Arkiham Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 The difference boils down to this. Games workshop primarily support open play and narrative play, this is always their initial rule writing priority, which is why bases "don't matter " to them They added matched play to appease the demand for structured competitive play, and the people they got to help them with this were tournament organisers. Which is why "bases matter " That's the difference in rounds an squares. The point structure is based off rounds/ovals. I say this with confidence due to many of the models being rebased onto rounds by this point with all new models being exclusively on rounds. So, if the models are pointed with rounds on, using smaller or using different bases to the ones provided (or for models without rounds) the relevant base size (20mm squares onto 25mm rounds, 25mm squares onto 32mm rounds etc) can give you an advantage. If you want to play matched play long term you should use rounds, don't expect tournaments to allow you to use squares as it's a potential advantage, matched play is meant to be about competitive play, and someone using squares might give them a advantage. Rounds are the new standard, if you want to compete then you got to reach those minimum standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lissë-Prime Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 11 hours ago, DrDemento said: 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. There is a rule for coherency is stated in page 1 of the rule. A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a single group of models, with all models within 1” of at least one other model from their unit. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must reform the next time that it moves. It saw implementation in this article where you can tactically charge a large unit separately by 6" so prevent the unit to maximise the attack without breaking coherency. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/02/14/tactical-toolbox-charging/ As for the "stacking" of the bases. Since the official rule clearly stated that bases do not count. So there is no rule or FAQ about stacking. But the FAQ does say you can move through the gaps if they can fit. So by common sense if you use the base for measuring, you therefore can move between the base if the base of the moving model can fit in between. Models can move through the gaps between the models in another unit (if they can fit), but are not allowed to move over other models unless they can fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Criti Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 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. Interesting notion. I figured gamers will always find something to fight about, and the fact that all we have is bases tells me that we have a solid game on our hands (despite the continuous apocalyptic cryings of other games' communities). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageBoss Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Depending on the looks of the army I prefer different styles of bases, and I mount my models on what I think looks best. My Blood Dragon VC army will stay on squares. My Disciples of Tzeentch army looks good on circles. My Stormcast Eternals, I mounted on squares. They honestly look amazing ranked up in tight formations, and I have some unit wide dioramas planned. All the infantry is on 40s, the Dracoths are on monstrous cav bases, and the star drakes are on the large monster bases. Don't know how big the Aetherwings will be in person, might have to grab some 30s for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuneBrush Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 On 18/02/2017 at 6:49 PM, Lissë-Prime said: As for the "stacking" of the bases. Since the official rule clearly stated that bases do not count. So there is no rule or FAQ about stacking. But the FAQ does say you can move through the gaps if they can fit. So by common sense if you use the base for measuring, you therefore can move between the base if the base of the moving model can fit in between. Though there's no rule about base stacking there is a general etiquette that says you should only be doing this after a conversation with your opponent Nearly every game I've played with base to base measuring has indeed played that you need to fit the whole base between models/scenery in order to move and I think it nicely represents that in the hustle and bustle of a battle you're not going to stop and carefully ask your friend to step to one side so you can get to the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Tomlin Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 13 hours ago, AverageBoss said: My Stormcast Eternals, I mounted on squares. They honestly look amazing ranked up in tight formations, and I have some unit wide dioramas planned. All the infantry is on 40s, the Dracoths are on monstrous cav bases, and the star drakes are on the large monster bases. Do you have any pics of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperHappyTime Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 6 hours ago, Chris Tomlin said: Do you have any pics of this? Seconded. To summarize my opinions, a) there's no set for what size bases I have to use b) not many people in this community are going to condone stacking models on their own c) if we hold b to be true, I'm going to put an extra 1.1" of model over my base on models with a range of 2". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageBoss Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 On 2/20/2017 at 4:44 AM, Chris Tomlin said: Do you have any pics of this? On 2/20/2017 at 11:37 AM, SuperHappyTime said: Seconded. To summarize my opinions, a) there's no set for what size bases I have to use b) not many people in this community are going to condone stacking models on their own c) if we hold b to be true, I'm going to put an extra 1.1" of model over my base on models with a range of 2". Yep, sorry it took so long to reply. First up, Liberators: Next, Judicators: A Lord Celestant of Dracoth with 2 friends: A unit of Paladins with a couple characters in the front rank: And a Stardrake from 2 different angles: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DynamicCalories Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I can see why people would like them, but they look kinda rigid to me. I've largely preferred the dynamic feel of round-based minis. Dig the bronze and black though, will be great to see them painted up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galas Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 The Problem that I had with Stormcast in squares (and in general, full-AoS models designet to be in round bases) is that they don't look like a cohesive force. When you see this, you see a cohesive force of individuals marchin as a regiment. But a regiment of Stormcast, Ironjawz or Silvaneth ranqued up in squares look like a group of fisioculturist marching and doing poses and flexing muscles to impress an audience. I'm not saying that is wrong: You buy the models, you use the models how you like! Just saying why I think that they look... weird in squares. Sorry for my english! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DynamicCalories Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Conversely I find the Chaos Warriors a little dull on rounds, they're not as dynamic as the newer stuff, or even older plastics like Plaguebearers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galas Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 Yes! I love Chaos Warrior, along with Black Orcs one of my favorite models of all time, but as they were made to be into a regiment with square bases, in a round-base enviroment where agile and dynamic miniatures look better, they look just... boring. But to be honest, I prefer my chaos warrior to be in squares, marching like a unified force of destruction, imposing, silent, apathic to the destructión they are gonna cause. Chaos Barbarians or Khorne-alligned Chaos Warriors though, look better in round bases because dynamic poses suit them pretty well with the savage and uncontrollable theme. But Chosen and Undivided Chaos Warrior... nah. Have a good day! EDIT: To further my point on how I envision Chaos Warriors... I just love how the just... walk slow, like givin 0 f*cks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Criti Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I'd like to take a timeout here and point out that this discussion about bases has gone for for over 100 posts now, and from the looks of it, no one has been convinced to change their minds one way or the other. Perhaps it's arguing pedantic things like this that gives people the impression that wargaming groups are overly insular and it's not a hobby that's accessible to get into? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkiham Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 It's not changing as there's two sides, both of whom have come into this with the stance of "I'm not changing how I feel but the others should" The difference being, one side is the current tournament and company standard , the other the hang over from a old edition put in place until people crossed over or got new models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galas Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 I find the insight of this thread that I started pretty useful. But as you say, at the same time, I'm impressed in the division and some radical ideas of the concern. I was just asking what the general-comunity-online vision of the matter was. As a square-based armys owner, I'm totally OK and totally aware that rounds will be (And should be in a skirmish game) the standard Maybe its my group of friends and the club where I play, but we never discused things like this with this seriousness, pasion and... strong opinions. We were always like "If it its fun, whatever, just ask the other person and be polite". In the old days of WHFB we had people that use War of the Ring-like movement traits with round bases miniatures to use the Mordheim warbands of our campaings into larger battles, sometimes in the same narrative campaing. Maybe we are just a bunch of casuals "Do you Even Hobby, bro?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DynamicCalories Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 28 minutes ago, Criti said: I'd like to take a timeout here and point out that this discussion about bases has gone for for over 100 posts now, and from the looks of it, no one has been convinced to change their minds one way or the other. Perhaps it's arguing pedantic things like this that gives people the impression that wargaming groups are overly insular and it's not a hobby that's accessible to get into? I dunno, as someone new to all this Squares vs Rounds is interesting*. What I dislike more is the seeming endless kneejerk reactions to every decision that GW makes. That makes me feel like I am not in the club unless I agree they're a terrible company making a terrible game that should be providing all things to all people at all times. *I saw interesting because it's such a bizarre mash of aesthetics and tactics. Some units just look better on squares, most look better on rounds, but then there's so much more to consider! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galas Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 If you read articles of ex-GW employers like the Perrys brothers or Alessio Cavatore you can see that Games Workshop wasn't a bad company. In fact, It WAS a great company. But when Tom Kirby take control he just put the Marketing team in charge of rulebooks, lore, and all the decisions of the company. Then we all now the debacle of the decisions they made, raising and raising and raising prices for the same or less models (Anyone remember the change of 10 dire avengers for 40 dollars to 5 Dire avengers for 40 dollars?), abandoning totally the fan base, 0 contact and social media presence, market research,stop doing official events, etc... Some people were exceptic this last year, and with a reason, but I cannot say how much I love the turn around that GW was done with the change of CEO. This is not the CEO that say that GW was a "miniatures company, not a games company" or "Warhammer is made to last, nor like this new things, videogames or Pokemon" But all of this is offtopic so... sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 7 hours ago, Arkiham said: The difference being, one side is the current tournament and company standard , the other the hang over from a old edition put in place until people crossed over or got new models. ... is the group of people who are just playing by the rules sold to them and using the models (in many cases) and the bases that they can still buy on GW shelves that come with square bases. Neither is wrong