Square Bases Opinion:

[Arkiham]

But still is highly advising you to use rounds, or other bases within reason, and if you see someone taking home top prize with models on 20mm rather than the newly packed 25mm bases,  or on 20mm squares rather than 25mm rounds there will be contention.

especially if one of more games were seen as won because of it. (Which is probable enough to be raised )

Highly likely you see 30 blood letters buffed to attacking 4/5 times each, hitting on a 4/5+ for mortal wounds gaining an extra 10 models in hitting range due to the base crushing far more than they should.

It's not compulsory as they want numbers or attendees, as AoS has a smaller participant % than in the UK as most still. Play 8/9th age and kow, which is often the main reason behind not swapping over as they want to continue playing those games.

[Arkiham]

1 hour ago, HeadHunter said:

I've got to agree with Criti, I can see how some of these attitudes come across as arrogant and exclusionary.  You can easily tell which players think it's just a competition, and not a game.  Fortunately, I'll never have to play against them.

It's only an issue when it's a competitive game where you hope that your opponent is going into the game on the same playing field as you are.

[HeadHunter]

There are "Advantages" to larger bases, too - greater distance for squad coherency means greater control of the board.  Each has drawbacks and advantages, so it's level overall.

Same with games that use True LOS - putting the figure on an elevated scenic base gives it greater LOS to targets, but LOS is reciprocal, which means they are an easier target, too.  Complaints that it's an uneven playing field seem to overlook this.

And let's be honest, the examples I've heard are pretty situational, and the diagrams posted in this thread show that it's not nearly as extreme as some people are making it out to be.  I'm unconvinced that it's a real issue.

[Popisdead]

Enforcing round bases in a game that says "bases don't matter" is pretty stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mune]

On 26.2.2017 at 11:49 AM, Sleboda said:

They don't matter -by default- in competitive games either (as if narrative or open play can't be competitive too?). It's only by individual house rule that they "matter" at all. I can play a perfectly legit and competitive matched play game, even a tournament, using the rules provided in the 4-pager, where bases are specifically a non-factor.

So it would be fine for you, if I turn around my Units with f.e. lances at the end of my movement (if I can't charge) or keep the lance/weapon/what ever torwards you, giving me like 1-2" more reach, if I need to charge you.

Because that is the kind of bs you get, playing a tournament game, vs an Idiot who is still playing legit.

[Galas]

Woah guys, thats a bit of necro, but slow down, why all this hostility.

[broche]

3 minutes ago, Mune said:

So it would be fine for you, if I turn around my Units with f.e. lances at the end of my movement (if I can't charge) or keep the lance/weapon/what ever torwards you, giving me like 1-2" more reach, if I need to charge you.

Because that is the kind of bs you get, playing a tournament game, vs an Idiot who is still playing legit.

Not sure how it is legal. No part of the model can move greater than hist movement value. Please clarify.

[Mune]

Sry, I didn't mean to be rude.

I just wanted to show, that this kind of play will not work on a tournament.

Overseer in germany, I haven't seen a single event, not involving b2b measureing.

[Sleboda]

14 hours ago, Mune said:

So it would be fine for you, if I turn around my Units with f.e. lances at the end of my movement (if I can't charge) or keep the lance/weapon/what ever torwards you, giving me like 1-2" more reach, if I need to charge you.

Because that is the kind of bs you get, playing a tournament game, vs an Idiot who is still playing legit.

No. That would likely be cheating. If you move your full move and also then move the lances further, you have broken the rules.

[AverageBoss]

I am curious about what opinion those opposed to square bases have on Longstrike Vanguard Raptors. Currently, you will encounter units composed entirely of Cav ovals, units entirely of 40mm rounds, and units with a 2-1 mix.

[KHHaunts]

34 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

No. That would likely be cheating. If you move your full move and also then move the lances further, you have broken the rules.

Exactly the whole facing thing shouldnt be an issue. there are downsides to having mixed bases and given the choice i would prefer B2B to be the norm.

However thats not the rules. As stated the rules are clear and do work.

