Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Pacific wrote:


I actually just realised I have painted up my Night Lords on a complete mix of base types as I thought each type suited the different sort of unit. In the same way I'm doing some Death Guard and Solars on square bases, as I like the idea of them being ranked up and marching forward (similarly you can imagine the NL in round bases as less organised 'death squad'-type approach to their deployment). Hopefully that won't drive anyone into a paroxysm of fury (that's a word I learned from a WD Epic battle report! ) although as said I'll only be playing local club games, and not someone at a tournament who I guess might think I am just trying to game them with a few mil on unit frontages..

Like they said, aslong as you have a 25mm base as a template tool (just glue one to the end of a long stick), and you give your opponent leeway, it should not create any problems.

 Pacific wrote:
then if it reached that point of contention

Kind of the key words here though. If you just used the bases supplied with the minis, it would never reach that point. Despite all the hemming and hawing about how great it is that GW is letting you use your old bases (it kind of isn't, its the same limp-wristed "you can but you shouldn't" language absolving themselves of needing to enforce any sort of standard that would potentially make them unpopular with a segment of the community that they use across all their games basically, but I digress), the fact of the matter is that doing so can and will slow down gameplay because per the written guidance you have to go through extra steps and jump through extra hoops in order to keep things fair for your opponent when doing so. As EVH noted, using your strip bases creates non-intuitive barriers that will arise during play that require extra steps and adjudication to resolve, none of which would be relevant or present if you were using the proper bases. Thats a loss for the game, because you are introducing additional layers of complexity, process, and potential for interpersonal conflict into the game that need not and should not exist. Its also a loss for your opponents who are using the proper bases, and who now have to suffer through a slower and more convoluted play experience as a result. That itself is a violation of the unwritten and unspoken social contract between gamers that underpins our hobby - you're making a somewhat selfish and self-centered decision to break with the norms and standards of gameplay (in part enabled by GWs unwillingness to take responsibility for taking a stand against it) and forcing your opponents to deal with the unnecessary consequences of it.

Hopefully that won't drive anyone into a paroxysm of fury (that's a word I learned from a WD Epic battle report! ) although as said I'll only be playing local club games, and not someone at a tournament who I guess might think I am just trying to game them with a few mil on unit frontages.

I can't speak to your club, if you're a close knit group who know eachother well and all have a similar laissez-faire attitude about stuff like this, go right ahead.

I know from years of personal experience though that within the broader community as a whole (having traveled around playing quite a bit across casual, competitive, narrative, etc. circles) this is something that leads to a lot of unspoken and undiscussed feelsbad. Many within the community are conflict-averse and will accept things like this with little to no push-back on their part, even if they are otherwise uncomfortable or apprehensive about it, simply because they don't want to be seen as "that guy" or make a big deal of something which they think others might see as trivial, etc. but will then later 100% complain about it to their friends and those who they are more comfortable speaking to after the fact. Likewise, many of those who are willing to voice their concerns or open a dialogue about it up-front will often fold and not stand their ground when their opponent doesn't pick up the hint or read between the lines and expresses a willingness to debate the topic. I have seen this more times than I can count and its probably the most frustrating thing I've encountered in this hobby. If its not clear what I mean, its conversations that basically go like this:

A: "Hey, do you mind if I play with these minis that aren't really on the standard bases? I think they look better this way."

B: "Oh, umm... well, I'm not sure. I'm a bit concerned by how we handle situation X and/or Y with those bases because it seems like this might create some issues or result in some imbalance in gameplay?"

A: "Nah, the rulebook says its fine and from many years of playing Armageddon, in practice it doesn't really matter. It shouldn't be an issue."

B: "Oh... yeah... I suppose you're right, I guess. Its fine. Anyway, roll off for deployment?"

