Square Bases Opinion:

[chord]

8 hours ago, Terry Pike said:

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

They should use their closeness to GW to influence the company to give round bases when you buy older models that are packed with square bases then.

[amysrevenge]

37 minutes ago, chord said:

They should use their closeness to GW to influence the company to give round bases when you buy older models that are packed with square bases then.

And also, just because someone says it is a "fact" that there is a significant advantage to be had, doesn't make it an actual fact. 

The actual fact is that there can be a significant advantage in some circumstances, not that there is a significant advantage, full stop.

[Lissë-Prime]

Square base (versus equivalent round base) does offer a little bit advantage when determining which model can or cannot attack.

Because round base equivalent are almost always in bigger size (such as 25mm round base replace 20mm square one).

[broche]

for 20 square to 25 round it's not really relevant, it's more relevant for 25 - 32. but again you would just rule that second rank cannot attack with 1'' reach then it wouldn't change anything really

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, chord said:

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

Ha! Even in the explanation, the ludicrousness of the attempt is displayed.

So, there are objectively "incorrect" bases? Oh my. Ok.  Gosh, then. I thought the base that came with my model I just bought new in box at the GW shop was correct. Hmm. Alright. Tell me. What is the "correct" base?

Oh! An "appropriate" one. Ah. Um, ah, gee. Is this one correct?

No! Even though the model fits, and it is indeed round or oval, weeeee say it's still not appropriate enough. You must go bigger, but not too big, mind. 

 

Fer effs sake, if you are going to mandate a thing, mandate it! Half-measures help no one. If I can't use the base my model came with, you tell me exactly what base I need to replace it with. Otherwise, your event will have Sisters of Slaughter arriving on 25s in one army and 32s in another, one of which will have an advantage over the other despite both players thinking they've mounted their models "appropriately."

[Arkiham]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Ha! Even in the explanation, the ludicrousness of the attempt is displayed.

So, there are objectively "incorrect" bases? Oh my. Ok.  Gosh, then. I thought the base that came with my model I just bought new in box at the GW shop was correct. Hmm. Alright. Tell me. What is the "correct" base?

Oh! An "appropriate" one. Ah. Um, ah, gee. Is this one correct?

No! Even though the model fits, and it is indeed round or oval, weeeee say it's still not appropriate enough. You must go bigger, but not too big, mind. 

 

Fer effs sake, if you are going to mandate a thing, mandate it! Half-measures help no one. If I can't use the base my model came with, you tell me exactly what base I need to replace it with. Otherwise, your event will have Sisters of Slaughter arriving on 25s in one army and 32s in another, one of which will have an advantage over the other despite both players thinking they've mounted their models "appropriately."

The models went up one base size from squares to rounds.

So chaos warriors which were on 25mm squares are now on 32mm rounds.

If it made no difference then why would they change it ?

[HeadHunter]

On 2/15/2017 at 6:31 AM, 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. 

I never said all tournament players are like that - just that players like that are the reason I don't find tournaments enjoyable.  If they were all "normal players" as you allege, it wouldn't be an issue.

They're a lot less common in casual play - but when they do show up, it's easy enough to pick up my stuff and find someone else who wants to have fun playing, whereas at a tournament I'd have to endure the non-sporting people who forget the point of a game.

[HeadHunter]

On 2/15/2017 at 11:28 AM, RuneBrush said:

No such thing as a silly question.

"How many quarters are in a lacrosse game?" is the second-silliest question I've ever been asked.

[Andreas]

12 hours ago, broche said:

for 20 square to 25 round it's not really relevant, it's more relevant for 25 - 32. but again you would just rule that second rank cannot attack with 1'' reach then it wouldn't change anything really

This is a house rule I have never encountered. Maybe 1" each can not fight in three rank would be better since it is quite easy to get a lot of models fighting in the secound rank with 32 rounds and 1" reach. You just dont place them directly behind each other (and leave a small gap between the models in the front rank). The problem could be that it sometimes is a little bit tricky to figure out which rank they are fighting from since a combat can be quite messy. 

Maybe measuring is the easiest way and give it a few years every model will be sold with rounds so it woun't be a problem. Until then read the rules pack for tournaments or talk to your friends/random opponents. 

[Mrmattywoodz]

My playgroup is a mix of players that have old WHFB models, and new AOS models. We have noticed that square bases give you a slight advantage, but in most situations it really doesn't matter.

The only thing I would worry about is the talk that, in the future, many T.O.s might not allow square bases, but if so there are plenty of base conversion kits you can buy. They aren't the cheapest thing, but they are much more inexpensive than buying two armies!

