Switch Theme:

What Grinds My Gears: Why aren't Aircrafts on a 100mm Round Base?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





For a unit whose movement depends on being able to pivot in place, it's rather odd that aircrafts are sold with 120mmx92mm oval bases.

The nominal area of 120mmx92mm oval base measures 13.44 in^2 (8,670 mm^2), whose nominal circumference measures 13.43" (344 mm). Then, the radii of circles whose area/circumference is most equivalent would be 52.5mm and 53.5mm, respectively, resulting in 105~107mm round bases.

As it would be highly uneconomical to devise a new base size to tackle this issue, let's find the closest available substitute. The nominal area of 100mm round base measures 12.17 in^2 (7,853 mm^2), whose nominal circumference measures 12.37" (314mm).

We then have a difference of 1.27 in^2 (~area of one 32mm base) in area and 0.86" in circumference.

Given, the difference seems negligible enough, but YMMV.

Then, why exactly are aircrafts on oval base, and is it enough to keep them on oval bases despite how the rules have evolved?
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Never thought about it but you actually have a really good point. I'd prefer my aircraft to be on round bases now.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






because those didnt exist in 6th ed.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





 the_scotsman wrote:
because those didnt exist in 6th ed.
Well, yes, but neither did pivot.

25mm bases used to be 25mm. Now they are 32mm.
Bike bases used to be 70mmx25mm pill shape. Now they are 75mmx42mm ovals.
HWT & sentinels used to come on flat 60mm bases. They now have official bases to match the aesthetics with rest of the 40k line.

GW never not changed bases before. I don't see an issue of re-releasing the kits with "proper" bases.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

I'd assume that oval bases imply directionality and thus are subjectively more 'sleek' than round bases, and given GW's 'models first' policy, the rules teams have to make do with what the designers provide rather than the designers picking base sizes that fit the game rules.
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 catbarf wrote:
I'd assume that oval bases imply directionality and thus are subjectively more 'sleek' than round bases, and given GW's 'models first' policy, the rules teams have to make do with what the designers provide rather than the designers picking base sizes that fit the game rules.


Mostly this, I suspect.
Plus, 40k is almost aggressively indifferent to base sizes. They're are unapologetically a lot of them, and consistency isn't a factor.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in au
Anti-Armour Swiss Guard






Newcastle, OZ

The oval also allows you more longitude with positioning to counter the inevitable bad mass distribution of the model.


I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.

That is not dead which can eternal lie ...

... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

40k bases are never assigned based on gameplay, they're based on what designers want.

The move to 32mm bases was explicitly so that the models fit better on the bases and designers had more room for posing.
Even that wasn't enough and they've stepped some of the characters up to 40mm (eg lieutenants)!

'Flyers' have been around since at least 5th edition (when I started), when they were just Fast Skimmers.

The base fits the profile of the models more than circle does (since aircraft tend to be elongated), it also provides better stability longitudinally which is useful given the squiffy centre of balance on the models.

I think it's firstly clear the designers never even *consider* what it's like to play a game with a model, lol. Look at Celestine for example!
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 skchsan wrote:
For a unit whose movement depends on being able to pivot in place, it's rather odd that aircrafts are sold with 120mmx92mm oval bases.

The nominal area of 120mmx92mm oval base measures 13.44 in^2 (8,670 mm^2), whose nominal circumference measures 13.43" (344 mm). Then, the radii of circles whose area/circumference is most equivalent would be 52.5mm and 53.5mm, respectively, resulting in 105~107mm round bases.

As it would be highly uneconomical to devise a new base size to tackle this issue, let's find the closest available substitute. The nominal area of 100mm round base measures 12.17 in^2 (7,853 mm^2), whose nominal circumference measures 12.37" (314mm).

We then have a difference of 1.27 in^2 (~area of one 32mm base) in area and 0.86" in circumference.

Given, the difference seems negligible enough, but YMMV.

Then, why exactly are aircrafts on oval base, and is it enough to keep them on oval bases despite how the rules have evolved?

I think it's perfectly fine that inferior aircraft are forced to fly in a straight line at their bottom bracket
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

 chromedog wrote:
The oval also allows you more longitude with positioning to counter the inevitable bad mass distribution of the model.