I think people confuse "what dosent work" with what dosent work the way you like (Aka stacking models on bases is part of the rules because they arent part of the model. Its not a great rule and can cause lots of rage but it does work)

[Sception]

I've rebased most characters and independent models on rounds, with the exception of Nagash who had a fancy base, but left most of my units on squares.  I prefer the ranked look, prefer to transport and move my units on magnetized trays (at least until they get close to melee) and simply have too many infantry to be bothered with that biz.

Nobody's objected so far, but I don't go to big events, either.

[swarmofseals]

23 hours ago, Mune said:

So it would be fine for you, if I turn around my Units with f.e. lances at the end of my movement (if I can't charge) or keep the lance/weapon/what ever torwards you, giving me like 1-2" more reach, if I need to charge you.

Because that is the kind of bs you get, playing a tournament game, vs an Idiot who is still playing legit.

 

8 hours ago, Sleboda said:

No. That would likely be cheating. If you move your full move and also then move the lances further, you have broken the rules.

 

8 hours ago, KHHaunts said:

As stated the rules are clear and do work.

I think people confuse "what dosent work" with what dosent work the way you like (Aka stacking models on bases is part of the rules because they arent part of the model. Its not a great rule and can cause lots of rage but it does work)

 

In my opinion, the rules work fine for a casual game but are really not functional at a tournament level because they create a critical conflict between the hobby aspect of the game and the gameplay aspect. The rules as written create problematic gameplay situations like the one that Mune brought up (will discuss in further detail later) as well as lots of cases in which players are incentivized to either model for advantage or disincentivized to model in ways that give a disadvantage. Some examples that spring to mind:

• Players are incentivized to use huge scenic bases on basic troops in order to block line of sight to support heroes. For example, A khorne player might put his bloodletters on big stone pillars made of 32mm diameter cork to completely block line of sight to a normally based bloodsecrator deployed behind them. Normally, bloodletters would never be able to block line of sight in this way with rules as written.
• Players are incentivized to use basing tricks to mess with ranges, particularly in close combat. For example, a death player could put his skeleton spearmen on top of tall rocks on their bases. The extra height would mean that some models wouldn't be able to reach the skeletons with their 1" melee range, while the skeletons with their 2" range would be able to strike back. In other cases neither the skeletons nor the targets could reach the other, thus causing the combat to be locked indefinitely until the opponent retreats.
• Players are incentivized to do positional conversions in order to mess with line of sight. A classic example of this was the epidemic of crawling wraithlords that 40k had a while back. 
• Players are disincentivized from using scenic bases for important centerpiece models. Anything that makes your melee hero easier to see would be a disadvantage. 

These are just a few examples. Gameplay shenanigans are also encouraged, as exemplified by the idea that Mune brought up. @Sleboda, you are incorrect about what Mune described being cheating. If you look at the current FAQ in the movement section there is an entry that addresses this kind of thing (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Errata/warhammer_aos_rules_en.pdf, page 3, second column, first question). The FAQ states that "to measure the [model's] move, determine which part of the model has moved furthest and then measure the distance between where that part of the model was at the start of the move and where it is at the end of the move adding any 'vertical movement' that was required to clear scenery." So in this case if you move the model forward, then spin it around to have a protruding part facing backward the move would be totally legal as you only measure from where the model started and where it ended up. Of course, in this case it doesn't actually matter because no advantage is actually gained -- lets say a model with 4" move and a 1" spear starts with the spear pointing forward, moves 4" and turns around so the spear is pointing backward.  This move is totally legal, but effectively you've just accomplished the same thing as moving the model 3" forward only. Regardless, the fact that players would even think about weird shenanigans like this tells me that this set of rules as written does not function well in a competitive setting where people are trying to find edges.

 

Basically, all of these examples are easily dealt with in the context that the AoS rules were originally written for: a group of people playing games and hashing out any differences. If we were playing a pickup game at the FLGS and you showed up with a bunch of bloodletters mounted on corks to block line of sight to your buffing heroes, I'd just laugh at you and decline the game (or work out a system that we could use to counteract the effects of modeling for advantage). 