since the bases are, by the rules, a non-factor. Both sides can legally play with the bases they prefer. It's just that one side is trying to impose a rules that does not exists in the company-produced game, as is their prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobgoblinclub Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Genuinely, I think it's time to move to rounds. The game is getting on for two years old. It's clearly designed for round bases. The idea that 'bases don't matter' is a fallacy. It's smoke and mirrors. They say 'they don't matter' and yet have been busily repackaging everything with rounds. Don't believe alternative facts. The not mattering was purely to allow the transition between systems and quell the rage. The reason we still have square bases on the shelves must be purely the financial cost of recalling so many boxes. Having said all that...it can't be denied that there are still squares on the shelves. As long as that is the case, anyone who wants to argue that they 'bought the models on those bases' and they're 'jolly well going to use them' is well within their rights. A warning though: if you think you're saving time putting your models on the square bases they come with, be prepared to rebase everything somewhere along the road. I doubt GHB2 will ask for rounds, as there's too many squares still in stores. GHB3 for that matter...GW are listening to the community on everything else. The community, in the main, clearly want this. If we get duardin, aelfs and Slaanesh by summer, that'd leave enough time to squeeze in skaven this year. What would that leave before GHB3? Death stuff? Grots? I can't think there'd be many red boxed kits left after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkiham Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 36 minutes ago, Sleboda said: ... is the group of people who are just playing by the rules sold to them and using the models (in many cases) and the bases that they can still buy on GW shelves that come with square bases. Neither is wrong since the bases are, by the rules, a non-factor. Both sides can legally play with the bases they prefer. It's just that one side is trying to impose a rules that does not exists in the company-produced game, as is their prerogative. which is perfectly fine for open and narrative play. but, most people in this discussion are focusing on matched. yet to see a tournament say in the rules " bases don't matter " my friend has some old skullcrushers on the square bases before they were put onto rectangular ones, they are the bases that came with the model, so should he use them? and the wording in the old 8th edition book is " use the bases provided in the box sold " so it would have been reasonable to keep them on the 50mm squares ( i think that's what it is on ) considering Gw is covering tournaments, it's pretty much an endorsement to the rules being held, and by that they agree with rounds being the way forward. ive 30 plaguebearers and 30 bloodletters still on 20mm rounds, "bases don't matter" so i can gain an extra ~20+ attacks in on the bloodletters for the same terrain coverage. doing 4/5s to hit to mortal wound. that's "only" an extra 10 mortal wounds... ignoring the rest of the other attacks. For the same terrain coverage as the ones on 25mm bases. but. "bases don't matter " which they dont, when you arent playing competitive games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 12 hours ago, Arkiham said: "bases don't matter " which they dont, when you arent playing competitive games. 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. I still maintain, btw, that if bases are going to be made to "matter" in a game, then you need to add in a lot of rules other than just measure base to base, or use round/ovals. If the area of a base is going to define a model (which, now that I think of it, makes the actual models a whole lot less important in this game of toy soldiers), then that implies some more stuff. For instance, if there is a rocky overpass that is 50mm wide but the base of my model is 100mm wide, am I allowed to land my model on the overpass? The model (which now means the base) does not actually fit on the overpass, so we at least need to have the conversation about this rules situation which presents itself only because another rule has been invented. Also, now all models need defined base sizes and shapes. It is not enough to say that models must be on "appropriate" bases. That's open to far too much interpretation. Tell me what base I must mount my (just purchased at retails and came with a 20mm square base) model on to fit the event's definition of "appropriate." Let's just hope that they next event agrees with your list of what is ok, because if not, this model whose base does not matter according to the official rules (even in the GH) will need to be rebased (a double shame since many people complain about bases being a non-factor meaning I might stack my model on your decorative base - a base which must now my demolished to fit the rules pack of the next event). It's just a huge can of worms that really doesn't need to be opened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkiham Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Do what you want Sleboda, just don't expect people to walk away from game with you happy as you've taken cheap wins from using smaller than standard bases as "bases don't matter " Good luck finding a decent tournament playing it that way also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadHunter Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Are you seriously trying to allege that someone can win solely on the basis of using smaller bases? Or that there is, indeed, a standard? Care to show me where this "standard" is printed? Is it, perhaps, by default the bases that came in the box? Because I've looked in all the rules and I don't see anywhere that it's defined. One would think a "standard" would be part of the rules... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobgoblinclub Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Polite mod request: Can I ask everyone to settle down a bit please? We're only talking about the size/shape of the bits of plastic we stand or toy soliders on, after all. It's small enough to make anyone seemingly genuinely irate about it appear a little silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadHunter Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.