PDA

View Full Version : Round Bases v Square Bases



blackcherry
25-04-2016, 13:30
One thing that has popped up in fantasy threads the past year and has been a constant refrain with a lot of Fantasy players, is that they hate round bases and it makes a system poorer to use them. They much prefer square bases. To the point of vitriol!

I don't have a preference for either (both have their pros and cons depending on the game). But for those who really like fantasy miniatures to have square bases, can I ask why that is? What makes them superior over round bases for fantasy games? Or is it just that in mass battle games it can make it easier to rank up your minis?

Does anyone prefer round bases for fantasy games and why? Or are people not bothered in the slightest really?

Just a warning: Not looking to get into debates around the merit of AoS verses WFB. If the thread takes a turn for that direction I'll lock the thread myself.

Geep
25-04-2016, 14:31
I have no problem with round bases, but prefer ranked Fantasy, where square bases are clearly superior.

For skirmish systems round bases are fine. I wouldn't say they look better or worse- what the player adds to them is much more important for looks than the shape. I always preferred square bases for Mordheim though, so you could lay a model 'knocked down' or 'stunned' and not have it roll all over the board.

Rogue Star
25-04-2016, 14:35
Round bases preferred, but square/ranked isn't intolerable.

furrie
25-04-2016, 14:40
it depends on the system and unit, for ranked units I prefer square. For skirmish or loose models I prefer round bases, because it think it looks better

Folomo
25-04-2016, 14:52
Ranked games work better with square bases, while skirmish games work better with round bases.
So the game system will indicate which base is best.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 15:12
I don't HATE round bases, I think they look much better aesthetically than squares, especially for larger monsters etc., however I still can't see why AoS comes with rounds bases when the bases serve no purpose other than to hold the figure upright - they are not used for measuring movemnet etc so I don't get the cange to rounds - unless it is for something in the future????

williamsond
25-04-2016, 15:14
that's the crux of the matter not the shape of the base on the figure but the ranked verses skirmish issue, I think display models look better on round bases, but if I'm playing a ranked unit game then its square all the way.

Chikout
25-04-2016, 15:17
I don't HATE round bases, I think they look much better aesthetically than squares, especially for larger monsters etc., however I still can't see why AoS comes with rounds bases when the bases serve no purpose other than to hold the figure upright - they are not used for measuring movemnet etc so I don't get the cange to rounds - unless it is for something in the future????
I always thought this was another example of GW chickening out. They want everything on round bases but were afraid to force it, so they made up the measure from the model rule. I hope the new look, we listen to our customers, AOS team say measuring from bases is back, but it is round or nothing.
edit, obviously for a ranked game square is the only way to go.

Herzlos
25-04-2016, 15:25
I prefer round basis for skirmish, square bases where formations are required.

Shipmonkey
25-04-2016, 15:44
I don't HATE round bases, I think they look much better aesthetically than squares, especially for larger monsters etc., however I still can't see why AoS comes with rounds bases when the bases serve no purpose other than to hold the figure upright

I would love to say the switch is only due to aesthetics and that it helps with pile in moves in a skirmish game. I think the more cynical answer would be sku reduction. They now only have to manage one style of bases for all their games instead of two.

blackcherry
25-04-2016, 15:48
What about games that blur the lines between skirmish and ranked games like Warmachine and Hoards, which has units that benefit from ranking up but it isn't the only way you can use units?

They have facings sorted out quite well, which removes any problems associated with that.

theunwantedbeing
25-04-2016, 15:48
But for those who really like fantasy miniatures to have square bases, can I ask why that is? What makes them superior over round bases for fantasy games? Or is it just that in mass battle games it can make it easier to rank up your minis?

Facings are trivial with square bases, not so much with rounds.
Ranking up (or specifically getting everyone facing the same way) is easier when each base has a flat edge where it meets another base.

Facings and ranking up being rather important for ranked battle type games.
For games that don't need those things, rounds are generally more useful although as Geep points out, square base models on their side won't roll around while round base models will so you do get the odd instance where a square base has some functional benefit.

