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.

My question is as simple as the subject. It would seem to me that if it were considered part of the model for measurements it would just make things easier.

Per the rules it is not.

But I think a lot of people house rule it to measure off/too bases, that is how I play it as well, and think its much less of a headache.

Most groups do house rule to measure from the base for that very reason. However, RAW the base is not part of the model.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Most groups do house rule to measure from the base for that very reason. However, RAW the base is not part of the model.

When we house-ruled this at the FLGS for my first demo game, the 40k players complained that having to make house rules like that was why AoS was something they'd never play.
The loudest complainer then took out his Tau and explained to his opponent that his stuff wasn't WYSIWYG but they played any way

I find it simplest and least confrontational to measure base to base but the rules do state model to model. Either way you chose is up to you and its never a bad idea to just ask your opponent how they would like to measure. Most will easily agree with base to base.

As for measuring model to model, I dont find it to make that much of a difference anyways.

I understand that the rules state model to model, but the base is glued to the model itself, couldn't it be considered actually part of the model in that case? Thus the question. Maybe I am totally missing it, but I don't see anything that actually rules out measuring to the base.

I am mainly asking because I read the other thread about people piling on to bases to reach the model, something that seems totally insane to me from a modeling perspective.

Direct quote from the rules:

A model’s base isn’t considered part of the model – it’s just there to help the model stand up – so don’t include it when measuring distances.

Man, I missed that, thank you. I guess that settles it.

Yeah, it's actually fairly clear RAW. It's just an awful idea that leads to conclusions like piling on bases.

I put too much work into basing to agree to piling on bases.