I'll link a site where you can buy the conversion kits!

https://elriks-hobbies.myshopify.com/products/base-converters


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris Tomlin]

4 hours ago, HeadHunter said:

I never said all tournament players are like that - just that players like that are the reason I don't find tournaments enjoyable.  If they were all "normal players" as you allege, it wouldn't be an issue.

They're a lot less common in casual play - but when they do show up, it's easy enough to pick up my stuff and find someone else who wants to have fun playing, whereas at a tournament I'd have to endure the non-sporting people who forget the point of a game.

It's such a shame that this perception still exists. It is almost wholeheartedly a manifestation of internet fear mongering. Sure, there will be isolated examples of individuals, I get that. But as you say they will exist in any environment.

If I could do one thing in the Warhammer community it would be to break down these barriers, dispel the myths that tournament and casual players are different (they are not), that competitive and fun are two different things (they are not).

I have played almost every 2 day AoS tournament in the UK (certainly since General's Handbook) with the exception of Heat One and have had probably just a couple of "bad" games (not really down to opponents it should be said). Now obviously I am just relating my own experiences, which is by no mean a defining barometer, however looking around these events, being involved and speaking with countless players I am wholly confident my experiences would mirror those of the other attendees.

This is not a dig at you whatsoever @HeadHunter, presumably you can only go off what you've been told or read etc. Since AoS has come out I have seen so many people who previously shared these opinions give Tournaments a chance. People who had previously thought the same as you and only considered themselves "club/casual" gamers. Without exception they have had a great time and gone back for more. Seeing the realisation sink in that they get to play 5 or 6 games over a weekend which are all of the same fun level they play at club (that's 5 to 6 weeks worth of games right there!!) is a really cool thing.

But yeh, there's enough building of walls going on elsewhere, lets break some down in our community.

------------------------------------------------

On topic, @Criti covers off the issues with square bases pretty well. I know @Sleboda is saying it's not correct to compare different base sizes and I do get that, but actually we do have to do exactly that due to the way models are being repacked (25 > 32). Unfortunately this does make a difference in game.

To be fair though, I do get why people don't want to rebase (I still have plenty of WFB stuff on squares) when you've spent countless hours lovingly basing an army, or if you want to use your army for 9th, KoW etc, so it is understandably a sore/emotive subject.

Chris

[Binx]

38 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said:

his is not a dig at you whatsoever @HeadHunter, presumably you can only go off what you've been told or read etc. Since AoS has come out I have seen so many people who previously shared these opinions give Tournaments a chance. People who had previously thought the same as you and only considered themselves "club/casual" gamers. Without exception they have had a great time and gone back for more. Seeing the realisation sink in that they get to play 5 or 6 games over a weekend which are all of the same fun level they play at club (that's 5 to 6 weeks worth of games right there!!) is a really cool thing.

Im in this camp. Before AoS I played at no independent events because of the perceived elitist smash em up net list meta. Last years SCGT was my first non GW tournament and it was so much fun. Since then I've been to 4 more events and have another 4, at least, lined up for this year already. Just wished I'd embraced the scene earlier now I know what I've been missing. 

[Jamopower]

On 2/16/2017 at 9:19 AM, 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 .

There are also a lot of alternatives that are great looking and more expensive than GW (for example stuff from Mierce miniatures). At least I don't mind about alternatives if they look good and fit the part, but of course I understand that GW doesn't want other manufacturer's models in their tournaments and shops.

The things have changed in 10 years or so quite much in the miniature world. Nowadays there are a lot more producers that put out really good quality models than there used to be.

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Chris Tomlin said:

It's such a shame that this perception still exists. It is almost wholeheartedly a manifestation of internet fear mongering. Sure, there will be isolated examples of individuals, I get that. But as you say they will exist in any environment.

If I could do one thing in the Warhammer community it would be to break down these barriers, dispel the myths that tournament and casual players are different (they are not), that competitive and fun are two different things (they are not).

I have played almost every 2 day AoS tournament in the UK (certainly since General's Handbook) with the exception of Heat One and have had probably just a couple of "bad" games (not really down to opponents it should be said). Now obviously I am just relating my own experiences, which is by no mean a defining barometer, however looking around these events, being involved and speaking with countless players I am wholly confident my experiences would mirror those of the other attendees.

I've only done a single one-day tournament and I was a bit concerned beforehand.  I had two amazing games and one awful one, which sad to say was because my opponent thought it was appropriate to bring along a very high-meta army to a casual/friendly event.  I'll also admit that I became pretty despondent as I saw my lovingly painted army systematically dismantled (heroes first) through focused attacks - with hindsight this was actually bad on my part.