Now that we have matched play and the tournament scene is getting a bit more serious, the basic rules of measurement and line of sight are extremely clumsy and not workable if played strictly as written. 

Just one final example that should easily demonstrate why this system is untenable.

Lets say I play Sylvaneth and take the Gnarlroot Wargrove. I stick my Treeman Ancient on a 5" tall treestump with a big hollow in one side, facing away from the treeman. I also take a branchwych with the Silverwood Circlet (6" extended cast range on spells) and The Reaping spell. I deploy and move the branchwych inside the hollow of the Treeman Ancient's base. I move them up as a pair, and now line of sight to the branchwych is blocked completely except from directly behind the Ancient.  Technically, all of this is following rules as written, but now I have a very fragile spellcaster that is extremely hard for you to target, and it can cast two AOE spells, one of which hits every enemy unit within 15" (casting value 5, roll dice equal to casting result, each 6 is a mortal wound) and one of which hits every enemy unit within 9" (casting value 6, d3 mortal wounds). I can now pump out significant AOE damage to you, but you probably can't target the caster due to my modeling for advantage. And the modeling trick isn't even absurd or unloreful -- the treeman ancient probably looks fantastic perched on this enormous treestump that has a very naturalistic cavity that just so happens to fit a branchwych inside. 

 

 

__________________________________________________________

 

Aside on the original topic: I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but one thing that tournaments could do that would significantly alleviate the base diversity problem is to require a specific basing system but allow folks to magnetize their existing bases to the proper bases for the purposes of gameplay and then judge appearance for the models as they are based normally. This ensures the integrity of gameplay while placing a minimal burden on folks with existing non-conforming bases. 

[broche]

i think the grey zone is that based on RAW you could actually stand on another model base. Wich is kinda weird and not really suitable. 

Otherwise, I must i've played 6 or 7 games at local GW store (before General Handbook) and we played measuring from models and never had an issue (poeple where not overlappiing on other model base).

I played at adepticon this weekend and had mixe of square and round. Nobody complained, and don't think it influenced any of the games I played.

I think there must be a solution to have both base type to cohabit. Maybe rule that base are actually part of model. I dunno.

[rokapoke]

3 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

These are just a few examples. Gameplay shenanigans are also encouraged, as exemplified by the idea that Mune brought up. @Sleboda, you are incorrect about what Mune described being cheating. If you look at the current FAQ in the movement section there is an entry that addresses this kind of thing (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Errata/warhammer_aos_rules_en.pdf, page 3, second column, first question). The FAQ states that "to measure the [model's] move, determine which part of the model has moved furthest and then measure the distance between where that part of the model was at the start of the move and where it is at the end of the move adding any 'vertical movement' that was required to clear scenery." So in this case if you move the model forward, then spin it around to have a protruding part facing backward the move would be totally legal as you only measure from where the model started and where it ended up. Of course, in this case it doesn't actually matter because no advantage is actually gained -- lets say a model with 4" move and a 1" spear starts with the spear pointing forward, moves 4" and turns around so the spear is pointing backward.  This move is totally legal, but effectively you've just accomplished the same thing as moving the model 3" forward only. Regardless, the fact that players would even think about weird shenanigans like this tells me that this set of rules as written does not function well in a competitive setting where people are trying to find edges.

 

 

Actually, @Sleboda is 100% correct. In your example the part of the model opposite the spear tip is the part that has moved furthest after the rotation, and has exceeded the model's movement characteristic. 

[swarmofseals]

29 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

Actually, @Sleboda is 100% correct. In your example the part of the model opposite the spear tip is the part that has moved furthest after the rotation, and has exceeded the model's movement characteristic. 

Has it? I guess it would have moved a fraction of an inch (whatever the actual width of the body of the model is) further, so you'd have to reduce the overall movement by the extra distance that the butt of the model would move from the rotation. @Sleboda was implying that the rotational movement of the lance would count, which is incorrect.

