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.

Yep, which makes its melee attack very useless lol.

Although I've never played against a bloodthirster, I have heard it falls into the same trap due to the way it's so central on its base.

I wouldn't argue that's intentional.

Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

Remember that you're measuring from the model, not the base of the model. Bases are just there to hold things in place.

The fact that model-to-model measurement essentially requires you to walk on models bases, potentially damaging the basing, and making a confusing mess of everything if the model whose base you're standing on subsequently moves, is why literally every place I've played AoS counts bases as part of the models, in direct contradiction to the rules as written.

Even as a person who kind of likes age of sigmar, I have to admit that its handling of bases is beyond dumb and terrible.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
Agreed, I think?
As for orbiting in base contact, my take is the wording " may move up to 3" toward'.
So our group we play that base contact 'locks' position, as it's not possible to move any more 'toward' than already being in base contact, so you aren't eligible to move at all.

Edit. With the exception that if you are playing absolute vanilla, orbiting the enemy model may allow you to decrease the distance between the two models, even if the bases are already touching.

2nd edit - and if you are playing so that you can overlap bases, can I have the number of your medical insurer?

I can see the point that since the game in theory depends on millimetre accurate placement of models, the issue of orbiting is potentially crucial. Still, it's not like the electron shell probability cloud type of unit movement, and it works equally for both sides, so I don't it's unfair to let people orbit. The purpose of piling in is to allow the player to get more figures into contact. Why follow an interpretation of a rule that reduces that?

Once a unit is within 3" of another unit, the owning player's involvement comes down to 1 of 3 choices. Pile in, don't pile in, or retreat. They also get to pick the order of movement, but there's no 'freedom' involved beyond that.
If you play base to base contact 'locks' combatants, then the order you remove casualties becomes important because you can block/redirect attackers.
How you break that 3" bubble becomes very important- it raises the stakes.
Charges that 'just and just' make it with a single model still do the job, but from that point on how the combat unfolds isn't really in your control any more.
You start getting closer, hoping that you get that fabled 10, 11 or 12 that will allow your whole unit to surround the opposition on 3 sides, and then allow the pile-in mechanic to 'collapse' your unit in on your opponent's, ensuring you get maximum damage output whilst simultaneously cutting off retreat options and reducing their damage output by trapping models behind their allies.
But while you're edging closer in great strides hoping for that 'overshoot' charge roll, your opponent may well be happy with a 'just and just'...

I'm not suggesting that was the overall intent or it's some genius piece of game design, but the base-lock interpretation of pile-ins makes the move and charge phase a lot more complicated than just 'run and hit'.

Yes, I also prefer base to base counting as "locked" - but if you're playing model-to-model measuring, I have just realised base orbiting would be legal in RAW in 99.9% of cases, why?

Because you could orbit around the enemy base and also pivot your model so that the part of the model which came closest to the edge of its base (or in the cases of a model that over hangs; the part which over hangs the furthest distance) is now pointing directly towards the model you are in base contact with. This should mean that he model is now closer to the enemy due to the pivoting which would mean the model has moved towards the closest enemy model (and incidentally also orbited round).

Hope I explained that clearly.

Another rule I dislike is that fact that units with save '-' cannot receive any benefit for being in cover.

The idea of sitting on bases to get into touch, or whatever, is a player adaptation to the limitation of the rules and the limitations of the legacy army bases.

If people find their bloodthirsters are too high up to hit anyone, they might think of lowering the pylon of the base.

...or just houseruling base-to-base measuring :-)

THE GOOD
- Simplicity
- Fast paced
- Scenario driven
- Fantastic models

THE BAD
- Measuring from the model
- Internet designed points systems (e.g. Azyr Comp, SDK, etc.)

THE UGLY
- Every piece of terrain having a randomly generated ability
- Summoning
- Shooting into/out of combat

I have found AoS to play much slower than WHFB especially as the number of scrolls rack up. the game is pretty tedious. speed is definately not a strong point after a certain amount (6 per side) of scrolls.

 oni wrote:
THE GOOD
- Simplicity
- Fast paced
- Scenario driven
- Fantastic models

THE BAD
- Measuring from the model
- Internet designed points systems (e.g. Azyr Comp, SDK, etc.)

THE UGLY
- Every piece of terrain having a randomly generated ability
- Summoning
- Shooting into/out of combat

Pretty much this. Though I would add the lack of points costs to the "THE BAD" section.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

It's hard enough keeping my bases looking good without people standing on them, and that's usually just flock & tufts. I could see some people crying if models were put on their scratchbuild bases.

Herzlos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

It's hard enough keeping my bases looking good without people standing on them, and that's usually just flock & tufts. I could see some people crying if models were put on their scratchbuild bases.

Definitely agreed. Even on a battlefield, invasion of personal space is just rude.

Hm. IMHO, the main trouble with AoS rules aren't really the rules themselves - it's the long term planning and lack of visibility.

4 pages of rules are indeed quite easy to remember. Not so much if you have a whole page of special rules for each unit of your army...and the one of your opponent as well. That was also a problem in 40k or Battle, and they just repeated it with AoS.

I also don't feel the game isn't that much different - you still play your whole turn, you still have each side fighting in each close combat phase, you still have that old ritual to roll to Hit - to Wound - to Save (while the last ones are mainly the same things), you still roll dice for the sake of rolling dice "because it's fun in itself".

Basically, it's making new with old recipes. A few things here and there change, but that's it.

