PDA

View Full Version : Creatures of the Chaos Wastes base sizes?



Getifa Ubazza
30-09-2015, 18:45
Was looking at this boxed set and thought it looked like an OK deal, but would like to put the models on the correct bases for AoS. I know I can use the square bases, but I want to put them on round\oval ones.

So what base size do you recommend for Dragon Ogres, Spawn, a Slaughtbrute and a Giant?

I am aware that bases no longer matter, but would still like to put them on bases that make the most sense for the model. I may also house rule that measuring is from the base and not from the model, but don't want to base for advantage \ disadvantage.

Thanks and sorry if this is in the wrong forum.

I'm thinking I should have put this thread in M, P&T General. :rolleyes:

Ayin
01-10-2015, 00:20
The smallest base that will hold the model up, or no base at all, allowing the model the best freedom of movement and allowing other models to be moved around it closely and easily. Form some specific models, those with three points of contact, individual infantry round bases on each point would work great.

Khastarax
01-10-2015, 14:38
Since bases are no longer part of the game, what looks aesthetically pleasing to you...

Vulgarsty
03-10-2015, 18:04
I would urge you to reconsider round basing - if you are only ever going use minis for AoS - then fine (although as you realise aos couldn't care less about bases). However is aoS going to be supported going forward? GW have already demonstrated to customers their return commitment to customers who invested in their ecosystem is zero by squatting WFB. I think AoS has a life expectancy measured in skavenslaves (- much like we used to measure imperfect yet curiously lamented and useful points on this board)

If you rand base you will cut yourself off from a world of other fantasy gaming where square basing and weird tactical afterthoughts (just like every general in history practically) like - flank attacks and maneuvering, for example still count for something.

Aezeal
04-10-2015, 10:28
I would urge you to reconsider round basing - if you are only ever going use minis for AoS - then fine (although as you realise aos couldn't care less about bases). However is aoS going to be supported going forward? GW have already demonstrated to customers their return commitment to customers who invested in their ecosystem is zero by squatting WFB. I think AoS has a life expectancy measured in skavenslaves (- much like we used to measure imperfect yet curiously lamented and useful points on this board)

If you rand base you will cut yourself off from a world of other fantasy gaming where square basing and weird tactical afterthoughts (just like every general in history practically) like - flank attacks and maneuvering, for example still count for something.

All races are supported in AOS your reasoning is flawed.

Getifa Ubazza
04-10-2015, 16:18
All races are supported in AOS your reasoning is flawed.

Exactly, plus most games I will use them for use round bases. The only exception will be KoW. I won't be throwing the square bases away. I will keep them next to the model it was intended for and if I'm using the model in a square base game, I will just blue tack the round base to the square one or use a movement tray. It's just easier to stick a round base onto a square one, than the other way around.

@Vulgarsty: Even if GW stopped supporting AoS today, it wouldn't matter to me. I already have the rules and warscrolls I need to play, so GW can do whatever the swear word it wants. If they stop making models that work for it, I will find models else where.

Unfortunately I am exactly the kind of person GW thinks all its customers are. I collect models that I like and sometimes I use them to play games. The whole WAAC thing is anathema to me. I don't get why someone would buy a game like Warhammer and turn it into a swear word measuring competition.

I do prefer collecting armies or warbands though, as I like telling stories with them. I rarely just buy a single model, as even when I do, I always want to get him or her some buddies. If a game let's me tell a cool story, without being overly rules heavy. I will play that game.

That's why I like AoS and KoW more than WHFB. Tolkien style fantasy has always been my favourite setting to play in, but WHFB always felt overwhelming to me rules wise. I have a mental illness that stops me retaining a lot of information, unless its intuitive. AoS, KoW, LotR, Bloodbowl and to a lesser degree 40k (Until they started adding all the extra stuff to it.) have very intuitive rules. WHFB and 40k with all the added stuff is simply to much for my brain to keep track of, now all I have to remember are a few rules, most of which are to do with setting up the battlefield. Then I can get on with enjoying the story unfolding on the table.

Thanks for your post and even if we disagree, it's always interesting to me to get another point of view.

Vulgarsty
04-10-2015, 20:58
All races are supported in AOS your reasoning is flawed.



Sorry, you've lost me there. I wasnt talking about races being supported i was talking about aos not being supported. I would be wary investing too much in aos because gw will end up dropping it and youll be left with round based models optimised for a discontinued game with a dwindling legacy player base. Even if you want to play other skirmish games, leave alone mass ranked battle games, arcs can be important and they are impossible to determine on rounds.

I stand by what i said. Given that squares do everything that rounds do and more, i see no rationale in round basing (unless you think it looks better which is then entirely subjective)

blackcherry
06-10-2015, 11:27
Even if you want to play other skirmish games, leave alone mass ranked battle games, arcs can be important and they are impossible to determine on rounds.

Yet the majority of the popular skirmish level games are using them these days...

To Getifa Ubazza, I always just use uniform ones for all the monsters. Doesn't matter what size, as long as they match for me.