Lars Porsenna
25-04-2016, 15:50
I agree in that I don't dislike round bases. However as has been previously mentioned, square bases makes ranking easier and neater looking. Basing on round bases makes your figures inherently less flexible...you CAN play ranked games on rounds, but they do not look as good/neat in this format. If you base on squares, however, you could use the figures in either format just as well.

Damon.

Folomo
25-04-2016, 16:02
What about games that blur the lines between skirmish and ranked games like Warmachine and Hoards, which has units that benefit from ranking up but it isn't the only way you can use units?

They have facings sorted out quite well, which removes any problems associated with that.

Warmachine is a skirmish game by definition, even if it has a few aspect similar to Rank and File.
And even when WHFB had some skrimish like models (lone monsters for example), it is still a Rank and File.

Rogue Star
25-04-2016, 16:41
What about games that blur the lines between skirmish and ranked games like Warmachine and Hoards, which has units that benefit from ranking up but it isn't the only way you can use units?

They have facings sorted out quite well, which removes any problems associated with that.

I'd like something for War of the Ring, then. A "regiment" base for when you want to rank up a unit or show it's in a formation, while everything without it is "skirmishing". Frankly the option to let units do that would have been nice, with "ordered" factions like High Elves and Stormcast Eternals to form up, while allowing units like Flagellants, Orcs and Chaos to fight in the disordered rabble they are, possibly with various benefits - regiments might handle a cavalry charge better, but a skirmisher formation can run down a fleeing opponent better, etc.

Square bases if the game is really huge, but I personally prefer the War of the Ring method as the happy marriage of both, allowing models to be designed without the problem of ranking up affecting quality.

226992

Kakapo42
26-04-2016, 02:23
I just think square bases look better on fantasy units. Round bases work for science fiction models, but they look wrong on fantasy models. Square bases have a much more authentic look in my eyes that works really well for fantasy models.

zoggin-eck
26-04-2016, 03:55
I'll base models in a particular style if a game really needs it and the game is good. I have fantasy models on square, round and hex bases. AoS isn't a good game, so I wouldn't make everything round for it, not that base shape even matters for AoS.

akai
26-04-2016, 04:39
Not necessarily arguing for one or the other being better, it depends on the game you want to play.

I don't think round bases are aesthetically better than square bases. However, it is easier to base miniatures on round bases to be more aesthetically pleasing compared to square bases. Take the same miniature and put it on a round or square base...with round base, you place the miniature right in the center of the base and for the most part you are good to go. For square base if you want an aesthetically pleasing positioning of your miniature you would want to take into consideration the 4 corners of the base.

theJ
26-04-2016, 13:56
@OP:
Well, squares do have two major advantages, ruleswise, as compared to rounds; They can rank up easily, and they have facings(front, flank, rear).
By contrast, rounds have... um.. well, the closest I can find to an advantage being that the distance to other models remains unchanched regardless of facing(squares are "larger" when facing 45degrees off from a target than when facing them head-on). That said, this advantage is microscopic unless you are dealing with VERY large models.

The reason some(including GW) prefers rounds is purely visual; units on squares appear highly regimented and "stiff"... which works great when you WANT your units to look diciplined and regimented, although less so when you don't, including both undisciplined troops(orc/ks, cultists), and when representing more modern, spread out combat tactics(spehz muhreenz and most other modern or post-modern units).
*ahem*
The spread out formations favoured by round bases can also make a unit appear more "elite" than its square-based cousin; a killer on a square is a soldier, fighting as a singular cog in a grand (war)machine, whereas a killer on a round is a warrior, fighting alone and distinct in both spirit and style, essentially.

Spiney Norman
26-04-2016, 14:25
One thing that has popped up in fantasy threads the past year and has been a constant refrain with a lot of Fantasy players, is that they hate round bases and it makes a system poorer to use them. They much prefer square bases. To the point of vitriol!

I don't have a preference for either (both have their pros and cons depending on the game). But for those who really like fantasy miniatures to have square bases, can I ask why that is? What makes them superior over round bases for fantasy games? Or is it just that in mass battle games it can make it easier to rank up your minis?

