PDA

View Full Version : Bases not counting causing some confusion - AOS



Grontik
29-07-2015, 22:32
So here is the question ... If the base of a model doesn't matter except to keep the model standing then when moving for Pile In what is to stop you from moving a models base on top of another models base to get as close to the other model as possible? Looking for thoughts on this so any feedback is appreciated.

mrknify
29-07-2015, 22:35
So here is the question ... If the base of a model doesn't matter except to keep the model standing then when moving for Pile In what is to stop you from moving a models base on top of another models base to get as close to the other model as possible? Looking for thoughts on this so any feedback is appreciated.
Your supposed to measure from the miniature, if a base is in the way put the attacker on top of it. That rule is mainly for larger bases with empty space. I would just use center base for any 20 mm troops, and if they are touching base they are good.

Grontik
29-07-2015, 23:53
Bases are not part of the model and don't count for measurement ... What allows for you to move a base on top of another and where do you draw the line? What stops people from squishing as many models as possible into combats to gain that extra advantage?

mhsellwood
30-07-2015, 04:35
Bases are not part of the model and don't count for measurement ... What allows for you to move a base on top of another and where do you draw the line? What stops people from squishing as many models as possible into combats to gain that extra advantage?

What allows you to move onto the base is that the rules tell you to ignore it for all purposes - the only restriction then on movement is that you cannot move over another model. What stops people squishing in models to gain an advantage? Nothing, but you should be doing that anyway. The only difference here is that you can ignore the base per the rules as written and have models physically next to each other rather than just making sure everybody is in base to base and mobbed up.

I prefer to just play that all measurements are taken from the base as I like nice bases and I don't want miniatures placed physically on them. This though is mainly an aesthetic thing and the rules as written are perfectly clear and playable.

Grontik
30-07-2015, 16:23
"A model’s base isn’t considered part of the model – it’s just there to help the model stand up – so don’t include it when measuring distances. " That is the only time bases are mentioned and it is in reference to measurements with the throw away line of just there to help the model stand up. My problem with it is that you then have to infer, from that sentence fragment, that you are now free to do something that has never been possible in Warhammer in the many years I have been playing it. I understand what you guys are saying from the RAW perspective and this game is changing how everything before it was done but it runs counter to how I think the game is supposed to be played so seems more of a RAI thing to me. I am totally on board with the rare exception requiring an overlap so that large models can get their licks in when they would otherwise not be able to (and vice versa for models attacking them) but when you start allowing all infantry to bunch up in a big nasty mess then it just doesn't feel right to me.

Maybe I am being overly sensitive about my models ... but I will say in the few batreps I have watched I have not seen anyone attempt the overlap so wasn't sure if I was missing something.

swordofglass
30-07-2015, 18:34
You aren't missing anything. You can houserule it to say no overlapping. The rules say to ignore bases, so they can overlap.

Horus38
30-07-2015, 20:06
...but when you start allowing all infantry to bunch up in a big nasty mess then it just doesn't feel right to me.

You measure from the model which includes any weapons/extremities/bits sticking off. Most of the time these parts are going to be reaching the edge of the base or extend out even further, so I'm not seeing how you're piling infantry on top of each other beyond ranking them up.

Choombatta
30-07-2015, 21:09
You measure from the model which includes any weapons/extremities/bits sticking off. Most of the time these parts are going to be reaching the edge of the base or extend out even further, so I'm not seeing how you're piling infantry on top of each other beyond ranking them up.

Some monstrous infantry, when placed base to base, have more than a 1" gap between the models.
This mainly will only occur on larger square or rectangular bases.

Horus38
30-07-2015, 21:19
Some monstrous infantry, when placed base to base, have more than a 1" gap between the models.
This mainly will only occur on larger square or rectangular bases.

Indeed. I was agreeing with mrknify who already pointed out "That rule is mainly for larger bases with empty space."

Mateobard
30-07-2015, 21:57
Yep - base stacking is how you have to get close enough to hit a model now. So, I hope your scenic bases are pretty rugged.

Grontik
30-07-2015, 22:03
As an example of the problem as I see it ... 5 flagellants (20mm) in a row with their flails swinging above their heads would allow the second rank to move up on their bases and then yet another rank to get up on their bases. Whereas I normally had two ranks that can reach 1" successfully, I now have three ranks that can reach. Imagine how that looks but perfectly legal and I just think it introduces an element that will cause friction. I don't think infantry and cavalry should be able to overlap unless they are trying to target large base models.

theunwantedbeing
30-07-2015, 22:29
As an example of the problem as I see it ... 5 flagellants (20mm) in a row with their flails swinging above their heads would allow the second rank to move up on their bases and then yet another rank to get up on their bases. Whereas I normally had two ranks that can reach 1" successfully, I now have three ranks that can reach. Imagine how that looks but perfectly legal and I just think it introduces an element that will cause friction. I don't think infantry and cavalry should be able to overlap unless they are trying to target large base models.

All that you're noticing here is the difference in having a "no overlapping bases" rule and the actual rules.
Having models with long weapons allows the same overlapping effect.

Grontik
31-07-2015, 00:05
All that you're noticing here is the difference in having a "no overlapping bases" rule and the actual rules.
Having models with long weapons allows the same overlapping effect.

Well yes and no ... I would not have thought to overlap had not my friend first done it in our game this last weekend. My response was "Ummm ... dude ... what is that you're .. doing .. ?" but after he pointed to the rule I grudgingly went along with it and even did the aforementioned move with my flaggies to see what I could get away with. I wasn't sure how that rule was being interpreted by others which is why I watched some batreps to find out but I may have missed the house ruling on overlapping. I like to think I'm not the only one who would not have thought to overlap but then again I can miss the obvious at times. I just keep picturing people playing pick up games at a store and one of them going "Ummm ... dude .. ?"

minionboy
31-07-2015, 15:16
Yep - base stacking is how you have to get close enough to hit a model now. So, I hope your scenic bases are pretty rugged.

And this is why my friends and I just measure from bases. Saves for a lot of ambiguity and doesn't promote converting your models to be in ridiculous poses. It also makes it so there is no modeling for advantage if you decided to give your guy an extra long sword or something. Finally, the measuring from model thing was clearly there to make square base old farts not feel pressured to change their bases so they wouldn't have that to complain about.

The best thing about AoS is that (most) people are pretty accepting of house rules and common sense like this.

Buddy Bear
01-08-2015, 05:44
The best thing about it, in your mind, is the recognition by its most ardent supporters that the game is borked to a certain extent and they have to go in with the mindset that something about it needs to be fixed for it to become playable? That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Grontik
01-08-2015, 17:06
House rules don't necessarily mean that the rules as presented are broken or bad. I don't happen to like how they implemented this but I do appreciate the effort to simplify the game so I can live with it. Thanks for all the responses as it helped me come to terms 😊

Geep
01-08-2015, 18:55
I watched a fair few youtube battle reports to see what AoS was like to play. It struck me that everyone is very, very loose with the rules (which is somewhat impressive, given how loose the rules already are). I have never seen anyone measure model-to-model for unit coherency and have almost never seen it done for charge distances. I've only seen the 'measure to a sticking out weapon' done when a model was grossly over-extended by said weapon. I have never seen anyone enforce the fact that spinning a model around takes up movement- especially when they have a sticking out weapon.

In short, it seems the done thing to simply fudge all movement, weapon ranges, etc. and not care.

theunwantedbeing
01-08-2015, 19:24
In short, it seems the done thing to simply fudge all movement, weapon ranges, etc. and not care.

....exactly like what happens in 40k.