That last bit - its very rarely actually the case that the person thinks you're right or thinks its fine. I've been on both ends of that conversation over the years, especially in my younger years I was very much "A" in this conversation and I was content in my ignorance, only to later discover I had developed a reputation as being a cheater who modeled for advantage because my opponents were always "fine" with the seemingly minor allowances I asked for with my poorhammer kitbashes of kits I couldn't afford that were all invariably either larger or smaller than what they should have been. Likewise I have been the "B" in this conversation many times over the past 20+ years who agrees to let my opponent use a questionable mini or follow a house rule or what-have-you which I don't personally really agree with or want to deal with, but still want to be a good sport and not ruin someone elses fun - more often than not its inconsequential but I've still had my share of games that left a bad taste in my mouth because that allowance ended up creating or contributing to conditions that resulted in disagreements or conflict or game outcomes that seemed unfair and out of line with what would have happened had I declined/we played more strictly by the book. Likewise I have witnessed many many many instances where my friends were person "B" in their own games, only for conversations on the drive home to turn to "I'm never playing that guy again" or complaints about how they felt cheated or how they wished they hadn't agreed to whatever it was because it made the game more complicated, etc. and likewise some of the "A"s in their own stories developed their own reputations as serial cheats and as guys who sought to bend the rules or gain unfair advantages via getting opponents to agree to house rules or give allowances for things, etc.

At the end of the day we are all just nerds trying to unwind and destress by playing with our toy soldiers and throwing click-clack magic math stones around on the table. Nobody wants to start a fight and ruin their own evening by picking a fight over something relatively small and minor but still sense to be some shade of vaguely unfair or inconvenient for them, nor do they want to risk doing that to their opponents either when its not clear that its even a hill worth dying on. We are playing these games because we deal with that kind of gak at work or at school or at home and these games are our escape, and nobody wants to introduce that same tension into the environment and community they go to for that escape. Unfortunately, that means that there is a lot of stuff that flies as acceptable or "not a big deal", when the opposite is true, because personal feelings go unspoken and grievances go unaddressed.

Really, my point is, I guess, that choosing (and it is a choice, if we were discussing epic minis you already owned, this would be a different conversation - while I would not necessarily enjoy the idea of playing against someones old epic army with my LI minis, I would be reluctant to refuse the game to someone who has had their army built and painted for 20-30 years and is understandably reluctant to rebase them for a new ruleset) to use non-standard basing on a whim introduces unnecessary variables and potential friction points into the game, and those variables and friction points affect not only you but also your opponent - so why subject yourself and them to it and create conditions that could lead to decreased enjoyment of the game for all parties involved?

keep in mind many people will be using the based supplied with the minis, which will be 40x10 or 20x20 rectangles and squares.

the whole thing falls under "don't extract the urine" at which point essentially the problem goes away

if some even organiser wants a stipulation of 25mm round bases thats up to them, otherwise just enjoy the game is my take on it

All perfectly valid points there.. I'll be honest I'll withdraw myself from the conversation at this point as even reading that has taken minutes of my life that I won't get back - and I'm sorry that you felt so strongly about it to have to spent all of that time writing it!
I've played against someone in WHFB using movement trays instead of the miniatures themselves and it didn't upset me, I guess we each have a different level of tolerance for these things.

But, I honestly think it's making *way* more of a deal out of this than it deserves to be - like you say, perhaps GW should have grown some balls and pissed off the 5% of people (including myself) who will be playing the new game with their old collection and insisted on supplied bases, or else just said "you can base your miniatures in X, Y or Z" rather than that muffled half-rule, which has now caused a discussion on Dakka to get well into page 2.

I feel like 2 pages on dakka is a low bar to cross...