Does anyone prefer round bases for fantasy games and why? Or are people not bothered in the slightest really?

Just a warning: Not looking to get into debates around the merit of AoS verses WFB. If the thread takes a turn for that direction I'll lock the thread myself.

Frankly the shape of a base is irrelevant, there is a part of me that likes warhammer fantasy miniatures on round bases, but that could just be because I'm so used to squares the difference is refreshing. I play fantasy games that use both, wfb uses squares (and needs to due to the ranked nature of units) and LotR SBG uses round bases and does so very well.

Touting base-shape as a deal breaker just sounds like inventing additional complaints to reinforce your legitimate complaint (GW stopped supporting wfb), but what do I know.

mightymconeshot
26-04-2016, 21:03
It depends on the rules. I mix and match whatever I have handy at the moment if it doesn't matter, but if facings/ranking up are important square it is or rectangular. If it is loose/ skimirish round bases always. I also find that round bases seem more dynamic and flexible in there basing. I use a lot of reaper miniatures and I find that if you go square you can end up with some weird things like a corner having to be pointed forward to have the model face forward where as with round, I just rotate the base and it is fixed.

dalezzz
26-04-2016, 21:47
A square base has more utility ( ranking and facing as has already been mentioned) so I normally prefer them , looks wise I don't think there's much in it

Infern0
26-04-2016, 23:03
I like round bases more visualy. They give a model a good foundation, as if it was a small statue.

Gamewise all skirmishes need round bases, IMHO.

And if I were to make a new mass-combat fantasy game, I`d go the same route WotR went - round bases + square holders.

A lot of bases in WFB were too small for the minis they held - try to rank them darn Black Ark Corsairs!

I`ve been wondering: how can you represent in a game like WFB diffirent formations? For example: tight shieldwall, loosened formation for getting less damage from shooting attacks, skirmishing, ect...
All I could think of is using WotR type base holders + less miniatures, so it doesn`t take ages to move all the minis on/off them. :(

Geep
27-04-2016, 01:52
A lot of bases in WFB were too small for the minis they held - try to rank them darn Black Ark Corsairs!
This has been a GW problem for quite a while- but it never had to be! Better miniature design would have really helped, and doesn't have to take away from the overall look (remember that the unit should look impressive, not always single models). Models kept increasing in size and gaining more and more 'frilly' bits- not all capes need to billow into the face of the guy behind you!


I`ve been wondering: how can you represent in a game like WFB diffirent formations? For example: tight shieldwall, loosened formation for getting less damage from shooting attacks, skirmishing, ect...
I think this was a thing in 2nd ed- there was no need to actually move models for it. You'd declare the formation, suffer a penalty for some advantage, and maybe just need a marker to help remember it.

CountUlrich
27-04-2016, 02:46
It is because we like games where movement matters, where ranks and flanks matter. We like massed battle not skirmish.

I play skirmish games - Saga, Malifaux, among others. For those I preder round bases because they look better. But I played WHFB for massed battle, and hence now I play Kings and not this abomination.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160427/dd34508e09f5ff37b6066a5284b4b2a0.jpg



Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Horace35
27-04-2016, 08:52
I don't HATE round bases, I think they look much better aesthetically than squares, especially for larger monsters etc., however I still can't see why AoS comes with rounds bases when the bases serve no purpose other than to hold the figure upright - they are not used for measuring movemnet etc so I don't get the cange to rounds - unless it is for something in the future????
Strange isn't it. Not sure if it is deliberate or not, but the only outcome of that decision is a lot of pissed off and alienated vets?

Why would you deliberately make all their existing miniatures different from everything else and feel invalidated?

Or to make it more like 40k?