[Fr0]

This one is still ongoing, eh? I wouldn't give you a hard time for using squares, especially given that you still play fantasy and I know how much of a beach it was for me to change my bases that weren't decorated.. let alone ones that were. All I can think of is Vince Venturella and his Tomb Kings at this moment... haha.

 

[Hollow]

I've always enjoyed bases² and have been quite surprised to find myself really enjoying circular bases. Not like amazing roller-coaster enjoyment but enjoyment non the less. I suppose the circular base style really makes the individual model stand out, as apposed to the 'wound counter' blending in of a squared rank n' file mini. 

Watching battle reports on youtube, I do find myself wanting to see circular bases. I wouldn't be a stickler in person though. If I did find myself having any kind of feelings about it, I'd take the folded up picture of a child refugee out of my wallet and remind myself that there are more important things to worry about. Like why I find it necessary to carry around a photo of a child refugee in my wallet. Scary. 

[Mossback]

Just read through all six pages of this topic, and it seems to me to be a matter of standards. Bases are sized in millimeters, but all the rules are measured in inches. Sort of like when the US and EU space agencies tried to land a joint probe on Mars. Each side was using different calculations and the result was the probe augered in to the surface of Mars, rather than have a controlled decent. End result was the loss of a multimillion dollar (Euro) probe. Our problems are much simpler and less costly. Since GW is not going to rewrite their combat system to use metric measurements, a compromise needs to be made. One inch is 25.4mm. A model with a one inch combat range can reach 25.4mm. A model with a two inch reach can range an enemy at 50.8mm. Anyone down with measuring a tenth of a millimeter during combat? No? Then let's come to the consensus that a model on a single round base ROUGHLY 25mm (30, 32) and with a two inch combat range can attack through another line of models in front of them. Dryad have a two inch combat range. Two rows of Dryad could then attack a row of enemy. A model with only a one inch range behind another model would not be able to attack, despite your best Tetris stacking skills. This keeps the game flowing despite the Mars probe crashing measurement differences. If having precise distances are that important at tournament, then insist on a calibrated laser range finder rather than the grossly inaccurate Sigmarite Combat Guage or plastic ruler from the dollar store. This is a game about collecting, painting, and fun. 

[deynon]

5 hours ago, Mossback said:

Just read through all six pages of this topic, and it seems to me to be a matter of standards. Bases are sized in millimeters, but all the rules are measured in inches. Sort of like when the US and EU space agencies tried to land a joint probe on Mars. Each side was using different calculations and the result was the probe augered in to the surface of Mars, rather than have a controlled decent. End result was the loss of a multimillion dollar (Euro) probe. Our problems are much simpler and less costly. Since GW is not going to rewrite their combat system to use metric measurements, a compromise needs to be made. One inch is 25.4mm. A model with a one inch combat range can reach 25.4mm. A model with a two inch reach can range an enemy at 50.8mm. Anyone down with measuring a tenth of a millimeter during combat? No? Then let's come to the consensus that a model on a single round base ROUGHLY 25mm (30, 32) and with a two inch combat range can attack through another line of models in front of them. Dryad have a two inch combat range. Two rows of Dryad could then attack a row of enemy. A model with only a one inch range behind another model would not be able to attack, despite your best Tetris stacking skills. This keeps the game flowing despite the Mars probe crashing measurement differences. If having precise distances are that important at tournament, then insist on a calibrated laser range finder rather than the grossly inaccurate Sigmarite Combat Guage or plastic ruler from the dollar store. This is a game about collecting, painting, and fun. 

nope. The round bases GW make are less than 1" as the terminaotr ones are 41mm and not 40mm. 

It changes when you talk about dimensions and distances cause a base of 1" ttached behind to a base of 1" still not necessariy attack if the ifirst one is not in contact with the oppponent model/base. 

In case of 32 instead the difference between model and base change quite a lot. both fot the positioning of the model itsel, but moreover coause if they climb the models even a third line can be plausible to have.  you only need to put the model on the border of the base itself.