Despite that (I'm still frothing about it eight months on), I've booked up to do Bristol Smash and aiming for Blackout - at the least - this year.  Playing against different armies and new opponents is great.  The important thing to keep at the forefront is that we're all playing a game with toy soldiers - if it makes you rage uncontrollably then you've forgotten this  

[Gaz Taylor]

35 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

The important thing to keep at the forefront is that we're all playing a game with toy soldiers - if it makes you rage uncontrollably then you've forgotten this  

This makes me so happy somebody has said this!

1 hour ago, Chris Tomlin said:

This is not a dig at you whatsoever @HeadHunter, presumably you can only go off what you've been told or read etc. Since AoS has come out I have seen so many people who previously shared these opinions give Tournaments a chance. People who had previously thought the same as you and only considered themselves "club/casual" gamers. Without exception they have had a great time and gone back for more. Seeing the realisation sink in that they get to play 5 or 6 games over a weekend which are all of the same fun level they play at club (that's 5 to 6 weeks worth of games right there!!) is a really cool thing.

But yeh, there's enough building of walls going on elsewhere, lets break some down in our community.

 

Well said Chris. I've been doing tournaments on and off now for nearly twenty years over a variety of different game systems. I can count on one hand the amount of bad games I've had which have always boiled down to either people not knowing the rules and getting annoyed when you do something (nice example was 4th ed 40K and shooting at things and the player I was playing didn't understand the mechanics) to people rage quitting because the game didn't go their way. These are things I have also experienced in a club or casual environment and again I can count these on one hand  

I would honestly go to tournaments every week if I could because I have met some fantastic people through the years doing something I really enjoy.

On topic - If you want to use Square bases, fine. I have no issue with it at all and yes there are advantages and wot not at the end of the day this is a game. I seriously don't know why this has dragged on for four pages and had some very bitter comments! This forum is for people to enjoy their hobby  

 

[Soulsmith]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people can use what they want, we all spend way too much time and effort building and painting to slate someone's base choice. Also in terms of meta gaming, I put my arachnarok on a mawkrusha pie base, because it means it's legs don't poke off the sides and look horrendous (In my opinion). So I guess I've shot myself in the meta-gaming foot?

[daedalus81]

20 minutes ago, Soulsmith said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people can use what they want, we all spend way too much time and effort building and painting to slate someone's base choice. Also in terms of meta gaming, I put my arachnarok on a mawkrusha pie base, because it means it's legs don't poke off the sides and look horrendous (In my opinion). So I guess I've shot myself in the meta-gaming foot?

No one really cares when you up-size your base.

Also talk about half-measures earlier are necessary.  You can't carry a customer base from an old system with squares into a new system with rounds by mandate.  Maybe a couple years from now when enough new kits are out there squares will be such a minority that people will either buy a new kit or convert anyway.

[Terry Pike]

3 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

No one really cares when you up-size your base.

Sadly this isn't true. Some people do get salty about models being on larger bases. They can in some instances offer an advantage over smaller bases, more board space controlled, large aura for command abilities etc, increased summoning distance (due to your base being larger when you land on the board). It comes with a price though, less manoeuvrable, more models can attack you in combat, harder to summon in tighter spacing. So people do care both ways, which is why SCGT has/had a base size chart in the pack.

[amysrevenge]

All you have to do is be prepared to walk (ie. concede as calmly and politely as you can manage, and leave the table) if you face a horrible game at an event.  It won't ever happen, probably, but be prepared to do it if you have to.  It's a move that's definitely in my back pocket, that I've never had to do but would be perfectly willing to do.

[daedalus81]

16 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

Sadly this isn't true. Some people do get salty about models being on larger bases. They can in some instances offer an advantage over smaller bases, more board space controlled, large aura for command abilities etc, increased summoning distance (due to your base being larger when you land on the board). It comes with a price though, less manoeuvrable, more models can attack you in combat, harder to summon in tighter spacing. So people do care both ways, which is why SCGT has/had a base size chart in the pack.

Fair enough.  I can't argue that point!

[Soulsmith]

No one really cares when you up-size your base.

Well aren't you the sweetest. Long and short, I don't give a monkeys. As stated, just walk away if it upsets you, it's only plastic.

[HeadHunter]

17 hours ago, Chris Tomlin said:

This is not a dig at you whatsoever @HeadHunter, presumably you can only go off what you've been told or read etc. Since AoS has come out I have seen so many people who previously shared these opinions give Tournaments a chance. People who had previously thought the same as you and only considered themselves "club/casual" gamers. Without exception they have had a great time and gone back for more.

Fair enough, I'm sure it's not as prevalent as it seems.  Surely the word of the bad examples travels farther.  Part of it, for me, is that I don't get a lot of time to play, I like to build my models with looks and Rule of Cool as priorities and don't care for net-listing, evaluating meta, or crafting an army that's got the best options.

But the fast that we're having a controversial discussion about bases,of all things, indicates to me that there are enough people who worry more about some slight edge, than having fun.  