I personally don't mind round bases except as everyone already said wfb is (predominantly) ranked so squares make more sense

Folomo
27-04-2016, 13:56
Maybe to stop manufacturing square bases and focus only on round bases?
That would definitly make things easier for them.

veterannoob
27-04-2016, 19:31
Round bases, all the way. I wasn't sure at first, but even before play they just look better in every single model I've seen. All of them. And we have some square bases still and they are kinda clunky but we don't. Expect everyone to have rebased at this point.

blackcherry
28-04-2016, 00:09
Thanks for all the feeback so far and for keeping it civil :) . What do people tend to use when they have the choice? In games where it could be either round or square bases but it doesn't really matter?

Spiney Norman
28-04-2016, 00:21
Strange isn't it. Not sure if it is deliberate or not, but the only outcome of that decision is a lot of pissed off and alienated vets?

Why would you deliberately make all their existing miniatures different from everything else and feel invalidated?

Or to make it more like 40k?

I personally don't mind round bases except as everyone already said wfb is (predominantly) ranked so squares make more sense

Round bases are better for the kind of game AoS is. Squares don't make any sense unless you need to rank models up or need clearly delineated facing, which AoS does not. Generally I feel that games that use loose formations for models look and function a lot better with round bases rather than square (which IMO look very messy unless they are ranked up).

Mordheim, for example would have felt much more like its own game and less like warhammer-lite if it had used rounds rather than squares, but that's just my opinion.

Folomo
28-04-2016, 00:50
Thanks for all the feeback so far and for keeping it civil :) . What do people tend to use when they have the choice? In games where it could be either round or square bases but it doesn't really matter?

In games where whats important is the group over the individual, square ones.
In games where whats important is the individual over the group, round ones.

Kakapo42
28-04-2016, 03:00
Thanks for all the feeback so far and for keeping it civil :) . What do people tend to use when they have the choice? In games where it could be either round or square bases but it doesn't really matter?

If it's a fantasy setting? Square bases.

If it's science fiction? Round ones.

Anything else? Depends on what mood I'm in.

dalezzz
28-04-2016, 11:17
Thanks for all the feeback so far and for keeping it civil :) . What do people tend to use when they have the choice? In games where it could be either round or square bases but it doesn't really matter?


Id id go square because I would be thinking about using the models for other games too

Rogue Star
28-04-2016, 11:19
If it's a fantasy setting? Square bases.

Why? Surely Mordheim would benefit from round bases? It's not like they need to rank up.

blackcherry
28-04-2016, 11:28
If it's a fantasy setting? Square bases.

If it's science fiction? Round ones.

Anything else? Depends on what mood I'm in.

Any particular reason? And what do you class as fantasy? Would Warmachine or Malifaux count as fantasy?

HammerofThunor
28-04-2016, 11:29
Personally round bases look better in general. So for a game where bases don't matter it makes complete sense to have them on round bases (I see many more posts saying round bases look better than square bases, even if plenty prefer bases for practical reasons).

If I needed to rank them up I'd still use rounds now in a movement tray. Not tried it but I'd think they would be easier to rank as they could rotate to fit better (I had a unit of black orcs for my wife with number positions). The facing problem is sorted if you have a ranked unit as well. The only real problem would be determining whether models where base to base, in which case I'd inscribe the squares on the movement tray.

Geep
28-04-2016, 12:28
I've answered before, but I prefer square basing in Mordheim for two reasons:
1) It stops the models rolling everywhere when stunned or knocked down (important when dealing with metal models in high places! I generally prefer a token system over actually laying the model down)
2) My warband always grows- I expect it to eventually transform into a fully ranked Fantasy army, and don't want to go tearing bases off to make that happen.

theunwantedbeing
28-04-2016, 13:18
Thanks for all the feeback so far and for keeping it civil :) . What do people tend to use when they have the choice? In games where it could be either round or square bases but it doesn't really matter?

My favourite bases are these ones (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/600x620/99229999083_70x25mmOval.jpg).
They look good ranked or loose and in a number of different formations, plus it's an excuse to use cavalry or longer thinner models that often tend to be nice and dynamic.

For ranked formations that stay ranked at all times, squares as they just rank up more easily and fit that ordered aesthetic better.
For formation that have to be more loose for any amount of time, rounds as loose squares look messy if they don't all line up (and they won't all line up).