Funny how chaos hasn't commented on how he's clearly cheating with vehicle rotation

tneva82 wrote:
Funny how chaos hasn't commented on how he's clearly cheating with vehicle rotation

not quite how I read what he wrote.

consider this, take an imaginary vehicle, this has a movement of 10", and the model is 2" long and 1" wide. this model starts facing the north edge of the board. there is an identical vehicle, also facing north with the two 20" apart, edge to edge, thus 21" apart centre to centre.

the first one rotates 90 degrees, without moving, the centres are still 21" apart, but the vehicles are now 19.5" apart due to the rotation

its more of an issue in 40k due to the size of the vehicles relative to their movement, in LI you are gaining something like up to half an inch, perhaps slightly more for something like a Baneblade.

its not cheating in the least, you pick a point on your vehicle, and measure from that point for movement, but you rotate around the centre - even if you pick the centre if the thing is a rectangle part of it goes further when it turns - basic geometry.

not easy to have a "simple" way around it without all measurement being to and from the centre of all models, which brings its own issues, or having rules about travelling in lines and having limited turning (as with earlier editions), which works but has its own issues

but with very careful movement, against a static enemy, it is possible to move to be "just outside" weapons range, then turn to be "just inside", its a bit of an edge case really

tneva82 wrote:
Funny how chaos hasn't commented on how he's clearly cheating with vehicle rotation

because I'm not. Its not something I do, its something that I've caught many of my opponents doing over the years though.

Technically speaking, your previous argument that its against the rules isn't really true - there are various ways in which you can get away with it legally. Doesn't make it feel any less gamey though.

Since you always measure longest distance there's no advantage to be gained period.

So trying to claim rectangld bases allow that is just flat out lying. Want to redact your claim or admit publicly you are liar?

It's no different to just moving longer than allowed. Shape of base/model irrelevant.

rules don't state measure the longest distance, they are not that tightly written

they probably should say that, but they don't. you have diagrams on measuring from the edge of a model, nothing about turning with rectangular models

tneva82 wrote:
Since you always measure longest distance there's no advantage to be gained period.

So trying to claim rectangld bases allow that is just flat out lying. Want to redact your claim or admit publicly you are liar?

It's no different to just moving longer than allowed. Shape of base/model irrelevant.

Im not gonna redact gak, because I'm not lying about anything.

The old trick my opponents used to pull in older editions of 40k was to start the game with their rhinos or whatever positioned on the edge of the deployment zone, move them sideways towards the opponent. Vehicles had a free pivot which allowed you to rotate your model around its center, and suddenly you might have picked up 3 extra inches on your move. If you were an Eldar player you could take it even further with their starjet engines or whatever the upgrade was which allowed them to move again in the shooting phase or assault phase or whatever it was after you used your free pivot to pick up that extra distance.

As I said, there were many ways around whatever rule there was about measuring the furthest distance, all 100% legal. I never did that because I always thought it was against the spirit of the rules and always felt it was "probably" cheating even if it seemed kosher by RAW, but I certainly knew plenty of others who did.

Even still, the current rules about measuring along the furthest path of travel are vaguely worded and almost never properly followed for anything that has something other than a circular base. When moving vehicles or oval bases, what that actually means is often not immediately intuitive to players and they don't actually measure it correctly at all. ESPECIALLY with rectangular shapes like vehicles which execute a turn during their move to drive around an obstacle. Players usually clip their turns and thus move further than they actually should, as they don't treat the model as actually "moving through the turn" and instead break the move into 2 segments - the first segment is straight ahead, and the second segment is at the desired angle relative to the terrain and other models, etc. In reality, the point that moves furthest along its path of travel moves farther than that 2 segment move implies, as it has to "sweep" or "pan" as the vehicle rotates during its move - similar to wheeling in the old WHFB ruleset. That step is almost never done. I've even seen top-tier world class players do this incorrectly live on stream, and nobody says a word about it because, again, its not intuitive or obvious that they are doing something incorrectly and its accepted convention in the community.

note again, as mentioned before, given the size of the vehicles this effect is remarkably small and not really something to be overly worries about

its not a set of rules written that tightly

Yes, but I think at this point tneva is tilting at windmills and trying to not only impugn my integrity but also cross-referencing rules from multiple games.