This. If you glue the acrylic flight stand in the middle of a round base, some models would likely tip over, because the center of gravity is somewhere else.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/05 07:48:12


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




RAW, you can put your aircraft on round bases (or square bases, or triangle bases, or whatever).

Just do it.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

This. Put it on a round base if you want.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander






London

I agree that it's likely to be for stability reasons. However, just stick it on a round base if you want, can't imagine anyone kicking off about it.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

More important than the shape of the base is what forward means - in a game where there's no set facings.
I know what's intended, but in a game where your left sponson can fire out the right hand side of your tank, without that tank ever having to be moved....
If basic concepts of Left & Right don't apply why should I honor a non-defined term like "forward"?
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





ccs wrote:
More important than the shape of the base is what forward means - in a game where there's no set facings.
I know what's intended, but in a game where your left sponson can fire out the right hand side of your tank, without that tank ever having to be moved....
If basic concepts of Left & Right don't apply why should I honor a non-defined term like "forward"?
I think the point is that for aircrafts, it's not just about the absolute distance they moved, but their path of travel is just as important. This distinction is important when determining which units it moved across for purpose of resolving many of the bombing run type of abilities.

Also, if you don't restrict how many times an aircraft can 'turn', then you can always claim "it moved forward 10", then backwards 10", with net movement of 20" but with displacement of 0"," which defeats the purpose of having a minimum move to begin with.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/05 16:36:36


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 skchsan wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
because those didnt exist in 6th ed.
Well, yes, but neither did pivot.

25mm bases used to be 25mm. Now they are 32mm.
Bike bases used to be 70mmx25mm pill shape. Now they are 75mmx42mm ovals.
HWT & sentinels used to come on flat 60mm bases. They now have official bases to match the aesthetics with rest of the 40k line.

GW never not changed bases before. I don't see an issue of re-releasing the kits with "proper" bases.



Actually pivoting has been a thing for a long time it wasn't until recently that they removed pivoting on all vehicles.

But I agree I would like them to be on round bases.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/05 18:15:57


15k+
3k
Emperor's Spears 2k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 skchsan wrote:
ccs wrote:
More important than the shape of the base is what forward means - in a game where there's no set facings.
I know what's intended, but in a game where your left sponson can fire out the right hand side of your tank, without that tank ever having to be moved....
If basic concepts of Left & Right don't apply why should I honor a non-defined term like "forward"?


I think the point is that for aircrafts, it's not just about the absolute distance they moved, but their path of travel is just as important. This distinction is important when determining which units it moved across for purpose of resolving many of the bombing run type of abilities.


As I stated, I KNOW what they mean.


 skchsan wrote:
Also, if you don't restrict how many times an aircraft can 'turn', then you can always claim "it moved forward 10", then backwards 10", with net movement of 20" but with displacement of 0"," which defeats the purpose of having a minimum move to begin with.


You're reading waaay more into what I said than what is there.
I have no problem picking one direction within a 90 degree arc & moving in a straight line from there at least x inches. But there are no facings in this edition. So rules wise, what is "forward"?
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





I don't think its a matter of determining which way is "forward."

I've witnessed countless occasions where players pivot aircrafts at their center, then measured out their distance and allows the aircraft to move up to additional 28mm. It's not significant, especially due to how engagement ranges work with aircrafts, and that you can always house rule to compensate for that, but it's always something that bothered me as I played this game.
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




I have no problem picking one direction within a 90 degree arc & moving in a straight line from there at least x inches. But there are no facings in this edition. So rules wise, what is "forward"?

The direction of movement.

If you have no problem with picking one direction in 90 degrees and moving in a straight line, the forward part seems... obvious.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/05 18:16:26


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

Voss wrote:
I have no problem picking one direction within a 90 degree arc & moving in a straight line from there at least x inches. But there are no facings in this edition. So rules wise, what is "forward"?

The direction of movement.

If you have no problem with picking one direction in 90 degrees and moving in a straight line, the forward part seems... obvious.