For lone models it depends on the rest of the army.
If it's one lone model, then he'll get the same sort of base as everyone else.
If it's multiple lone models, then maybe they'll get a different style base to differentiate them from everyone else.

For small scale games, probably rounds but squares can work just fine if your game board has plenty of terrain where a square won't cause any issues like one with lots of walkways and corridors. Squares are often better if you need to have/want the wound tokens to sit on the models base as you get a little bit more space to do that with squares usually.

Rogue Star
28-04-2016, 13:57
1) It stops the models rolling everywhere when stunned or knocked down (important when dealing with metal models in high places! I generally prefer a token system over actually laying the model down)

Can't say I ever had that problem with round bases, worked fine in Necromunda and old Necron armies.

dragonelf
28-04-2016, 21:40
Round bases are much better visually because the border between the base and the playing surface is much more seamless. Curves are much softer than angles and the poses of the models sit more naturally on a round shape. Square bases orientate the models as having sides which is not ideal visually but better for gaming. The bases should be blending in with the battlefield and this is much easier if it is round than square.

Ludaman
28-04-2016, 21:45
I've always preferred squares. Visually I don't see much of a difference, but for gaming whether it be a fun dungeon crawl like warhammer quest, RPGs like D&D or a Full fledged battle game, being able to touch bases, find facing, etc are all quite valuable assets of squares over rounds.

SuperHappyTime
28-04-2016, 22:01
I'm not really a gamer and I never played fantasy but I'd have thought it would be easier to rank up round bases as they can face in any direction to fit with the guys around them. Once they're ranked up, there's not really any issue with facings either. The only advantage I can see with using squares is that they look better when ranked up.

So in 8th, you likely smacked your rectangle of guys into another rectangle of guys, then had to line up to see how many were actually each other:

|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
|**|**|**|**|

With the example of the above, the Top army only gets 8 attacks despite having 10 guys, since only 8 can get into a corner piece with one of the five below. When you have circles, it isn't easy to tell what figures are aligned to be able to attack. Kings of War fixes it by having the single block have a fixed number of attacks, so dioramas are optional (while tracking things like wounds and less attacks are not). AoS fixes it by measuring from the model (or base, if you prefer instead), This can become a much more tedious method of needing to measure between models.

Tokamak
28-04-2016, 23:35
Aesthetically neat rank and file, even for a messy faction is just looking way better. And isn't that what it's all about? Cool looking armies?

Kakapo42
29-04-2016, 00:23
Why? Surely Mordheim would benefit from round bases? It's not like they need to rank up.


Any particular reason? And what do you class as fantasy? Would Warmachine or Malifaux count as fantasy?

It's a visual thing. I think fantasy models look better on square bases.

I classify 'fantasy' in the context of a tabletop game as what most people would consider 'traditional' fantasy. Warmachine and Malifaux would both count as 'other' for me (I consider Warmachine to be Steampunk, and Malifaux to be... something else), Warhammer Fantasy, Mordheim, KOW, T9A, LOtR and similar would count as 'fantasy'. Hordes is technically 'other' as well, since it's the same setting as Warmachine from what I understand.

Dosiere
29-04-2016, 01:19
I prefer round bases for skirmish games. Things like lotr or 40k.

I like square bases on most of my fantasy ones because it makes them easily interchangeable between systems like warhammer, KoW, etc... And while not preferred I can use them in skirmish games that way.

DYoung
29-04-2016, 04:25
So in 8th, you likely smacked your rectangle of guys into another rectangle of guys, then had to line up to see how many were actually each other:

|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
|**|**|**|**|

With the example of the above, the Top army only gets 8 attacks despite having 10 guys, since only 8 can get into a corner piece with one of the five below. When you have circles, it isn't easy to tell what figures are aligned to be able to attack. Kings of War fixes it by having the single block have a fixed number of attacks, so dioramas are optional (while tracking things like wounds and less attacks are not). AoS fixes it by measuring from the model (or base, if you prefer instead), This can become a much more tedious method of needing to measure between models.