for Legions Imperialis, Movement is on page 49, notes you move up to your move characteristic, can turn as often as you like and end facing any direction you like. thats basically it.

nothing on wheeling, turning while moving, just a note that some units, specifically calls out titans as an example, are different.

there is nothing about measuring from which point to which point when moving

its a simple set of rules

in 40k it can be significant, because gaining 3" say on a 48" wide board with a 24" no mans land in more than 10" of the no mans land width

here you are gaining maybe half an inch, I doubt the designers even thought about it

seems to be a few rules points some people are getting a tad hung up on, curious hills to die on generally but there you go

thanks for the summary on that. I don't really agree that half an inch is insignificant though - that can add up over a couple turns to a unit potentially being 3-4" further than it otherwise should have been. If its really that loose, and you're being a sly bastard, you can also get an extra 1.5" out of the movement per turn by setting the pivot point to be one short end of the 40x10mm base, and pivoting around that point to maximize the length of the swing when you rotate it 90 degrees. In that case you basically pick up a full 40mm of length on your move.

maybe, though I have to say in the games I've played I don't think I've yet used the full movement allowance of anything. Movement is usually dictated by terrain hopping or weapons ranges

and anyone trying the "pivot from a corner" bit gets their name on ze list

I've gotta agree with chaos here entirely, and man the long bases are incredibly broken for LI. This is a game where combat might be a single base from either player's detachments actually engaging in the combat because it's that contextual. And as mentioned reach is on like 2 weapons so far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I dunno seems like crablezworth is trying to turn it into a competition game

It can get there it just needs a bit of fleshing out, we agree it won't get there if people feel entitled to do whatever they want because they finished painting an army 25 years ago for a different game

though the rules do specifically cover that, you get no benefit from 40x10 bases as they are resolved as if on 25mm rounds and get paired up accordingly

there is actually a dead easy way to deal with this as well, get some 25mm round MDF bases, when a unit charges, or is about to be charged, sit the 40x10 on said bases or just use the bases

job done, can stick the models back for any pictures desired.

also works with 20x20 square bases

if an event organiser wants to mandate 25mm round only thats entirely up to them if they feel it won't hurt attendance.

its got quite a lot to sort to make the rules tight enough to make an event flow smoothly, trouble will be getting people to agree to them

starting with a 100% overhaul of the points system

good luck, you will need it

leopard wrote:
though the rules do specifically cover that, you get no benefit from 40x10 bases as they are resolved as if on 25mm rounds and get paired up accordingly

there is actually a dead easy way to deal with this as well, get some 25mm round MDF bases, when a unit charges, or is about to be charged, sit the 40x10 on said bases or just use the bases

job done, can stick the models back for any pictures desired.

also works with 20x20 square bases

if an event organiser wants to mandate 25mm round only thats entirely up to them if they feel it won't hurt attendance.

its got quite a lot to sort to make the rules tight enough to make an event flow smoothly, trouble will be getting people to agree to them

starting with a 100% overhaul of the points system

good luck, you will need it

You're right, the rules specifically do cover that, it's not the base the li models came with, by definiton, they shouldn't be on them. What I find daft is your response to physical reality here this "how could that be possible if you're following the pretending dudes in a sraight line are standing in star pattern method I made up in my mind" where does that meet the practical reality of playing with something that takes up an entirely different amount of space, physically especially in the context of vastly different unit sizes and paring off? Each models is taking up 40mm of space to the other's 25, are you pretending they can magically overlap now as well? GW not wanting to be the bad guy and this gak actually working aren't the same thing. And this doesn't work, at all, it's massively advantageous to the 40x10's.

Here's the reason for the snark, math, 40mm x 16 bases is over 25 inches end to end and that's with them touching, add coherency to that. Now do that with 25mm bases, it's just shy of 16 inches, almost 10 inches difference for the same number of models, now add coherency in a game where infantry can be quite strong against other units when in cc. Also in a game where killing models may grant a future unit's activation the ability to break a line, why do special snowflakes get to take up way more space than people actually using the bases their models came with for a game that came out this year not several decades ago?