What hurts AoS the most is we players don't really know where GW wants to go with this game. They started to change a bit, showing more previews and trying to edit some compendiums - and that's a nice thing to do, still IMHO.

But then, we still wonder...when will the other factions come?

Oh yes, I would never let anyone place a model on my base, and even if I did, imagine having 15 models on a bloodthirster base and then the chaos player decides to retreat out of combat... Gives me a headache just thinking about it!

 Bottle wrote:
Oh yes, I would never let anyone place a model on my base, and even if I did, imagine having 15 models on a bloodthirster base and then the chaos player decides to retreat out of combat... Gives me a headache just thinking about it!

Some players wouldn't mind. Others may as well use transparent bases without any paint of flocking on it - or even a much thinner base like for historical miniatures.

But then, since each playing group will use their own home rules, it will be harder to play on a common ground. I think that's why there aren't that many "tournaments" for AoS - too much work to make all people agree on the same terms.

That was always the problem since the very beginning, to me. I feel GW didn't understand that in AoS game designing, and it can become quite a hindrance.

But otherwise, AoS is a great game to play with your circle of friends.

Historical games usually work by base to base contact along the edges,, not jumping on to the other base.

I have always felt this feature of AoS is a temporary thing until all legacy armies will have been upgraded to standard round bases.

All of the bigger / officialish events tend to have a score for army appearance / painting, so I can't see plain bases going down very well, especially among the "fluffy" players, in a game that's focused around centrepiece models.

Herzlos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

It's hard enough keeping my bases looking good without people standing on them, and that's usually just flock & tufts. I could see some people crying if models were put on their scratchbuild bases.

Then don't put models on bases 3-4x the size they should be on.

We had issues, locally, where people were using older models like the old Bloodthirster on the same size base as the new plastic Bloodthirster. There's so much wasted space if you do so--which is why that rule has started to get used.

I'm tempted to make a large monster like a Trygon -- I've got a spare kit somewhere -- and for laughs put a 2mm wargame on the base.

The problem is, by RAW walking on bases is totally a thing. The rules tell you to measure everything from the model and that the base only exists to hold the model. At no point is the concept of bases blocking each other present. It's incredibly awful.

It's also a rule that plenty of people will be happy to ignore.

The several times I played against people that absolutely want to play RAW with direct measurement to models, we have a piece of paper to write down how many miniatures move into an opposing model's base so that we don't ruin the paint and base.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

It's hard enough keeping my bases looking good without people standing on them, and that's usually just flock & tufts. I could see some people crying if models were put on their scratchbuild bases.

Then don't put models on bases 3-4x the size they should be on.

We had issues, locally, where people were using older models like the old Bloodthirster on the same size base as the new plastic Bloodthirster. There's so much wasted space if you do so--which is why that rule has started to get used.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Just standardize bases to what the model originally came with or currently comes with.

akai wrote:The several times I played against people that absolutely want to play RAW with direct measurement to models, we have a piece of paper to write down how many miniatures move into an opposing model's base so that we don't ruin the paint and base.

That sounds awful.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's also a rule that plenty of people will be happy to ignore.

People ignoring bad rules means the rules are bad, not that it is ok.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, that's why we play it as you can move onto something's base if there is enough room.

It's hard enough keeping my bases looking good without people standing on them, and that's usually just flock & tufts. I could see some people crying if models were put on their scratchbuild bases.

Then don't put models on bases 3-4x the size they should be on.

We had issues, locally, where people were using older models like the old Bloodthirster on the same size base as the new plastic Bloodthirster. There's so much wasted space if you do so--which is why that rule has started to get used.

I've only ever put stuff on the official base (or a slightly larger lipped round (like, +5mm) if the base size doesn't matter). This isn't a problem caused by modelling for advantage, it's a problem caused by poorly considered rules.

Plus, some of my resin bases cost more than the mini's on them (but again, as per the original spec). I'm looking at you, metal Malifaux bases.

 jonolikespie wrote:

akai wrote:The several times I played against people that absolutely want to play RAW with direct measurement to models, we have a piece of paper to write down how many miniatures move into an opposing model's base so that we don't ruin the paint and base.

That sounds awful.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's also a rule that plenty of people will be happy to ignore.

People ignoring bad rules means the rules are bad, not that it is ok.

I don't think that matters if people have a good time playing the game.

Not at all, but we're discussing the rules quality, and people ignoring rules implies they find them bad in some way.

I think we're all in agreement you can have fun with something that's technically poor (like 80's action movies or Sharknado).

Herzlos wrote:
Not at all, but we're discussing the rules quality, and people ignoring rules implies they find them bad in some way.
.

In a creative hobby?

Umm, no. Just... no.

Can you give me an example of a rule you find objectively good, yet choose to ignore?

Herzlos wrote:
Can you give me an example of a rule you find objectively good, yet choose to ignore?

In AoS specifically?

Awakening Sylvaneth in the Rotwater Blight Time of War sheet. Nothing wrong with it, I just tend to have all the trees on the table already.

Umm...

Battalions tend to get used only on special occasions.

Ah, got a good one! Terrain! Almost never use the scenery table in the core rules, preferring instead to use specific Warscrolls. Again, nothing wrong with it (and it gets pulled out now and again), just prefer other options. Do a similar thing in WHFB, actually - a lot of people round here religiously roll up random terrain, whereas I prefer placing stuff and _maybe_ using a special rule for it.