouse425]

7 hours ago, Nico said:

Conversely (and I've never seen this happen - it's a hypothetical), putting 3 Moonclan Grot Netters on 100mm round bases (while the 17 regular Grots stay on their 25 mm bases) so that their -1 to hit debuff would be way bigger is plainly exploitative.

Interestingly, without wanting to derail the thread, back in Jan 16 at Firestorm Fours there was a chap who I played with a Skaven army doing something similar. Though not for any gaming advantage, purely for aesthetic reasons.

He had a unit of 30 clan rats or something, and 4 of them were represented by a 50mm round base with a few clan rats glued on and some sort of scenic element, I think. It was obviously as a result of converting unit-fillers from 8th into a round-base AoS army. If I remember correctly the 50mm round based unit filler stayed at the back of the unit, was removed first when I had done 4 wounds to the unit, and the opponent said he was happy to replace the filler with 4 x 25mm bases if it ever got into a situation when it would truly matter. That situation never arose and we had a fantastic game, I remember complimenting the chap on his army which looked ace on the table.

I personally think it's a cool idea and looks ace on a display board, but if you're operating at the top end of a Matched Play event, it's probably not the best thing to do, purely because you're operating in an environment where things like bases matter a lot more. If you're making an army based on what looks cool, and are happy to be flexible on the occasions your opponent has an issue with it at Matched Play events, then go for it!

Much like other conversions, proxies or tweaks to the accepted norm, it's probably less about what you're doing and more about the attitude and way you're doing it!

[RuneBrush]

Think the oval to circular is very much down to personal preference.  The only thing I'd throw in to begin with is that the round versions of some bases are massive by comparison.  I originally glued some of my Mighty Skullcrushers onto circular bases (the ones GW originally supplied for 40k) and the width of my unit was insane - about 75% wider than their newer oval equivalent.  A unit of six could have held up a good quarter of the board   Needless to say, I did take them off and pop them onto the oval ones!

[Ollie Grimwood]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

Think the oval to circular is very much down to personal preference.  The only thing I'd throw in to begin with is that the round versions of some bases are massive by comparison.  I originally glued some of my Mighty Skullcrushers onto circular bases (the ones GW originally supplied for 40k) and the width of my unit was insane - about 75% wider than their newer oval equivalent.  A unit of six could have held up a good quarter of the board   Needless to say, I did take them off and pop them onto the oval ones!

Yeah game wise Ovals to tend to be more advantageous they take up board space in a better way. 

 

2 hours ago, Dangermouse425 said:

Interestingly, without wanting to derail the thread, back in Jan 16 at Firestorm Fours there was a chap who I played with a Skaven army doing something similar. Though not for any gaming advantage, purely for aesthetic reasons.

He had a unit of 30 clan rats or something, and 4 of them were represented by a 50mm round base with a few clan rats glued on and some sort of scenic element, I think. It was obviously as a result of converting unit-fillers from 8th into a round-base AoS army. If I remember correctly the 50mm round based unit filler stayed at the back of the unit, was removed first when I had done 4 wounds to the unit, and the opponent said he was happy to replace the filler with 4 x 25mm bases if it ever got into a situation when it would truly matter. That situation never arose and we had a fantastic game, I remember complimenting the chap on his army which looked ace on the table.

I personally think it's a cool idea and looks ace on a display board, but if you're operating at the top end of a Matched Play event, it's probably not the best thing to do, purely because you're operating in an environment where things like bases matter a lot more. If you're making an army based on what looks cool, and are happy to be flexible on the occasions your opponent has an issue with it at Matched Play events, then go for it!

Much like other conversions, proxies or tweaks to the accepted norm, it's probably less about what you're doing and more about the attitude and way you're doing it!

Rule of cool and that sounds like a great idea and let's face I expect most people even at tournaments would be more than happy if their opponent treats it in such a reasonable way. 

[Nico]

@Dangermouse425

I agree

I've used a former unit filler as a banner before (1 model) - again for aesthetics. 

[Sleboda]

22 hours ago, ThePhyx said:

Therefore even GW intends for base to base to be used in match play. THIS is why using appropriate bases is important! 

A square = a circle.

A rectangle = an oval.

There are extensive lists, including one found in this forum, that shows the appropriate conversion.

 

Ohhhhkaaaayyy...but which size? Why is some forum conjecture about "right" bases (appreciate, but conjecture still) allowed to govern how I mount my models? If GW wants to say base-to-base, then they really sorta do need to dictate all base sizes.  Until they do, it's a half-measure that will lead to disagreements.

[ThePhyx]

54 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Ohhhhkaaaayyy...but which size? Why is some forum conjecture about "right" bases (appreciate, but conjecture still) allowed to govern how I mount my models? If GW wants to say base-to-base, then they really sorta do need to dictate all base sizes.  Until they do, it's a half-measure that will lead to disagreements.

Like I said, you can use whatever bases you want. They are your models. However, a tournament organizer is going to set the rules. The consensus among T.O.s, GW, and the community is to measure base to base and to use the closest appropriate base. Again, do whatever you want, but stop arguing with everyone over a non issue. Or feel free to keep hammering a round peg into an oval hole.

[Sleboda]

Can you really not see the obvious issue if GW leaves it as a half measure?  One tournament rules that, for instance, witch elves must be on 25mm bases so you make your army that way.   The next one says 32mm must be used.  Leaving it up to player discetion + individual TO is a recipe for disaster.  It's not arguing. It's foresight. 

[mmimzie]

I think oval and circle are pretty samie, so take what ever one you want. though i have had in the mind a reasoning for oval (rectangle) bases since i started Warhammer fantasy back in the day. 

See calvary are super fast and capable, but are not flexible in thier ability to move. To turn or change direction it takes work. So the oval gives you two cool profiles that kind of stand for this on the table top.  By being side long it can stand for the cav unit takes position that is ready for a turn and chase, making the model more difficult to get around, where as the from on is the unit in full run able to slip through small gaps with great speed. Friend shared this little bit of imagery with me when i first started WHFB, and i always thought that was a cool way to think of the models.

I definitely think as it is your ability to use what you want is definitely at the discretion of the TOs. With the warhammer app all of the current non compendium models you can actually see the base size of these models in the image for the models. 

[Chris Tomlin]

This topic is the epitome of the TWF mind set I grew tired of and why TGA was such a breath a fresh air.

[Sleboda]

I actually agree, Chris.  I don't want those dark days to return, but if they are coming, I want to be prepared.

[rokapoke]

TWF? What is that?

[Mohojoe]

TWF? What is that?

The warhammer forum

It was where a lot of us hung out before this beautiful oasis of respite emerged from bens thinky box

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris Tomlin]

9 hours ago, rokapoke said:

TWF? What is that?

Missed a trick there bro;

TWF? WTF is that?

Would've been a more fun post!