Poll |
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2018/07/17 20:57:30
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Battlefield Tourist
|
My students bought me a Start Collecting Lizardmen box as a present for running Dungeons and Dragons for them all year. I am looking forward to assembling it, but I have one problem with the kit - 32mm bases.
I just think they are too big, and look silly on miniatures that were originally designed for 25mm. My Plaguebearers are the same way. I am thinking of rebasing them on 25mm for two reasons.
1) I think it looks better
2) If I want to use them in KoW as proxies, 25mm is easier to "rank up" in a way that follows the rules for unit minimums.
I might want to play with them for AoS at some point as well though - Lizardmen were my first Fantasy army and I do have a soft spot for them. Do you think people would have a problem with the rebasing? As I understand it, I would gain a small mechanical advantage for pile in moves and so on with the smaller bases. It is not really my intention to do so. I could make "extenders" to bring them up to the right size for game play, which would probably look a bit ugly but would solve the problem. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/17 21:11:06
Subject: Re:Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun
|
I'm sure that, given how recent the introduction of the 32mm standard is, only tournaments are going to have an issue.
With weapons like spears in 10-man squads and such, the effect of a tighter pile-in is going to be marginal.
They're designed for 25mm, they've been on 25mm for years. People will appreciate that fact.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 21:11:19
|
|
|
|
2018/07/17 21:34:35
Subject: Re:Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Buddingsquaw wrote:I'm sure that, given how recent the introduction of the 32mm standard is, only tournaments are going to have an issue.
With weapons like spears in 10-man squads and such, the effect of a tighter pile-in is going to be marginal.
They're designed for 25mm, they've been on 25mm for years. People will appreciate that fact.
They were designed for 25mm bases because the 32mm base didn't exist.
I, personally, would highly suggest using the 32mm bases instead of 25s. You might not have an issue--but GW has now issued a 'basing guide' for Matched Play there are some who might take umbrage with it and while the extra Pile Ins might not really affect Spear armed Saurus(they still get to make an attack with their jaws and stardrake shield at 1" range, mind you)--it does open up the ability for you to do a bit of extra care and attention on the base. It also balances their damned tails out a bit better than the 25s ever did.
|
|
|
|
2018/07/17 21:55:06
Subject: Re:Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Snivelling Workbot
|
I'd like to note that switching to the 25mm bases has more than just an aesthetic effect. 25mm is just under an inch and effectively allows you to fight in two ranks with the clubs or three ranks with the spears. This has the potential to greatly increase damage output. Especially on a force that already benefits from being defensive (making it easier to retain tight formations).
|
|
|
|
2018/07/17 22:03:00
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos
|
Just for good measure, it would be a good idea to cut out some 32mm circles of cardboard to place under the bases in situations where the base size matters (piling in and such).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 22:03:15
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
|
|
|
|
2018/07/17 22:45:28
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Clousseau
|
I use what the models come with. Period.
|
|
|
|
2018/07/17 23:22:41
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Dakka Veteran
Seattle, WA USA
|
Same here, at least with respect to size. I may swap in some non-clear bases for flyers (because I can't stand those stupid clear plastic disks), but I'll get something the same size to replace with. Or if I happen to do some kind of resin scenic base or whatever, it will still be the size the model came with.
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 05:55:12
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Does the different size grant an advantage?
If yes, then I do have a problem with it.
If no -or reasonable efforts are made to negate that advantage- then I do not have a problem with it.
25mm is much stronger than 32mm because you can easily get two 'ranks' into combat and generally speaking put a lot more offensive power into a smaller area; this increases the units durability as less enemies can get into melee range and also increases it's offensive abilities against targets that have a smaller footprint as more models from your unit can get into range.
I have experience with a number of different units both before and after base size changes (plaguebearers being the most notable) and I can say from experience that the benefit to smaller bases on rank-and-file infantry is significant.
This is not to say that smaller bases cannot be adjusted for in a casual setting by spacing them out but one can understand why tournaments will simply require the appropriate size in order to avoid basing-for-advantage. And it will happen otherwise. I would know; during early GHB1 days I built a tournament army that I specifically put on square bases instead of rounds because they would have a smaller footprint and thus perform better. But it was more than that; I did so less for the advantage but more because I did not want to be at a disadvantage against other players who did so (bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, I know).
