Square Bases Opinion:

[deynon]

On 31/3/2017 at 10:40 AM, 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.

 

On 2/4/2017 at 7:23 AM, HeadHunter said:

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.

nothing new. Such solution was also used in 4th edition wh40k and it didn't work cause it caused trick to masquarade.

it's much more convenient using the base as referring, otherqise each model have to count it's longest point as turning point  to move

[karch]

24 minutes ago, deynon said:

 

nothing new. Such solution was also used in 4th edition wh40k and it didn't work cause it caused trick to masquarade.

it's much more convenient using the base as referring, otherqise each model have to count it's longest point as turning point  to move

Infinity is not an infinitely high cylinder like 40K:

S1 and S2 share the same width, but S2 is taller. Likewise for S3-5-6 and S4-7

 

[deynon]

6 minutes ago, karch said:

Infinity is not an infinitely high cylinder like 40K:

S1 and S2 share the same width, but S2 is taller. Likewise for S3-5-6 and S4-7

 

in 40k there were height in 4th edition, it was not infinite, only there were fewer dimensions than now.

I simply say it's nothing new and it didn't work. Moreover if you play with such a thing is easy to use to your own good.

[Kosmion]

Playing with squares in a game intended for rounds does cause some problems. The simple fact that there is a size difference interferes with the ranges for different weapons,spells,abilities etc. I personally dont see this as a problem since im no game designer and could never determine how much of a difference the bases has caused during a certain game, also, my gazillion skaven are on squares and im no way ever gonna rebase all of them. But the logic is there right. Wrong base sizes will cause different conditions for the players. Its up to the players really. If this problem isnt considered big enough, then its fine. But in a super ultra die hard-competetive setting i would be surprised if people were ok with this

[Sleboda]

7 hours ago, karch said:

Infinity is not an infinitely high cylinder like 40K:

S1 and S2 share the same width, but S2 is taller. Likewise for S3-5-6 and S4-7

 

When you are playing a game based on models and you have to swap out the models to make the game work,  there's a problem with the rules. 

[AverageBoss]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

When you are playing a game based on models and you have to swap out the models to make the game work,  there's a problem with the rules. 

Ya, I actually think Malifaux has one of the cleaner systems out there for something like this. Models occupy the area of their intended base (which is listed on the models rules), and models have a Ht stat (99% of the models range from 1-3, though I know of 2 outliers that are 4), that tells you how many inches tall the model is, regardless of how it is modeled.

[Sleboda]

56 minutes ago, AverageBoss said:

Ya, I actually think Malifaux has one of the cleaner systems out there for something like this. Models occupy the area of their intended base (which is listed on the models rules), ...

The only way, in my oldman opinion, that any sort of base-enforcing or base-based system works is if the company making the game clearly dictates base size for all models in the game. Otherwise, I actually think the AoS 4-pager system works. To heck with bases, just look at the darn model, and if your opponent is a tool about it, find a new opponent.

 

I got into Warhammer with 3rd edition. The Warhammer Armies hardback book listed all the models and their base sizes.  It's how I started and still how I prefer things to be.

[Greyshadow]

I remember when GW bought in true line of sight. I was dead against it - until I used it. It just played much better. Will be interesting to see how the general's handbook two addresses it given that squares are becoming less common.

[AverageBoss]

53 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

The only way, in my oldman opinion, that any sort of base-enforcing or base-based system works is if the company making the game clearly dictates base size for all models in the game. Otherwise, I actually think the AoS 4-pager system works. To heck with bases, just look at the darn model, and if your opponent is a tool about it, find a new opponent.

 

I got into Warhammer with 3rd edition. The Warhammer Armies hardback book listed all the models and their base sizes.  It's how I started and still how I prefer things to be.

I pretty much agree with you. I prefer to measure from bases and not models (more consistent, and protects basing work), but I am fine with what ever bases as long as its not WAY off, like mounting man sized models with aura effects on monster bases, or mounting monsters on way smaller bases to protect them. Other than that, no problem. Square? Circle? A mix of both? Don't care.

[HeadHunter]

8 hours ago, Sleboda said:

When you are playing a game based on models bases and you have to swap out the models bases to make the game work,  there's a problem with the rules. 

That works too.

[Sleboda]

Good thing AoS is not based on bases!  ?

[HeadHunter]

Yep.  That's my point.  If the game actually required players to rebase their minis, it would be a problem.  The rules offer the perfect solution, but somehow, people want to change it with a house rule and then complain about the perceived imbalances that result from their insistence on using the alternate rule.

[Mc1gamer]

I've reported on this topic quite a bit, well, since the game launched actually. Especially now I think this whole thing is going to work itself out. Why? Well base to base is becoming the defacto tournament comp rule. I played model to model early on....alot....and there's alot that works just fine. A few things are wonky, but its nothing that can't be worked out. Height is an issue if you go to base to base b/c then you have to insert some volume measuring but again, its just a few tweaks to make it work. 

Here's the thing, these details don't REALLY amount to much. However you wish to do it, its not game breaking, as long as both parties are playing it the same way. Sure, events or even local communities that prefer base to base will remove some of the flying base advantages outlined in one of the faq's, and some square bases can give a few extra attacks, but ultimately its not profound. Should you rebase? I rebased several hundred models (skeletons/zombes/ghouls) and its a hard soul-crushing process, and at least in my case the bases weren't so pretty that I questioned doing so. Some of the bases on my Treemen and all of my Giants are rounds instead of ovals and I won't rebase those. There's advantages and disadvantages to larger/smaller bases sizes (I was one of the early people to test this with model to model too btw in one of my first AoS videos). Still, some might require the exact base they come with. However, some models still don't have a repack, and we have to approximate. GW doesn't have a standard other than what they release and there's some differences in similar sized models too. Community standards aren't uniform or official.

So how to square this circle (or the reverse lol)? It will work out in the end. See all the new shiny releases are on rounds. Sure, the older armies that many people have are on squares, but no one is going to build newer releases on those. Over time, with new rules, new battle tomes, and the inevitable power creep, the new will push out the old. We will see organically the squares fade away. No need to push that out. I understand, being in the hobby for 30 years, the desire to keep playing armies that still have warscrolls and are usable in the game. So they can be played. However the newest armies over time will just overshadow those and eventually (already happening btw) will see more use and those will be on rounds. As squares recede just based on what people buy and play, this will just work itself out on its own. Its happened faster in Europe but its starting to happen in the US already. In the four stores I frequent, I'm already seeing old school players jumping in with the newer releases over their legacy armies, and even if they use in some cases older models on squares, no one really cares. So over time, in a few years, this will all correct itself, and in the meantime, I don't think a few dice rolls will be the major factor over the 5 games. The top players still are at the top despite the occasional dice flub, so a few extra dice for or against because of base concentration isn't that big a deal. In my humble opinion naturally