Oh but here's the best reason, you also for some reason get to fit between any gap that accommodates 10mm, something none of the bases on 25mm can physically do.

if a player brings 40x10 and finds they now take up more space on the board, are harder to move, and harder to shoot round thats their problem, the only time it really impacts the enemy is in melee

and as for movement, again its quite clear, they are considered to be on a 25mm round base so no they won't fit through a gap a model on a 25mm base won't

ditto for coherency, they are treated as if on 25mm so you don't get to daisy chain any longer - though you are daft to even try, all the enemy has to do is focus to kill a few in the middle - making them the only ones who can be hit, and the detachment is forced onto advance orders the next turn

there is zero advantage to 40x10, and a few disadvantages specifically because for all rules purposes they count as a 25mm circle

if you are playing the rules tightly enough this is a problem, yet somehow not playing the rules tight enough to treat as on a 25mm base its probably with a discussion with those you are playing with if its actually causing problems.

i.e. play it and see how much of an actual issue it is or is not before overly worrying about it. failing that blu-tac a 25mm round base under, all measurement to and from that

also half of mine on the 25mm round are not in a star pattern either, but more of a circle

leopard wrote:
if a player brings 40x10 and finds they now take up more space on the board, are harder to move, and harder to shoot round thats their problem, the only time it really impacts the enemy is in melee

and as for movement, again its quite clear, they are considered to be on a 25mm round base so no they won't fit through a gap a model on a 25mm base won't

ditto for coherency, they are treated as if on 25mm so you don't get to daisy chain any longer - though you are daft to even try, all the enemy has to do is focus to kill a few in the middle - making them the only ones who can be hit, and the detachment is forced onto advance orders the next turn

there is zero advantage to 40x10, and a few disadvantages specifically because for all rules purposes they count as a 25mm circle

if you are playing the rules tightly enough this is a problem, yet somehow not playing the rules tight enough to treat as on a 25mm base its probably with a discussion with those you are playing with if its actually causing problems.

i.e. play it and see how much of an actual issue it is or is not before overly worrying about it. failing that blu-tac a 25mm round base under, all measurement to and from that

also half of mine on the 25mm round are not in a star pattern either, but more of a circle

Or players could just not insist on using the wrong bases from a qarter century ago.

would also note, with you apparently in Canada and me in the dampness that is the UK we are unlikely to actually game against each other - however I, personally, wouldn't have an issue gaming against someone who wanted just 8mm scale and just 25mm round for infantry - any more than I'd have a problem with an older generation of models

but if you ran an event, and I entered it, I'd be following the rules in the event pack

key point is not to get too stressed about it, and keep the "letter of the law as I wrote it" for more formal structured events

Ya chaos really summed it up properly.

The book tells us that the rules are designed for the bases in the LI boxes, as in, the stuff being sold for LI, not stuff from back in the day for epic armegddon or whatever. It also says if you don't use these bases, then the onus is completely on you to get permission from your opponent and to cross reference base sizes constantly through the game to make sure it's still being played as intended. They're very much telling people who divergently base their models to be prepared to do a lot of accommodating and cooperation in return for deciding not to follow the intended rules.

The social contract part is pretty important. No one likes getting house rules sprung on them mid game, no one likes making mistakes because you forgot about opponents counts as units are something way more dangerous, and people don't like playing "pretend different base size" let alone shape. The base thing I've seen very recently in 40k when people go to measure to hull on a repulsor/elder skimmer, but they're actually out of range because they have a base that needs to be measured to instead; it's hard to see because the tank hangs low and it's frustrating for people to make that mistake. Or dozer blades/def rolas back in 5th edition, when you were told to measure hull for charges but they had objects sticking out another 2-3" that interacted with stuff. Square/rectangle basing pretending to be a circle is even worse, because the proper base isn't even there underneath. Melee gets super messy on how much space models are actually taking up, where charging models end up, and how much base to base actually gets established. It's alright not to want have to deal with the hyper positions and constantly reminding yourself of actual footprint/measurements and checking in with your opponent. There's also a very real phenomenon of getting pushback from people who have divergently modeled/based stuff when you try and interact with it properly, especially in critical moments, and it's also alright not to want to have to take that gamble.

