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.

Ive really liked the model to model measuring in my games but I know many still prefer the base to base method like it is in 40k.

Now the group I play with doesnt have any "modeling for advantage" type players but many of them still like the base to base thing as it can make the game seem to flow smoother,,they probably have a good point there.

But heres why I like model to model.I like that some of my sculpts (both old and new) have their weapons in various poses,for example my Bretonnian Knights have about half their models with the lances up in the air while the others are out front in charge position.Due to this I usually try to get the ones with them out front to pile in after the other models so they can place the lance in between the horses of the front rank.This works much the same with spearmen.

Model to model also allows those on larger bases like Stormcast and WoC to turn their bodies so that their outstretched or raised weapon arms could possibly fit in between models that are already in base contact.This makes for more interesting gameplay as well I think.

Now I don't under either system think that base stacking should be allowed and in our group its a house rule that no one even considers arguing with.

Overall I don't mind base to base but I think it takes a little bit away from the flavor of AoS.

I prefer base to base. Weapon ranges are incorporated into the rules already, and model to model assumes weirdly static models that in a hobby heavy with customization and conversions can get silly fast.

I agree about liking the weapon range aspect of the game, though. Using units with long ranges behind units with short ranges is a pretty neat combat mechanic.

Model to model is silly, we do base to base. We had a situation where none of my Empire swordsman could attack a Bloodthirster because he was in the centre of an oval base, nothing was modeled for advantage, it was modeled exactly the same as the studio model.

Also, you cant just "turn their bodies" when you feel like it. movement rules state that no part of the model can move more than its movement value, so you cant move, then rotate so that their weapon is closer to the enemy as part would be moving more then their move value. Model to model feels really static and rigid, the models represent a warrior that is twisting, spinning and dodging in melee, not standing there like a statue. The base represents the same that the model would occupy (similar to the 1inch square DnD mechanic).

I believe the model to model is a temporary rule until AoS has been out long enough to allow for more people to rebase without making it compulsory straight off the bat.

Nerm86 wrote:
Model to model is silly, we do base to base. We had a situation where none of my Empire swordsman could attack a Bloodthirster because he was in the centre of an oval base, nothing was modeled for advantage, it was modeled exactly the same as the studio model.

Also, you cant just "turn their bodies" when you feel like it. movement rules state that no part of the model can move more than its movement value, so you cant move, then rotate so that their weapon is closer to the enemy as part would be moving more then their move value. Model to model feels really static and rigid, the models represent a warrior that is twisting, spinning and dodging in melee, not standing there like a statue. The base represents the same that the model would occupy (similar to the 1inch square DnD mechanic).

I believe the model to model is a temporary rule until AoS has been out long enough to allow for more people to rebase without making it compulsory straight off the bat.

Indeed,the rule regardless of how you do it is no part of any model/base can move more than the movement allowance...the "turning" I was referring to was being done within those guidelines.My main point with this is how,using the second rank of models with swords(1"range) can still get in between the models(and not bases that are together)in front of them.Not unrealistic at all but yes, more time consuming and can be "fiddly" ..just takes getting used to

My games are usually only 30 models max so I can see this getting annoying with larger model counts.

The end result is all the same,,its just that M-M is not nearly as fast to do as B-B.

We use model-to-model and haven't had any issues - everything evens out in the end. Haven't seen anyone at the Warhammer World events even suggest base-to-base either.

Just to muddy the waters, I have played some games model-to-base ;-)

Usually it's fine to play model to model, but you have cases of flying models being unreachable and it becomes silly, so we usually play base-to-base or model-to-base.

I also think this is just a temporary rule.

We measure base to base as it always was. Makes more sense and is much fairer. No arguments there.