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.

 Da Boss wrote:
It would be possible to write the rules in such a way as to make base size unimportant, but doing so would remove some of the micro-posiitoning tactics that I think people generally like.

I would be fine with it being a bit more abstract and allowing everyone to fight everyone in melee or something like that. There are games that work like that.

But I am not gonna be rebasing my stuff. If I really, really want to play 40K again I will blue tac my dudes onto 32mm flat renedra bases.

Well . . .

1: Is micro-positioning really that fun for most players?
and
2: Does the base size affect it enough to be worth mandating it?

I certainly don't think it's fun, most of the time. I also think micro-shenanigans can still be had without a mandatory base size, depending on how the rules are set up.

I do not enjoy that sort of stuff in a mass battle game. It can be fun in a skirmish game. But once you have multiple squads, I do not want to be worrying about individual model placement.

I'd contend that most players don't really enjoy micro-positioning or its weird side effects (eg tripointing) either, but some latch onto it as a demonstrator of game knowledge, and mistake the ability to follow a checklist (space models appropriately, don't move into base to base when you pile in, etc) for game skill. Apocalypse gets rid of per-model positioning entirely and it doesn't lose anything of value.

Don't worry about that sound, just grinding my axe...

As an agent of Chaos, I am fine with whatever base and don't really want to see a standardizing of bases in GW games. They aren't exacting enough to be that concerned over, and unless someone skews big one way or the other the advantages/disadvantages usually wash out in the end anyways.

Plus, I have a both a 40k and an AoS army that has units that run at least two different base sizes by default. One of which has differing bases of only 3mm in diameter.

As for the micro-managing of melee, by far the worst element of AoS for me as it can turn a relatively straight forward game in to a technical mess. And it can't be avoided as melee fighting is still the bread-and-butter of the system. It is still pretty annoying in 40k, but since melee isn't at the same scale that it is in AoS, it is less of an issue to me. Definitely put me on the 'not a fan' side.