This is why the rules tell you that you need to be given permission to use divergent basing. You're not following the social contract that allows for a minimum of problems, and it's a privilege to be given that leeway. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to react to the conversation on basing with entitlement; how different games had different rules, how only donkey-caves and people they wouldn't play wouldnt give the consent and all the rest.

I feel bad for people with legacy armies for different systems who don't want to go through the rebasing slog. But the sympathy dries up fast when it gets spun to only jerks having a problem with the old bases, as if people painting entire collections from the LI range aren't also...building and painting en masse.

And there's no sympathy to people who just want to throw whatever bases on new models. Vehicles on bases, thunderhawks on 100mms, mixing every shape of base in one the most obvious no no moves. Could have just followed the basing rules, not had to get permission, and then not treat the approving side as the bad guy.

leopard wrote:
would also note, with you apparently in Canada and me in the dampness that is the UK we are unlikely to actually game against each other - however I, personally, wouldn't have an issue gaming against someone who wanted just 8mm scale and just 25mm round for infantry - any more than I'd have a problem with an older generation of models

but if you ran an event, and I entered it, I'd be following the rules in the event pack

key point is not to get too stressed about it, and keep the "letter of the law as I wrote it" for more formal structured events

Yeah it's that it's not happening in isolation, there's the additional issue of people wanting to put tanks on bases they never came with, which doesn't work given your example of holding a base up because there never was one to begin with, Add to that the people already foaming at the mouth to run super friends mega marine lists to abuse formations, and finally the cohort of "how dare you ask me to choose one of 18 legions to paint my space marines, I'll just make one up so I can run any legion rules on a whim, aren't I a genius?" crowd.

So its going to be fun tempering expectations for events in terms of strong standards.

 Crablezworth wrote:

leopard wrote:
if a player brings 40x10 and finds they now take up more space on the board, are harder to move, and harder to shoot round thats their problem, the only time it really impacts the enemy is in melee

and as for movement, again its quite clear, they are considered to be on a 25mm round base so no they won't fit through a gap a model on a 25mm base won't

ditto for coherency, they are treated as if on 25mm so you don't get to daisy chain any longer - though you are daft to even try, all the enemy has to do is focus to kill a few in the middle - making them the only ones who can be hit, and the detachment is forced onto advance orders the next turn

there is zero advantage to 40x10, and a few disadvantages specifically because for all rules purposes they count as a 25mm circle

if you are playing the rules tightly enough this is a problem, yet somehow not playing the rules tight enough to treat as on a 25mm base its probably with a discussion with those you are playing with if its actually causing problems.

i.e. play it and see how much of an actual issue it is or is not before overly worrying about it. failing that blu-tac a 25mm round base under, all measurement to and from that

also half of mine on the 25mm round are not in a star pattern either, but more of a circle

Or players could just not insist on using the wrong bases from a qarter century.

given from what I have seen quite a few are using older models because the new ones are quite hard to get hold of currently using older models that either date back decades (I wish I still had the huge Guard army I once had), or ones bought much more recently from anyone of the companies making them in this scale as more or less whats allowing the game to actually be played.

It may well boil down to armies being updated over time simply because the new models are actually quite nice, when they are available.

maybe players are happy using models they have and are happy to get a game without overly worrying on "insisting" upon anything?

same as I don't care what GW write in their books, my fantasy goblins are on 20x20 square bases, the Skaven I have run in AoS are likewise on 20x20 square and my 40k orcs are on 25mm round - thats what they came with, are based on, bases painted and textured, hence I use them.