Really?
Wich way is forward on this model, as defined by the rules. It's not determined by wich way the hard mounted guns are pointing..... it's not in the assembly instructions. It's not denoted on the base/model. Nor in the rulebook.
But let's say it flew in the direction its guns are pointing on turn 1.
Now rotate it 90d.
Let's say that if it moved in the direction its guns are pointing this time it'd fly off the board.
Since "Forward" is not a defined game mechanic as there are no facings in this game, what would be wrong with simply moving it the required x inches in the direction of its tail this time? The requirements have been met: (optional) Turn up to 90d, (required) Move at least x inches in a straight line.

Other than the fact that in real life that is the very definition of moving the model backwards....
[Thumb - 99120101152_AdeptusAstartesStormHawkInterceptor03.jpg]

[Thumb - 99120101152_AdeptusAstartesStormHawkInterceptor04.jpg]

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/05 19:16:31


 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 skchsan wrote:
I don't think its a matter of determining which way is "forward."

I've witnessed countless occasions where players pivot aircrafts at their center, then measured out their distance and allows the aircraft to move up to additional 28mm. It's not significant, especially due to how engagement ranges work with aircrafts, and that you can always house rule to compensate for that, but it's always something that bothered me as I played this game.


Ah. The pivot explicitly doesn't count as part of movement, at least in the 9th edition books with supersonic rule. There isn't any actual need to compensate for it.


@ccs- you've lost me. Flying off the board isn't a problem- that's accounted for- the aircraft goes into strategic reserves and comes back on in a later turn. 40k also isn't written in strict game terms- you know what forward means. Pretending otherwise so you can be 'confused' by the rules is disingenuous.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster




"Since "Forward" is not a defined game mechanic as there are no facings in this game, what would be wrong with simply moving it the required x inches in the direction of its tail this time? The requirements have been met: (optional) Turn up to 90d, (required) Move at least x inches in a straight line."

If you have to work THAT hard to "prove" the rule can be abused, maybe you & I aren't playing the same game.
   
Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

Star Wars Legion uses round bases for aircraft


40k, AI & BFG: / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / MCP: X-Force, X-Men, Brotherhood of Mutants, Avengers

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





Voss wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
I don't think its a matter of determining which way is "forward."

I've witnessed countless occasions where players pivot aircrafts at their center, then measured out their distance and allows the aircraft to move up to additional 28mm. It's not significant, especially due to how engagement ranges work with aircrafts, and that you can always house rule to compensate for that, but it's always something that bothered me as I played this game.


Ah. The pivot explicitly doesn't count as part of movement, at least in the 9th edition books with supersonic rule. There isn't any actual need to compensate for it.
Right, but we also have other rules like "no part of the base/hull of the model can move further than its maximum M" and other movement related nuances.

Aircrafts essentially get up to 0.5" of free movement every time it pivots. And, if it does ever move its max M, then technically, the model was displaced beyond its max M.

When aircraft is completely surrounded, because you can't physically pivot it (since it'll move the models surrounding it), you have the imagine the pivot then draw a line from two points, one of which happens to be imaginary. SO you have to take a measurement to and from something that actually can't be measured. At that point, why bother with rulers and other objective measuring tools in the first place? On top of that, aircrafts essentially being visible from any point in the battlefield (due to its non-interaction with terrain), and the fact that guns that can cause any significant amount of damage to aircrafts are +24", we can actually play with the aircraft not actually placed on the battlefield and just imagine it was there and it still wouldn't make a real difference - house rule it so that turn 1, only guns with +24" can shoot at an aircraft, turn 2+, all guns can shoot at an aircraft - and that's what grinds my gears.

Aircraft models/units doesn't actually use/follow the ruleset - it's simply exception after exception followed by exemptions then restrictions on other units interacting with it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

I think the Custodes FW aircraft come on 120mm round bases.
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

Wasn’t the Valkyrie the first flyer model back from 5th? I’d wager the oval base was chosen for stability of that model, and they blindly just chose the same setup for the rest.

BTW, on the Heldrake, I’ve mounted my son’s sideways (wings are parallel to the wide part of the oval) based on pictures I’ve seen elsewhere.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/06 19:51:42


It never ends well 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: