AoS: The “Base” Problem Grows

Age of Sigmar has a very “base” problem and the Kharadron Overlords are only going to make it worse.

When the new Kharadron Overlords models were finally spotted I was super excited – but I was also a little worried. First off, my wallet immediately started crying because it knew that it would probably be in for a beating…but the real reason I was worried was because, while those models are downright amazing looking, they highlight an issue with the Age of Sigmar Rules: Measuring Model-to-Model.

So where do I measure to, exactly? And does that mean I have to put my model on your base to reach?

As most nay-sayers are happy to point out, the Age of Sigmar rules clearly use a model-to-model measuring system. For the most part that doesn’t really impact the game that much. It was also designed that way so folks wouldn’t need to rebase their armies right away and could still play games of AoS using their old armies. But it’s been just under two years – is it time to “update” the rules to account for this “base” problem?

The Kharadron Overlords are the newest ones that highlight this problem but they are far from the only ones:

Pretty sure that Bloodreaver is technically out of range of Archaon, which seems silly to me…

Are we counting the tail that is inches off the base as part of the model? So the Runefather is technically in range?

These models are hovering off their bases – so I guess we’re measuring from the spindly doo-dads?

 

While these are a bit hyperbolic, the point is clear – big models (as awesome as they are) can cause problems when it comes to measuring. Personally, as long as the players agree to keep it consistent then let them play!

Now, any reasonable person already knows the work-around for this: measuring base-to-base. In fact that’s pretty much how everyone already plays as far as I can tell. Heck, even at the upcoming South Coast GT Heelenhammer the “official” way to measure is based off a house rule:

There are actually two rules they use – one for base-to-base measuring and another for volume when measuring vertically. This easily solves the problem and it’s a great fix. So when will Games Workshop acknowledge this is a bit of an issue with an easy fix? That’s the question!

Now, I mentioned the South Coast GT specifically because Games Workshop is working with them to basically test out some of the rules changes coming with the General’s Handbook 2.0. You might remember this article about the points change teaser from Games Workshop. Well maybe it’s more than just points GW is testing out at the GT…

There is a catch: This is basically the same measuring system solution that Privateer Press uses for Warmachine & Hordes – a rules system that is considered to be a very tight and well designed system. Is it okay to borrow this idea from the competition? You can’t copyright rules… So it’s fine from a legal standpoint. And how would the players that still use models on square bases feel about the change? Would this alienate their player base? Well, I mean, more then they already did…

No matter how you feel about this “base” problem it is a thing that can be easily settled by Games Work. It’s a two sentence addition and a rules errata away from happening already.

 

So how would you solve the base problem for Age of Sigmar?

  • Raven Jax

    Almost every place I’m seeing is using base to base. Otherwise you could model a miniature with a really long spear to cheat some extra distance. I think this is one where the community has solved a problem and is waiting for official GW to catch up, similar to trying to balance the game long before GW released the General’s Handbook.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      You can’t cheat with a long weapon since you would be measuring from that spear for everything. So the whole spear would be behind the deployment zone line. Pivoting the model to the side would would as moving the model that number of inches.

      • Raven Jax

        I saw people point the spear forward when they wanted extra inches, then turn the model around so that the back was to the opponent when they didn’t want the extra distance. Plenty of “that guy” syndrome when AoS first started.

        • Djbz

          Isn’t that covered by the “no PART of a model may move further than it’s movement allowance” ?
          Or did they not put that into AOS?

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Turning the model around would basically kill most model’s movement for the turn (because you have to measure how long the spear sweeps from facing forward to facing backward).

          Totally cool if my opponent wants to waste a turn of moving to “rob” me of an inch or two 🙂

          Also, if the spear were really long, he might not even be able to turn around at all!

          • Raven Jax

            You pick up an infantry model with a spear facing forward. You measure six inches from the tip of the spear. You place the model down backwards at that point.

            I am glad everyone seems to have a hard time grasping the concept. It means we all weren’t playing like that.

          • Johan Kristian Milde

            No, if you do that, the base has moved further than six inches. No part means absolutely no part.

            Also, picking them up and dropping them down where you assume is right by measuring is not a good way to be strict with this. A model with a cloak and tail, spinning around with a spear, might have parts that have moved several different distances.

          • Raven Jax

            This is literally what I am saying. I am saying that it is wrong to do this.

            Don’t shoot the messenger just because I’m reporting what I saw plenty of people do when the game first came out.

            My point was that I don’t see it that often anymore. Most place seem to be using base to base.

          • Johan Kristian Milde

            Oh, you meant the players, not the people in the thread, having trouble grasping the concept.

            Yeah, that makes a lot more sense now. Sorry for that.

          • Munn

            You guys are thinking too small. Assemble an Archaon like an oroboros and you could lock someone out of an objective even with 6 inches. Run nothing but phoenixes and nothing with less than 2″ reach can even swing at you, etc.

        • Justin MacCormack

          Best solution. Don’t play against ‘that guy’.

        • Agent OfBolas

          That’s illegal move according to the rules as “model can’t move further than their movement value” so when they take model with a spear and turn them around – they still need to make sure their max travelled distance is on pair with movement statline.

    • Shaun Macey

      Like a sniper spearrman hahaha.

