Square Bases Opinion:

[Rhellion]

6 hours ago, HeadHunter said:

I'm not a tournament player.  In fact I'm kind of turned off by the Win At Any Cost ultra-competitive mindset.

Don't worry tournament players are turned off by you filthy casuals as well.

Just kidding, but I'm sure "tournament players" (who are just normal players) don't like being lumped all together either. 

[Bimli]

Everyone has some way of play that is fun for them. some like the causal theme and some like the competitive (tourney) scene so to each their own. I like the competitive scene myself but I am not a fan of tourney's adding unusual rules like taking a hit for having square bases that would just turn me off of that specific tourney.

If I ran a tourney id probably break it down into 2 categories top 3 winners for best general (only be based on wins vs losses) and top 3 for painting score and would avoid bringing to 2 together to make sure there is no bias due to judges knowing (being friends) some players and not knowing others. "Hey bob lets give you an extra 5 points for painting scores to get you 1 point over this person I have never heard of even though he did better than you in the tourney" 

[Andreas]

12 hours ago, broche said:

I doubt event can enforce round base as long as game workshop is still selling unit with square base

What it stopping them?  Is that an american thing? At least in Sweden they are free to do it without breaking any laws etc... 

 

I am just trying to be a bit funny because a thought it was a funny statement. But in general I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want. If you and your friends like octagon bases go for it. If a TO likes round bases for whatever reason, could be that he thinks it looks better, put it in the rules pack etc..

 

[Warboss Gorbolg]

I'm moving to all rounds because I suspect that all rounds will be GW's standard by GH3.  I'm still surprised that GW even acknowledged measuring base-to-base in GHB1.  I believe that the presentation of their models is important to them, and this is definitely coming as their official standard.  The only question is when.

[Sleboda]

Several of those are hight debatable.

For instance, always hit/wound on 6 pretty much wrecks the game for me. It's so fundamentally opposed to how the system is designed.

[Andreas]

22 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Several of those are hight debatable.

For instance, always hit/wound on 6 pretty much wrecks the game for me. It's so fundamentally opposed to how the system is designed.

That's very interesting. Have you designed a list so that the opponent cant hit you? I think in most cases that house rule is unnecessary, maybe you could have it for symmetry. But I am very interested to see a list that is so relient on it that it wrecks the person playing this list's game if a 6 is always a hit.

Or is it more that people make up their own rules and even if I am never going to play them it wrecks the game for me because I don't like how they might be playing the game!

[broche]

2 hours ago, Andreas said:

What it stopping them?  Is that an american thing? At least in Sweden they are free to do it without breaking any laws etc... 

 

I am just trying to be a bit funny because a thought it was a funny statement. But in general I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want. If you and your friends like octagon bases go for it. If a TO likes round bases for whatever reason, could be that he thinks it looks better, put it in the rules pack etc..

 

I was more referring to an event sponsored by GW. I mean it's not illegal, but it certainly not professional. A simple fix would be to give free round base when you buy any boxe of square-based model.

[amysrevenge]

Maybe it's because I only play fluffers and poor gamers, who knows, but I have literally never faced, or even been in the same room as, a case where someone's 6 won't hit (it would cause quite a buzz if it came up).

I'm sure it is possible to make happen - you don't have to tell me any formulas.  I'm saying that, in hundreds of games and at a dozen plus events, it's never happened.  Might be that there's a better problem to worry about...

 

ETA: Obvious exception of chump models with a base 6+ to hit of course...  Those might come up and nobody would remark on it.

[Bimli]

I'm not a fan of auto miss/wound things. I believe a 1 should always fail and a 6 should always hit. anything can happen and makes for a more fun gaming environment..... Oh snap I need a 6 to hit and wound this lord... OMG the cannon crew caused a wounds LOLZ!!!!

I think in a dice game auto should really be left out just my opinion 

[Aginor]

Ok, I don't want to drag this thread too much OT and originally I didn't want to ask because it shows how much of a noob I am, but could anyone just explain shortly how it is possible to not hit despite rolling a six on a hit roll?

[RuneBrush]

4 minutes ago, Aginor said:

Ok, I don't want to drag this thread too much OT and originally I didn't want to ask because it shows how much of a noob I am, but could anyone just explain shortly how it is possible to not hit despite rolling a six on a hit roll?

No such thing as a silly question.

If you've a unit that needs 5+ to hit, but is suffering from -2 to hit from somewhere.  If you rolled a 6, that would become a 4 which is lower than you need to roll in order to hit your opponent, so that unit would be incapable of hitting.

[Bimli]

3 minutes ago, Aginor said:

Ok, I don't want to drag this thread too much OT and originally I didn't want to ask because it shows how much of a noob I am, but could anyone just explain shortly how it is possible to not hit despite rolling a six on a hit roll?

there is nothing in the rules that state 6's auto hit so with enough negative modifiers (which some teams have) you wont be able to hit and/or wounds some units/characters

[Bimli]

Just now, RuneBrush said:

No such thing as a silly question.

If you've a unit that needs 5+ to hit, but is suffering from -2 to hit from somewhere.  If you rolled a 6, that would become a 4 which is lower than you need to roll in order to hit your opponent, so that unit would be incapable of hitting.

beat me to it!

[Warboss Gorbolg]

3 minutes ago, broche said:

I was more referring to an event sponsored by GW. I mean it's not illegal, but it certainly not professional. A simple fix would be to give free round base when you buy any boxe of square-based model.

The fact that GW has not reboxed with rounds has kept me from dabbling in some of the factions that have not been released specifically for AoS yet (e.g. dispossessed, devoted).  It's clear that they will ultimately come with rounds, and the extra cost of replacing squares has been enough that I've decided to put off a purchase or two for another day.  Don't get me started on the fact they don't have 32mm rounds with slots!

I also find it interesting that in the 2 GW stores closest to me, that base-to-base is standard play.  Guess that I just assume that converting to rounds is "pay me now or pay me later" if you intend to play a lot of pickup games and/or tournaments over the long run. 

I'm a very slow hobbiest and try to plan for the future the best that I can.

[Aginor]

Thank you for the explanations, guys!

[Ollie Grimwood]

It is infuriating when you order pre AoS models from GW and forget you need to order round bases as they only come with squares in the box. 

5 hours ago, Rhellion said:

Don't worry tournament players are turned off by you filthy casuals as well.

Just kidding, but I'm sure "tournament players" (who are just normal players) don't like being lumped all together either. 

Well I've played at tournaments and would prefer to be characterised as WOIIL (Win Occasionally If I'm Lucky) ?

[Galas]

Woah! Thanks for all the replies. The discusion was very instructive.

And yes, I'm sure in less than 1-2 years GW will push an all-round base police for Age of Sigmar, they don't do it yet just like in the start, Mantic's official Tournaments allow models from other companies.

And yes, I bought like 200 round bases of diferent sizes and gonna paint the border to match my square bases. In MDF they were cheap! The magnets, instead, don't were so cheap... 

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, Bimli said:

I'm not a fan of auto miss/wound things. I believe a 1 should always fail and a 6 should always hit.

I think what GW did by making the mods affect the rolls instead of the results was really clever.  For as long as I've been playing their games (31 ish years? ) folks, including me, have disliked being tied to the d6 for the full spread of results (other than the old ranged attacks system).

This new system allows for a broader range of results.  You can actually roll a 7 or 8 or more on  a d6, and you can have rules that are designed to take into account this broader range. 

Artificially capping the range is not only lazy and diminishes our need to get better as players, it is contrary to the basic underlying design of the whole system - a system that had finally overcome the need to stay commercially accessible by not using % dice or other non-d6's.

[Arkiham]

10 hours ago, Galas said:

Mantic's official Tournaments allow models from other companies.

That's as they make subpar models.

It's just like any other shop which makes obvious copies ( but legally not copies ) of successful products at worse quality but people don't care as it's cheaper.

They just copy someone else's hard work, make it look different enough to prevent legal action but similar enough to make it recognisable as that thing .

[Terry Pike]

17 hours ago, broche said:

I was more referring to an event sponsored by GW. I mean it's not illegal, but it certainly not professional. A simple fix would be to give free round base when you buy any boxe of square-based model.

SCGT the largest AoS event in the world, sponsored by GW enforces round bases.

"Due to the fact there is a significant advantage to using incorrect base sizes models must be based on appropriate round/oval bases."