11 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

All you have to do is be prepared to walk (ie. concede as calmly and politely as you can manage, and leave the table) if you face a horrible game at an event.  

I'm not about to go to the time and expense of attending a tournament if there's a chance that I have to be eliminated because someone else is a poor sport.  I don't respond well to horrible people, especially when they ruin my recreation.  I get enough of that sort at work all week.  It's the same reason I never did pick up groups in MMOs, all it takes it one rectal sphincter to ruin an evening's fun.

[DrDemento]

On 2/16/2017 at 10:49 AM, Lissë-Prime said:

Square base (versus equivalent round base) does offer a little bit advantage when determining which model can or cannot attack.

Because round base equivalent are almost always in bigger size (such as 25mm round base replace 20mm square one).

Great image to illustrate some key points.  I think a meta question to keep in mind is how deadly they or we want melee to be, and shooting by comparison...

20 sq to 25 rd is only a 1 model difference for ranked attacks (per image), and can get three ranks for 2" spears, etc.

25 sq to 32 rd is harder. A second rank as above at 1" with 32 rds can be a judgment call, and 2" is clearly out of range, unless measuring from models and even stacking bases!  Even 25 sq is a judgment call on second and third ranks if measuring from bases especially (but note that stacking models on each other's bases can be harder or impossible with squares, especially small ones). 

Why hasn't stacking bases been mentioned at all?  I believe this is mentioned in an official FAQ?

With all this in mind, my group has sided with generous melee range and rank interpretations, even to say the 32 rds get a third rank with 2" range weapons (without having to stack bases- the obnoxious Orc spears are sufficient).  We're not sure what to do about 40mm and larger bases though...

It seems to us that the rules as written and FAQ'd reflect a spirit and intent to maxinize melee attacks in range.  Measuring from bases means less attack, slower and less dynamic combats, and higher powered shooting relative to combat.

A related issue is coherency, or lack of...no rules for coherency except for pile in moves, and more importantly, to prevent movement or charges through units.  Measuring from bases vs  models has some implications too.

Would really appreciate others' thoughts on any of these ideas.

Thanks for the discussion!

[hobgoblinclub]

On 16/02/2017 at 7:30 PM, broche said:

for 20 square to 25 round it's not really relevant, it's more relevant for 25 - 32. but again you would just rule that second rank cannot attack with 1'' reach then it wouldn't change anything really

I'm not sure I like such an arbitrary fix. It seems clumsy to me. It also assumes ranked combat. With a mass of  round bases it's often very difficult to determine who's in what 'rank'. There's almost certainly an advantage if one player is still on 25mm squares but his opponent has already switched his minis to 32mm rounds. 

It seems that the very fact square bases being used cause us to look for fixes might suggest they need to go from the game. 

I'm not a fan of them being used. I get that there's new people still coming over from 8th and I've no issue with that. In time, if they stick with AoS, I'm sure they'll get to rebasing. I really don't get someone deliberately basing on squares though. The  'bases don't matter' thing was almost certainly just to allow everyone to make a clean switch. If they don't matter, why is there an ongoing process of repackaging, primarily to change the supplied bases? 

I'm running a slow grow campaign at the local club and a couple of players have asked and using square bases. Of course I've said yes, as it's their prerogative. I really think they're shooting themselves in the foot though, and they'll find loads more work further down the line. 

[Spiky Norman]

1 hour ago, hobgoblinclub said:

I'm not sure I like such an arbitrary fix. It seems clumsy to me. It also assumes ranked combat. With a mass of  round bases it's often very difficult to determine who's in what 'rank'. There's almost certainly an advantage if one player is still on 25mm squares but his opponent has already switched his minis to 32mm rounds. 

It seems that the very fact square bases being used cause us to look for fixes might suggest they need to go from the game. 

I'm not a fan of them being used. I get that there's new people still coming over from 8th and I've no issue with that. In time, if they stick with AoS, I'm sure they'll get to rebasing. I really don't get someone deliberately basing on squares though. The  'bases don't matter' thing was almost certainly just to allow everyone to make a clean switch. If they don't matter, why is there an ongoing process of repackaging, primarily to change the supplied bases? 

I'm running a slow grow campaign at the local club and a couple of players have asked and using square bases. Of course I've said yes, as it's their prerogative. I really think they're shooting themselves in the foot though, and they'll find loads more work further down the line. 

I agree with you.

But there is one big problem standing in the way, I feel, and that is the fact that GW have not gone through their entire range, and reboxed everything with rounds. If they did that, I think it the argument would have a more solid ground to stand on, because we would only talk about old 8th armies not having been rebased.

As it is now new players are also given square bases, and so they have actually just based the minies with the bases they came with, and I find it hard to say that is "wrong".