I prefer to count the bases cause avoud problemms about modified models.

But in a TO you have to be categorical or in a competitve way you can give really everything. I call so the FAQ that consider the base part of the model too as reference.

And using different base sizes change the usability of the units and not only by a bit

[AGPO]

The only rational argument I can see for insisting on a certain type of base is that with weapons ranges being in inches, models on 25mm bases could fight in two ranks whilst an identical unit on 32mm bases could not. Trouble is, with measure from the model being the official standard, that applies every bit as much to the way people pose minis as the way they base them. If I model my spearmen with spears pointing up rather than down, I put myself at a disadvantage to an equivalent unit modeled with spears leveled. The rear ranks of the latter would reach over the front rank's bases, putting more of them in range than in my unit. It's not blatant modelling for advantage as in the examples above, but a stylistic choice. I've yet to meet any gamer or TO who has tried to insist that players stick the arms on their minis in a certain way because "fairness."

More importantly, this is a game where luck plays a massive role. If you win the roll for first turn and have a lucky round of shooting, you could cripple my army before I get a chance to move. Part of playing is learning to take the rough with the smooth. If you really want to face your models away from my army, or model ludicrous bases to twist those odds a little in your favour then go ahead, but find someone else to play.

[Inquisitor Wall]

All of my wood elves are old 5th edition and earlier, so I refuse ti rebase them simply out of nostalgia. If I showes up to a game and someone gave me a hard time, I would simply pack up because right from the bat it shows it is not an opponent I would have interest in playing against. 

[karch]

On 30/3/2017 at 0:34 AM, swarmofseals said:

• Players are incentivized to use huge scenic bases on basic troops in order to block line of sight to support heroes. For example, A khorne player might put his bloodletters on big stone pillars made of 32mm diameter cork to completely block line of sight to a normally based bloodsecrator deployed behind them. Normally, bloodletters would never be able to block line of sight in this way with rules as written.
• Players are incentivized to use basing tricks to mess with ranges, particularly in close combat. For example, a death player could put his skeleton spearmen on top of tall rocks on their bases. The extra height would mean that some models wouldn't be able to reach the skeletons with their 1" melee range, while the skeletons with their 2" range would be able to strike back. In other cases neither the skeletons nor the targets could reach the other, thus causing the combat to be locked indefinitely until the opponent retreats.
• Players are incentivized to do positional conversions in order to mess with line of sight. A classic example of this was the epidemic of crawling wraithlords that 40k had a while back. 
• Players are disincentivized from using scenic bases for important centerpiece models. Anything that makes your melee hero easier to see would be a disadvantage. 

 

A problem that Infinity solved by using the silhouette stat.

Each model has a silhouette size which is what matters in terms of gameplay. Modelling-wise you can do anything, but only the silhouette matters for play S1 smaller than regular human, S2 human-sized all the way up to S7 for the biggest TAGs

If both players don't agree you sub the mini for the silhouette shape and it's always clear cut.

[swarmofseals]

16 hours ago, karch said:

A problem that Infinity solved by using the silhouette stat.

Each model has a silhouette size which is what matters in terms of gameplay. Modelling-wise you can do anything, but only the silhouette matters for play S1 smaller than regular human, S2 human-sized all the way up to S7 for the biggest TAGs

If both players don't agree you sub the mini for the silhouette shape and it's always clear cut.

Yeah, I think the problem is *very* solvable. I mostly meant to demonstrate that the current rules don't actually work very well in a tournament setting. Other folks in the thread had been claiming that the current rules work fine.

The 9th Age also uses something a little bit like the silhouette system, and it works pretty well. 7 Sizes is probably overkill, I think AOS could do with 3 or 4. 

[HeadHunter]

Warmachine solves it too, by specifying a default "volume" for each model.  Imagine a cylinder of a given diameter and height, based upon overall category and default base size for a model.  It doesn't matter if the model itself is on a taller scenic base, or parts jut out or above... all that matters is, can you draw LOS from part of that cylinder to the other.  Does away with a lot of these shenanigans.