Taken straight from the pack

[Bimli]

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I think what GW did by making the mods affect the rolls instead of the results was really clever.  For as long as I've been playing their games (31 ish years? ) folks, including me, have disliked being tied to the d6 for the full spread of results (other than the old ranged attacks system).

This new system allows for a broader range of results.  You can actually roll a 7 or 8 or more on  a d6, and you can have rules that are designed to take into account this broader range. 

Artificially capping the range is not only lazy and diminishes our need to get better as players, it is contrary to the basic underlying design of the whole system - a system that had finally overcome the need to stay commercially accessible by not using % dice or other non-d6's.

though I do see your point I still feel a dice game should not have any "autos" hit/wound/miss ect. The the reason for this is cause it allows for individual to build a diverse army, instead of using the same thing over and over again.

With "autos" I believe individuals would just always take the same thing which would actually make for less diverse armies and less thought process. It brings up the why would I ever take x, y and z when clearly 1, 2 and 3 is the only way to play to win in this game.  

So in a competitive setting if for example you play a certain army and someone else plays the same the 2 will likely be identical cause really why take anything else if you take 1, 2 and 3 makes sure x, y, z can never wound/hit you due to a crazy amount of modifiers the outcome wold be to many identical armies copy and paste from those "better player" lists and now bang you have everyone as a better player.

I have been playing war hammer fantasy for some time also and one thing that attracted me to the game is diverse armies as it stand not all armies have counters to high modifiers why would an individual allow for imbalance of armies be the decider as to which army to actually play?

I think Id agree with you more if there was more balance where all armies had counters to crazy modifiers and could also do the same or counter mortals wounds but there is a lack of this without having to take from other armies which I am not a fan of as I mostly like the mono lists.

I should explain when I say diverse I mean from their own army not units from dwarves, storm cast, elves to make a good list. Also this mix and mash just look ugly. "so bob what army do you play" "well jim I play mix and mash" "so bob you play 5 different armies why is that" "well jim this is the only way to play I need 1 to buff, I need 2 debuff, and I need 3 to give me a ward save... Everyone plays like this so if I want to win I must also" figured Id add a little fun blurb  

 

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Bimli said:

I still feel a dice game should not have any "autos" hit/wound/miss ect.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no inherent autos in the game, right?  To get to an auto situation, you have to combo effects.

Since you have to create combos, your opponent can stop the auto. He or she just has to have the experience and skill to execute the breaker (kill your boosting character, be in position to unbind, etc.).

To me, there is a lot of the meat in this game found in the combo creation/stopping, and removing the need to play in this aspect of the game diminishes it. 

I know it can be hard to counter things all the time. Good! It should be!  That said, the extreme fluidity of the battlescape, with teleporting of various kinds, very quick movement, lack of blocking terrain and units, shooting being hard to stop, mortal wounds, characters not joining units, and so on, it seems to me that the system - soup to nuts, the system as a whole - is designed to allow for counter strike tactics that encourage players to break combos. 

A lot of "balancing" suggestions I read really do feel like playing Minecraft on Peaceful or a Gears/Doom/Dishonored/etc. on Easy.

 

"there is a lack of this without having to take from other armies which I am not a fan of as I mostly like the mono lists."

That's your choice, though, right?  I get that you have preferences, but the game provides options - you simply opt to not use them. 

[Bimli]

27 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no inherent autos in the game, right?  To get to an auto situation, you have to combo effects.

Since you have to create combos, your opponent can stop the auto. He or she just has to have the experience and skill to execute the breaker (kill your boosting character, be in position to unbind, etc.).

To me, there is a lot of the meat in this game found in the combo creation/stopping, and removing the need to play in this aspect of the game diminishes it. 

I know it can be hard to counter things all the time. Good! It should be!  That said, the extreme fluidity of the battlescape, with teleporting of various kinds, very quick movement, lack of blocking terrain and units, shooting being hard to stop, mortal wounds, characters not joining units, and so on, it seems to me that the system - soup to nuts, the system as a whole - is designed to allow for counter strike tactics that encourage players to break combos. 

A lot of "balancing" suggestions I read really do feel like playing Minecraft on Peaceful or a Gears/Doom/Dishonored/etc. on Easy.