Sorry, accidentally deleted my post 'cause the mobile version of the site is a little dodgy but thanks for replying.

Can't you just see who's in base to base contact like in 40k? There's also the possibility with round bases that your formation gets messed up in combat which would be interesting.

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think it would be awesome to have a wargame that was a skirmish game at its core but included advanced rules for ranking up your guys!

Rogue Star
29-04-2016, 07:36
Aesthetically neat rank and file, even for a messy faction is just looking way better. And isn't that what it's all about? Cool looking armies?

Disagree. Why would I buy expensive, pretty looking, multi-part toy soldiers... then cluster them in a square where you can barely see the centre/back ranks? Wasn't there even a WHFB general principle that the further from the front rank a miniature, the less effort it needed painting, especially in large amounts if you wanted to get them on the table quick? Aesthetically, treating each model as an individual is better for me.

If I'm not buying ten models, but the parts to build one "regiment" - I might aswell return to the mono-pose plastics that rank up neatly and are cheap, like out of the first Warhammer boxed core (High Elves & Goblins). Sounds like that would even fix the cost issue. :p

jbeil
29-04-2016, 08:46
Disagree. Why would I buy expensive, pretty looking, multi-part toy soldiers... then cluster them in a square where you can barely see the centre/back ranks? Wasn't there even a WHFB general principle that the further from the front rank a miniature, the less effort it needed painting, especially in large amounts if you wanted to get them on the table quick? Aesthetically, treating each model as an individual is better for me.

If I'm not buying ten models, but the parts to build one "regiment" - I might aswell return to the mono-pose plastics that rank up neatly and are cheap, like out of the first Warhammer boxed core (High Elves & Goblins). Sounds like that would even fix the cost issue. :p

As long as the quality of the sculpts is still there, what's wrong with monopose models? Get three poses in each box and there's room for creativity. Anything that helps reduce the barrier to entry for new players is a good thing for me!

Rogue Star
29-04-2016, 10:52
As long as the quality of the sculpts is still there, what's wrong with monopose models?

Entirely nothing! The WH40K Chaos Cultists are lovely, and I think it would have really suited Warhammer for ranked up regiments but therein lies my point, something designed to be ranked up versus the rounded, individually based will always benefit from an extra bit of attention, since there is an even chance of seeing all the models in the unit, rather than just the front and sides, and the lack of being so tightly packed allows the sculptor to make them more dynamic, so on the "aesthetically pleasing" angle, I think rounded bases trump square and ranked up, but it did suit a game like WHFB, but I embrace round bases as just more pleasing.

Tokamak
29-04-2016, 15:28
That's exactly what I like about it. Giant blocks of regiments with each model painted to the best of one's effort. You will always notice when people try to cheat it and when they don't the result is just spectacular.

With round bases you don't really have an army, you just have a bunch of skirmishes. Great for 40k, tolerable for certain factions like Beastmen but overall it's just lame.

theunwantedbeing
29-04-2016, 15:33
As long as the quality of the sculpts is still there, what's wrong with monopose models? Get three poses in each box and there's room for creativity. Anything that helps reduce the barrier to entry for new players is a good thing for me!

Mono-pose models look like they've been copy/pasted and I don't think that looks very good.
Cost shouldn't factor.

MLP
29-04-2016, 23:59
Round bases present A more realistic combat situation. Ranks may be more tactical but are a very abstract concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Urgat
30-04-2016, 00:02
I prefer squares, because you can easily have facings and LoS with them.

Ludaman
30-04-2016, 00:29
Round bases present A more realistic combat situation. Ranks may be more tactical but are a very abstract concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just about 100% false. For over a thousand years of warfare armies that remained in tightly-packed, shield-walled formations were almost always the victors.

It was usually the side that broke formation first and ran in all "Braveheart" style that was killed and driven back.

Grab some history books, everything you've seen in almost every movie is wrong.

Staying tightly-packed and in formation was one of the single most important parts of ancient warfare.