I take it upon myself not to gain advantages from doing so, and wouldn't try to impose them on anyone who didn't want a game, I'd play something else


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

leopard wrote:
would also note, with you apparently in Canada and me in the dampness that is the UK we are unlikely to actually game against each other - however I, personally, wouldn't have an issue gaming against someone who wanted just 8mm scale and just 25mm round for infantry - any more than I'd have a problem with an older generation of models

but if you ran an event, and I entered it, I'd be following the rules in the event pack

key point is not to get too stressed about it, and keep the "letter of the law as I wrote it" for more formal structured events

Yeah it's that it's not happening in isolation, there's the additional issue of people wanting to put tanks on bases they never came with, which doesn't work given your example of holding a base up because there never was one to begin with, Add to that the people already foaming at the mouth to run super friends mega marine lists to abuse formations, and finally the cohort of "how dare you ask me to choose one of 18 legions to paint my space marines, I'll just make one up so I can run any legion rules on a whim, aren't I a genius" crowd.

So its going to be fun tempering expectations for events in terms of strong standards.

tanks on bases is extremely easy to deal with, measure to and from the model, not the base, the base may help with transport, it may look nice and it may well be somewhere to stick unit markings but its very easy to ignore for measurement, and then its also not hard to say "if you put it on a base you are not overlapping bases", which is likely not an issue either if any effort has gone into the base, all they have really done is make their formations unable to be as small as they otherwise could physically.

not seen anyone locally painting in lurid colours to play min/max matching, though I dare say it will happen, such is life sadly - ditto people mixing as many formations as they can for various benefits - though from actual games I've played small formations don't accomplish much so the legion rules need to be really good to avoid it being a points sink

won't stop people trying of course, some people can't see a rule without trying to break it for advantage, or such as yourself, without trying to break it to then find a way to stop it being broken - which is no bad thing to at least think about, especially if the cure is easy

I do think at the moment though, given the game has not long been out, its worth having a bit more flexibility - specifically because people with odd bases, with superfreinds lists are going to either bring out actual issues that are worth addressing, or are going to show it doesn't actually matter all that much - will vary case by case

A line in a book telling me to just pretend any shape fits any hole isn't a solution, and to pretend it doesn't represent a problem is just not the reality, the physical reality.







Flexibility is something I don't have, I get people are just painting/building their stuff now over the holidays but I feel like my painting commitment on two armies now has been less than 10 hours over like a month, I can be patient and maybe get a game or two in while someone's army is a work in progress but it doesn't take very long to paint 1000pts, feels like building is the longer part. But its already annoying to deal with partially painted stuff, it limits, drastically, the quality and enjoyment of the images and image taking of a game.

if its an issue just talk to potential opponents, likely can be resolved easily, and as noted if an event pack says "25mm round or go home" thats that really

I suspect over time it will be less of a problem anyway, given some of the newer models are likely notably different in size

I suspect this is also why GW didn't release Land Raiders in the first wave, people have them, people could just use them, not that many had Sicarans

I've also found that for photographs its usually way better to restage them and make better pics - though I know what you mean for the visuals, but for a pic I'd want all the tokens, dice, tapes etc out of shot as well

so far only played with painted stuff, on painted up terrain and the game is visually very nice

leopard wrote:


I've also found that for photographs its usually way better to restage them and make better pics - though I know what you mean for the visuals, but for a pic I'd want all the tokens, dice, tapes etc out of shot as well

so far only played with painted stuff, on painted up terrain and the game is visually very nice

Yeah it's a damn good looking game so far. Agreed on trying to get shots without order tokens/wound counters ect.

I like the look of the round bases, but it sometimes looks to full expescialy the terminators and with the strips i didnt have that feeling.
On the point of some bases have an advantage the sollution is easy do al rmeasurements from the center of the base, so moving, charging and shooting.
And your problem is solved

Do think terminators may work better with four to a base, purely so you can actually see them