 

"there is a lack of this without having to take from other armies which I am not a fan of as I mostly like the mono lists."

That's your choice, though, right?  I get that you have preferences, but the game provides options - you simply opt to not use them. 

Agreed, You can make competitive lists but not necessary with the army you want to use. Creating combos and synergies is a good thing but where those combos create an environment of why would I ever take anything else loses creativity hence multiple copy and past lists. I don't know about you but mirror matches for me are just straight boring.

Yes the mono list is my choice (I'm sure there are other player that may like this also) this I agree with but if you go by way of just mix and mash then a good portion of people will feel taking the army they actually want would be pointless. This tends to deter people from playing a game id imagine.

realistically to each their own I'm not a fan of "auto's" (mortal wounds for example being a big one) doesn't mean I wouldn't play the game and still try to make a competitive list but it sucks that I would have to purchase things I really don't want to make a competitive army.

Maybe when the GHB2 comes out and they adjust point costs and hopefully tweak a few things maybe it would be different.  

[Galas]

9 hours ago, Arkiham said:

That's as they make subpar models.

It's just like any other shop which makes obvious copies ( but legally not copies ) of successful products at worse quality but people don't care as it's cheaper.

They just copy someone else's hard work, make it look different enough to prevent legal action but similar enough to make it recognisable as that thing .

Well! I'm not going to defend Mantic because they don't pay me to do it  
And yes, its obvius that they make their range to be warhammer-compatible, but saying that all his models are just subpar copies (Warhammer don't invent orc last I remember, nor knights, undeads or ogres, but in a personal level I think that warhammer ogers are the best ogers of any fantasy) makes no justice to the company. Some models are cheaper and objetively better models than theirs GW equivalents: Ghouls, Zombies, etc... others is just thing of taste: Their orcs and ogersare from a quality standpoint pretty god, but at a desing lvl I prefer the GW ones. Others ranges, specially the older ones ( Elves, Basileans) are very bad yes, from a sculpting level, desing level, and material level (I HATE restic)

I'm not gona enter in their Sci-fi range beacuse this is not the forum to do it, but I will say that it is very, very good: Their forgefathers models are lovely and all of the models of other factions are full of character, and most are in good hard plastic.

Thanks for all the replys! I'm not gonna coment in the auto wound/hit/miss because I have yet not the experience required to do it, but love to see discusions grow! 

 

[Criti]

On 2/14/2017 at 2:11 AM, HeadHunter said:

Stop comparing smaller square bases to larger round ones!  If you're talking 25mm squares, compare them to 25mm rounds.

It reminds me of the people that used to say "Why should I buy a 3.3 GHz processor when I can overclock my 3.0 to be as fast as yours?" Well, because I can overclock mine even faster?

Yes, if someone is deliberately putting something on a base smaller or larger than is reasonable and intended, that's one thing.  But using the base it comes with? Or a base on which the model fits best?

Take a look at the base the new Dwarf Death Roller from Blood Bowl comes on, if you want to see how ridiculous that can get.

The problem with this is how a lot of models are starting to be repackaged and/or sold presently.  They simpy don't use the same size anymore.

Almost all 20mm squares are now 25mm rounds, which honestly doesn't make a huge difference.

But the 25mm gping to 32mm does.

If you had a pack of Ironjawz 'Ardboyz from 8th, they came with 25mm squares.  25mm squares and 25mm circles measure out to .98".  Which means 1" weapons could be pushed up close enough to ge 2 ranks of attacks.  However, the new 'Ardboyz packages come with 32mm bases, which measures out to 1.25".  Meaning no more second rank.

Spears with 2" reach have the same issue.  You can fit 3 deep on 25s, but only 2 deep on 32s.

That's a huge difference.  Off the top of my head, some units that will affect:

- 'Ardboyz

- Bonesplitterz

- basically every other Orruk

- Chaos Warriors

- Chaos Marauders

- Saurus Warriors

Now, there are ways to position models to create gaps big enough to get that second row... but that's very difficult to replicate without round bases.  It would also spread the unit into a much longer line.

A simple solution if you want to use squares - TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT.

Agree that 20mm bases can fight 2 "ranks," and 25mm bases cannot.  Problem solved.