MLP
30-04-2016, 08:44
That's just about 100% false. For over a thousand years of warfare armies that remained in tightly-packed, shield-walled formations were almost always the victors.

It was usually the side that broke formation first and ran in all "Braveheart" style that was killed and driven back.

Grab some history books, everything you've seen in almost every movie is wrong.

Staying tightly-packed and in formation was one of the single most important parts of ancient warfare.

Yes they trained and marched in these formations but it's actually extremely rare with exception of a few very well trained armies that they would stay in this formation once the actual combat was underway.

Real combat is a mess of swirling melee and keeping an exact formation is almost impossible with huge shields. There's plenty of historical evidence mentioning this.

In warhammer there are very few units that represent this tightly packed defensive fighting style. So at best this formation should be a special rule not a universal one if the game was to represent true warfare.

Ludaman
30-04-2016, 09:10
Yes they trained and marched in these formations but it's actually extremely rare with exception of a few very well trained armies that they would stay in this formation once the actual combat was underway.

Real combat is a mess of swirling melee and keeping an exact formation is almost impossible with huge shields. There's plenty of historical evidence mentioning this.

In warhammer there are very few units that represent this tightly packed defensive fighting style. So at best this formation should be a special rule not a universal one if the game was to represent true warfare.

Nah, that swirling melee thing is mostly not true. Usually the guys who tried that were part of the losing army. If you want to send me your military-history sources via PM, by all means do and perhaps we can have one of those long-winded warhammer thread debates where I cite the Greeks the Roman legions, European pike formations, etc, etc. then you can send me back examples from particularly bloody battles like Agincourt, then we can discuss how pitched battles weren't all that common to begin with, and then someone can bring up winged hussars...

Or we can just not.

MLP
30-04-2016, 09:14
Nah, that swirling melee thing is mostly not true. Usually the guys who tried that were part of the losing army. If you want to send me your military-history sources via PM, by all means do and perhaps we can have one of those long-winded warhammer thread debates where I cite the Greeks the Roman legions, European pike formations, etc, etc. then you can send me back examples from particularly bloody battles like Agincourt, then we can discuss how pitched battles weren't all that common to begin with, and then someone can bring up winged hussars...

Or we can just not.

I'm not that fussed tbh.

Antitrist
30-04-2016, 21:23
One obvious middle way that lets you enjoy the benefits of both square and round bases is of course multibasing, KoW-style. Great for ranking and dioramas, and it let you show of (literally) the best sides of your miniatures.

Ludaman
30-04-2016, 21:44
One obvious middle way that lets you enjoy the benefits of both square and round bases is of course multibasing, KoW-style. Great for ranking and dioramas, and it let you show of (literally) the best sides of your miniatures.

You're talking about the backside of the witch elves right?

Zywus
30-04-2016, 21:49
One obvious middle way that lets you enjoy the benefits of both square and round bases is of course multibasing, KoW-style. Great for ranking and dioramas, and it let you show of (literally) the best sides of your miniatures.
Totally agree with that.
You can make some truly fantastic regiments when you don't need to worry about removing individual bases.

Only drawback is that once multibased, the models can't easily be re-purposed for WHFB and various scirmish games. But I'd still say it's worth it.

Take a look at syrme's fantastic halfling army here on Warseer:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?417621-Halfling-Army


You're talking about the backside of the witch elves right?
Oh you;)

tmod
03-05-2016, 16:02
Depends on the game. Squares if facing is important or if models need to get into base contact (either ranking up or to if close combat demands base contact). I like lipped round bases in games with 360 los to signify facing is not an issue, and to make measurements easier, but only in game where base contact is not an issue (like Malifaux).

From an aesthetic point of view I'd rank recessed squares with insert first (like Freebooter's Fate), the lipped rounds, then regular squares and regular rounds last. The only thing uglier to me than regular rounds are coin bases/low bases and based stuck to the miniatures' legs like Frostgrave and some others use. I always cut away bases like these! All bases are a distraction, but rounds stand out much more to my eye. Squares tend to be more like a frame for a piece of art, and is hence easier to get to fade into the background more. The lipped/recessed bases thus look better to me, as they are easier to view as a background, and squares always look better than rounds...