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
|
|
2018/07/18 07:13:56
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Battlefield Tourist
|
Seems like "base extenders" might be needed then. Pretty stupid of GW to change the base size like that and then make it gameplay relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 07:17:36
Subject: Re:Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
I'd advise to go with the bigger bases. Saurus warriors are pretty unstable on their old 25mm bases and tend to fall forward (atleast mine do).
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 07:37:24
Subject: Re:Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Experienced Maneater
|
The new rules require you to either have the current correct base size or measure like you had the current correct base size.
Meaning: if you put them on 25mm, you can't put them base to base, as you need to add the 3.5mm to the diameter.
This makes the game more complicated. Besides, most stuff is more stable on the 32mm base and it just looks better.
Skeletons, humans, skinks, etc. are fine on 25mm, because they are small. Neither Plaguebearers, nor Bloodletters or Saurus Warriors are small.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 07:38:43
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Battlefield Tourist
|
I do not agree that it looks better, I think it looks goofy.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 09:00:31
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Utilizing Careful Highlighting
|
A bigger base keeps all their tails and weapons from tangling together, and gives you a canvas to make some good looking bases. The only reason to stick with 25mm is for playing 8th edition and ranking them up.
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 09:29:42
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Battlefield Tourist
|
Or for use in games like Kings of War, or Dungeons and Dragons where 1 inch grids are commonly used for medium sized miniatures.
There are a plethora of reasons to stick wth 25mm, aside from it being the industry standard, so I do not really understand why GW went for these bigger bases. I suppose it helps with the scale creep in their model ranges.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 09:32:44
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
UK
|
I would say just decorate the base up with more detail so that the whole model and base detail fills the base size itself more so. That might get around the visual aspects you've got right now.
I agree with the others that, where possible, its best to use the current proper base size since that provides the closest measure toward balance that the game has. Otherwise you are gaining in the game through the base choice and whilst "legacy models on old bases" are still allowed; its clear that most people would prefer things to be done right in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 09:37:00
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Battlefield Tourist
|
Yeah I can see that. I don't want to gain mechanical advantage. I will probably make some 32mm "spacers" to sit my guys on if I use them in AoS. It is easier to make a base bigger that way than smaller.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 09:46:35
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Scouting Shade
|
I would have an issue with it, not on older models, but on new models, for sure.
Mostly that is because, while I'm not a rules lawyer, I like to follow the rules and guidelines, so all my models are based on legally-sized round bases. I would expect the same from my opponent.
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 10:34:38
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Battlefield Tourist
|
It was pretty predictable that this would happen as AoS moved forward. It is still pretty nasty to people who have the old squares, as eventually this attitude will creep to not accepting them either.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 11:15:16
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Eventualy there will be a time where requirments are that models cannot be mounted on a base that is smaller then what was included in the box.
Same thing goes for square bases, either rebase or get round base plugs.
GW might be all including and not caring for now seeing as a big portion of the square base fantasy armys are still around, but they wont be in the future.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/18 11:16:29
darkswordminiatures.com
gamersgrass.com
Collects: Wild West Exodus, SW Armada/Legion. Adeptus Titanicus, Dust1947. |
|
|
|
2018/07/18 11:51:33
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Clousseau
|
Guys... the rules do not mandate that you use their basing guidelines. They are guidelines. Even in the basing guidelines GW states you can use whatever you want.
There is no such thing as "legal base size" in Age of Sigmar because there are no rules forcing you to change base size.
Tournaments may have a requirement for base sizing to follow the guidelines, but tournaments are not all of the game or all of the community.
GW might be all including and not caring for now seeing as a big portion of the square base fantasy armys are still around, but they wont be in the future.
This argument / debate has raged since 2003 or so and GW still hasn't enforced you to move to a certain base size so I don't highly that they are going to suddenly enforce bases after 15 years of having the rule "use whatever base your model came with"
People may WANT there to be a base enforcement, but GW the entity will not be doing so. It will be tournaments and certain communities that do so and that has been the reality for the past 15 years when chaos terminators came out on bigger bases, moving to 25mm rounds from 20mm rounds.
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 12:05:36
Subject: Re:Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Experienced Maneater
|
From the Basing Guide:
[...] you can use bases of whatever size or shape you prefer.
The only possible exception to this is matched play games.
As Matched Play is pretty much the default play style, you either rebase or you can measure like they have the correct base size.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 12:18:05
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Clousseau
|
Fortunately for me none of my games are pure matched play so this will never be an issue.
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 12:24:12
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Experienced Maneater
|
auticus wrote:Fortunately for me none of my games are pure matched play so this will never be an issue.
Fair enough.
But saying it's only for tournaments and therefore a minority of players is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 12:39:32
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Clousseau
|
Pure matched play also does not require the basing size. The only real REQUIREMENT are events that enforce it. Which are tournaments.
Games down at the store will depend on the individuals involved and whether or not they are preparing for a tournament.
We have about eighteen players here and only three of them care about base size (all three only play tournaments or tournament prep). THe other fifteen don't care either way. And other than the narrative events that I hold, they all only play matched play.
Based on the polls I've seen the people that care about bases are right now in the minority.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/18 12:40:12
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 12:42:51
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Experienced Maneater
|
auticus wrote:Pure matched play also does not require the basing size.
Yes, it does.
I quoted the part for you and you can read up on it yourself.
You either have the current correct base size, or you measure like they would have the current correct base size.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 13:03:07
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Clousseau
|
Key word being
The Only POSSIBLE exception to this.
I've read the article. Its not mandated in matched play. Its a recommendation. If it were a requirement the above would say "the only exception to this is in matched play" which would clearly state that in matched play it is not optional but mandatory.
I've also read the tweets and the developers commentary as well as the facebook page's replies on this matter and they all have said unequivocally that it is in no way shape or form REQUIRED in any game unless an event enforces it as such.
In fact the most common question in this regard is "in matched play is this required" and the answer has always been "no, but events can enforce it if they wish"
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/18 13:09:09
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 13:21:10
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
UK
|
In general GW has written most of the rules in a "do this if you want but if you don't want to you don't "have" to manner". Thing is when it comes to matched play any "you don't have to" basically translates to "you don't have to but chances are you will have to to get any games/appear at a tournament/be fair to your opponent".
So yes its a guideline, but if you don't follow it don't be surprised if people complain/refuse games or don't let you compete. It's also a LOT easier to measure to actual bases than it is to try and measure to "where the base should be".
In general base size does matter, it does form part of the game, it does affect the balance so where possible one should use the proper base size. GW has even helped a lot by releasing a document with the base sizes listed out (accepting that not only are there legacy models but also a slew of changes that might have messed up what comes in the box with what the base size should be since GW can't recall their entire stock from every distribution area and independent store and every second hand ebay seller et c....)
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 13:29:39
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Experienced Maneater
|
auticus wrote:Key word being
The Only POSSIBLE exception to this.
I've read the article. Its not mandated in matched play. Its a recommendation. If it were a requirement the above would say "the only exception to this is in matched play" which would clearly state that in matched play it is not optional but mandatory.
I've also read the tweets and the developers commentary as well as the facebook page's replies on this matter and they all have said unequivocally that it is in no way shape or form REQUIRED in any game unless an event enforces it as such.
In fact the most common question in this regard is "in matched play is this required" and the answer has always been "no, but events can enforce it if they wish"
That "possible" really is up for interpretation.
GW's translators have used it synonymous with "only" (at least in German and French, no idea about the others).
Haven't looked up the Facebook posts you mentioned, because while useful, they are not a rules instance (they even say it themselves all the time).
Let's add this to the list of "official FAQ/Errata needed".
|
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 13:43:01
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Clousseau
|
Yeah, considering how often this seems to come up I agree it should be in the faq very succinctly and explicitly.
|
|
|
|
2018/07/18 14:04:57
Subject: Basing - how likely are people to complain about nonstandard basing?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
UK
|
Honestly I think GW just doesn't want to say its mandatory in order to avoid the backlash from fans who have models on old square or even previous smaller base sizes. I think they are partly just hoping that the issue goes away until such time as the dominant active market is all on modern base sizes and as such it won't matter.
From a gaming perspective clearly base size influences gameplay and balance. Either rebasing or putting a smaller base atop a token or larger base is clearly required for fair play.
|
|
|
|
|
|