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.

Hello again.
Sunday I played my second game. My friend played his Death army against my Bonesplittaz in a 1000 point game. He usually runs events and is our local TO most of the time. We played "bases" for combat, he says a lot of other people play it that way. Later this got me wondering about chompas vs Savage Stikkas. With my models on 32MM bases to get two"ranks" worth of fighters in combat my models had to set staggered, the second row of models staggered up to the first row, who were in base to base. His models were Skeleton Swords men. A unit of 20 strong on 25MM bases.
In the end his unit won out destroying my 10 Savages.
I don't want to overthink this.
I'm wondering. Are larger bases at a disadvantage? Should I choose a low/lower to wound roll over longer range? ( in close combat)
I'd like to read your thoughts on this.
Thanks for reading!

Larger bases are at a disadvantage in pile ins but have better area coverage for buffs and objectives

 warhead01 wrote:
Hello again.
Sunday I played my second game. My friend played his Death army against my Bonesplittaz in a 1000 point game. He usually runs events and is our local TO most of the time. We played "bases" for combat, he says a lot of other people play it that way. Later this got me wondering about chompas vs Savage Stikkas. With my models on 32MM bases to get two"ranks" worth of fighters in combat my models had to set staggered, the second row of models staggered up to the first row, who were in base to base. His models were Skeleton Swords men. A unit of 20 strong on 25MM bases.
In the end his unit won out destroying my 10 Savages.
I don't want to overthink this.
I'm wondering. Are larger bases at a disadvantage? Should I choose a low/lower to wound roll over longer range? ( in close combat)
I'd like to read your thoughts on this.
Thanks for reading!

They are indeed at a disadvantage. for example, with 24mm bases (old ones) you could, technically, get two ranks with 1'' weapons, 3 with 2'' weapons. It also let's you pile in more models too. Now, there's some weapons that determinate their attack profile based on the number of models within range, but in my experience they are a very clear minority that people don't generally take.

Now, as for supporting characters, you'd prefer bigger bases. Mawkrusha boses offer twice the bubble of effect, despite only having 6'' more inches in ability range-because the base is that bigger.

Larger bases are generally at a disadvantage. In this case its worth noting that 20 skeletons costs significantly more points than 10 savages, so the former should be winning out.

Thank you all for the replies so far.

The smaller bases seem to be quite the large advantage.
I agree, the 20 should, beat the 10. They did in the end. I couldn't deal enough damage consistently. They were also buffed so they were simply murderous!

Any thoughts about the second part of my question?
Which would you value more ? A low/lower to wound roll or more weapons range for more attacks?
Am I over thinking it?
if anything I think my units were armed backwards. I first built 20 with savage Stikkas (spears) and 10 with chompas ( hand weapons) Looking at how the units gain bonuses for size and the reach of the spears. Maybe it would have been better the other way around. making the spears a supporting unit fighting from behind the chompa unit?

I was wondering if anyones tried layering their units for combat.
I played game three on Sunday, my friend brought out his Ironjaws. I set up my Savage boys with chompar and then right behind them my Savage boys with Stikkas. ( they have 2" reach)
I was thinking about adding another layer with big stabbas to add their 3" reach to the set up. I already know the Ironjaws will run over and get stuck in to chop me up. This should let me engage with 3 of my own units on the turn contact is made.
In our game his front units made combat on his first turn. they move so fast this is all I can think to do to stop them.
I did deploy my Arrow boys far enough forward that they, of course, we also charged and locked in.
I'm thinking about using the set up I mentioned above and deploying the Arrow boys behind them, making my forward units the only thing to charge.
Our game was only 1000 points.
Has anyone done anything like I have described? how did it work for you?

I do this all the time with the Bleakswords and Blackguard. Bleakswords get a nice shield to defend with but have mediocre damage output. Blackguard have good damage and rending (which Dark Elves/Exiles sorely lack) with a 2" range. It's a great defensive build and the only way it would be better is if I had Dreadspears in the front instead.

Now here's the down side, attacking. If I want to charge a unit and keep my defensive setup I need to roll really good, as high as possible, for both units. After my shield wall charges in I need to leave room for one model from my Blackguard to successfully charge. If my Blackguard fail their charge I basically just threw my shield wall into the meat grinder with no support. If the Blackguard do make the charge I risk losing models in the first round of combat because the one model is directly engaged.

This all assumes the enemy unit only has a 1" range of course.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
I do this all the time with the Bleakswords and Blackguard. Bleakswords get a nice shield to defend with but have mediocre damage output. Blackguard have good damage and rending (which Dark Elves/Exiles sorely lack) with a 2" range. It's a great defensive build and the only way it would be better is if I had Dreadspears in the front instead.

Now here's the down side, attacking. If I want to charge a unit and keep my defensive setup I need to roll really good, as high as possible, for both units. After my shield wall charges in I need to leave room for one model from my Blackguard to successfully charge. If my Blackguard fail their charge I basically just threw my shield wall into the meat grinder with no support. If the Blackguard do make the charge I risk losing models in the first round of combat because the one model is directly engaged.

This all assumes the enemy unit only has a 1" range of course.

Thank you for the reply!

I was thinking about this as defensive, My friends Ironjaws being so fast and aggressive, I expect to be charged.
I hadn't thought I'd be charging until his first wave had been killed or he decided to back off his survivors. Something like that.
The only other part to this I am thinking about now is 2 units in the front instead of one. But one larger unit, kept fearless would be more reliable I guess.
My reasoning for 2 small units is/was to force his models to divide their attacks so they couldn't overwhelm my one front unit. It might be better to just have the one large unit and mystic shield it up.
But so far we're keeping to 1000 point games so this sets limits to just what will be on the field.

Thanks again for the reply!