Sent fra min SM-G930F via Tapatalk

jozhik
11-05-2016, 04:57
Personally I am ambivalent in the sense that I use magnetic bases and movement trays for nearly everything. As long as all the bases of a regiment are of a consistent size and shape, I can effectively "pre-rank" them - and then it doesn't matter whether they are circle, square, hexagonal...[And for especially complex bases, I use MTG "blood stones" to mark off wounds, with my opponent's permission and consent of course.]

However, in principle I can see how many people who are not in the same situation - e.g. who use regular bases and movement trays, who use no movement trays even, etc. - can be miffed about switching from square to round. Separately, I can also see how square or rectangular basis can "look" better in the sense that you can base (flock, paint, sculpt, whatever) an entire regiment uniformly instead of having gaps between the "circles".

What I suspect happened is that the bases thing was one of the less significant AoS related straws that cumulatively broke the tournament-oriented player-camel's back. Or something to that effect. In a few years' time, however, I suspect this square-vs.-round thing will be far less remembered than some of the other changes.

Asensur
11-05-2016, 08:00
War of the ring has the better base layout.

Round bases for models, within square bases for units.

Korhon Deathbringer
11-05-2016, 14:32
I came late to whfb, right around the time AOS was being rumored, and I have to say I prefer to play wtih square/rectangle bases. I a fan of ranks, and I frankly prefer the rules of whfb 8th ed. to Aos, and that requires me to use squares. I'm actually enjoying converting the new round based Aos uniys to older whfb square bases. An even funner pastime is working out rules to make those units backwards compatable.

Leogun_91
13-05-2016, 11:10
They are easier to rank and have a clear front, clear sides and clear rear making it easier to see where the model is facing even in Skirmish (such as Mordheim which uses squares).
Personally I also find them to look more appealing but that is a matter of taste and probably greatly affected by which was used by your first wargame system.
But round has some advantages too such as having an easier time simulating surrounding opponents (greatly utilized by the Lotr system).

Greyshadow
14-05-2016, 08:59
I found round seem to tip over less. You also seem to knock models over less when you move models about, at least when playing skirmish games. My stance has softened a lot on round bases. I actually think now that the change to round is better for new players who don't have to worry about things not matching.

Tokamak
14-05-2016, 14:10
Square bases give more clarity in a game centred around rank and file regiments. Because you rarely need to reform your regiment you can keep them on a movement tray throughout the game, which speeds up the movement phase and make the entire game more elegant and streamlined.

Of course there's no reason to be playing square bases or use movement trays in AoS as AoS focusses on minute placement of individual miniatures. But then again, there's no reason to be playing AoS in the first place.

Soulsmith
15-05-2016, 23:32
I am more of a modeller/painter than a gamer, and I do enjoy skirmish games so I feel round bases are just more aesthetically appealing, but I can see you usage of squares for facings e.g. x-wing

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Athelassan
17-05-2016, 21:20
For anything that needs to be ranked up at any time, square bases. I also like square bases on games that use a grid system for positioning, like Warhammer Quest and similar games. Anything where facing is important, squares also win out.

Rounds do, I think, look marginally better on single figures, but I don't think square bases look bad either. When it comes to skirmish systems I think consistency is more important than actual aesthetics. A Blood Bowl figure on a square base looks out of place; a Freebooter's Fate figure on a round base would too.

Having recently got into historicals - specifically Hail Caesar - my troops are all on square (or rectangular, rather) bases. I briefly debated using round bases for skirmishers but opted for squares eventually. However my commanders and markers are all on round bases - facing doesn't matter for them and it helps to distinguish them from the crowd. The combination actually looks pretty good.

In Warhammer, it was always squares for me and it would never have occurred to me to put anyone on a round base except maybe artillery pieces. It always bothered me in bigger LotR games how ragged formations would look thanks to the round bases. I can't see myself ever playing AoS, but the round bases are a pretty minor part of that overall.