  • Angry Panda

    Base to base attacking is the easiest way to go. I’ve never had or seen anyone with an issue with this (until now), even with playing with my larger models. I always saw the rules being pretty clear cut when it comes to attacking, as it makes disputing of whether or not that giant unit can attack very easy to solve. I guess everyone has their own banes though.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Just play base to base. It makes the game functionally better, otherwise you run into dumb crap like big winged models not being able to pivot (as it would count as moving).

    • Mr.Gold

      but of course that dragon (or insert other large flying model here) can fly sideways & backwards… didn’t you know that?

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        No one has an issue with infantry being able to move in any direction. I don’t see why large models should be penalized for having large wings, tails, etc.

        • ThorOdinson

          The issue is the rules-as-written which state they should be penalized.

        • Borwol

          For models bigger than infantry we measure main body of miniature from above and take this from movement stat if model is turning back. It gives some realism especialy when playing cavalery. I hope that was clear :p

          • Brettila

            Not exactly…

          • Borwol

            ok. for example grail knight have move value = 10″ and he is 2″ long measuring from above. With my home rules it means he can turn around and move 8 additional inches.

  • thereturnofsuppuppers

    Does anyone use model to model?

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      New players, I suppose.

      It feels odd for GW to not use bases when it has openly taken a “whatever” approach to the base size issue in 40k.

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah, more guidance wouldn’t be the end of the world.

      • finbikkifin

        but but rebasing! using square bases AND round bases would break AoS!

        AoS has some baffling and bad design decisions. It seriously wouldn’t have made much difference to use base-to-base and allow both base styles, but they made the stupid decision to use model-to-model measurement instead. Maybe in a year or two they’ll stop being idiots and fix it? It’s not like it would require much effort.

    • crcovar

      I do all the time. It’s not a real issue, unless you are or regularly play with the same kind of people who deploy rhinos sideways to “steal” extra movement.

    • Brettila

      Been in the hobby since 95. It has always been base to base. Any game btw.

  • Michael Van Eeckhoute

    Every sensible AOS player uses some kind of base tot base measuring rules. And yes in time both the square bases and the old school armies fighting on top of them will be fased out. All things considered we are still very much in transition period when it comes to fully cementing the new system without alienating the old guard.

    Most classic armies, like greenskins, dwarfs, high elves, empire etc. do’nt have a real place as AOS factions anyway, GW wants to create something new and fresh, and focus on themed forces instead of general factions (see Ironjawz and the new dwarfs). The only reason the old style, square based armies were allowed was so that the transition to AOS would’nt be too blunt and because the lore more or less allows it.

  • Infamous Wendigo

    The major problem that is not mentioned is how base to base measuring affects multi model units.
    Units like Ungors REALLY need to pile up on a model to get enough attacks in to pull their weight (especially when an army is built on points).
    Measuring from bases and disallowing “piling up” to get in range with their lame single attacks and puny 1″ ranges means that the outer ring of models is pushed back out of range and you lose huge numbers of swings.
    Multiwound, multi-attack, small base models will disproportionately rule the game. And they have NOT balanced base sizes based on these concerns.

    • thereturnofsuppuppers

      Who cares about ungors?

      • Infamous Wendigo

        Yes, that is exactly the problem…
        No one has cared or worried about human sized multi-model units for some time…
        Yet they still expect to sell those models and keep players in the game who built armies around such units…

        • thereturnofsuppuppers

          Specifically ungors. Why care about them.

          • Infamous Wendigo

            They are an example of MANY units I am worried about.
            My army based on the Empire infantry kits is also a concern.
            Model to model measuring makes such armies ludicrously weak.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Do you use model to model rule?

          • Infamous Wendigo

            Whenever possible. And such units still have problems.
            I shudder to think about how useless they will all be when it becomes base to base and all but the inner ring of models is pushed back out of range, unable to attack at all.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Why do you use model to model instead of base to base?

          • Infamous Wendigo

            Why would I play by the rules?
            Is that actually your question?
            In most cases, I believe that is the way it was intended and is also needed to keep the unit types balanced…

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            The most important rule is to have fun. It doesn’t sound like you are having fun using that rule.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I have never seen anyone play model to model after they play 1 game with base to base. Even new players grasp how much simpler it is.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            As a Stormcast player, I have to deal with massive bases and short melee ranges. It’s not a huge concern. Spread your models out more, so they can start wrapping around faster.

          • Hedwerx

            Maybe he likes them. Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean he can’t…

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            But Ungors.

            Ungors….

          • Grimbuddha

            “The most important rule is to have fun.” -thereturnofsuppuppers. I dunno, maybe playing as ungors is fun for him?

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            No one plays ungors for fun.

          • Grimbuddha

            Except people that do.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Name one.

          • Grimbuddha

            James Brown. Annie DiFranco. Joseph Stalin. James Edward Olmos. Gryph Grifterson. George Takai. William H. Macey. Need I go on?

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            All mass murderers who exclusively used Ungors.

          • That James Edward Olmos guy was great in Galactica Battlestar

          • Seriously? I have like 30 ancient chaos archers, ungors are literally the only appropriate proxy. So yeah, I play ungors, for fun

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Naah you don’t.

            You don’t enjoy playing the Ungors, you enjoying playing with your thugs.

            Thugs are the best, Ungors are just the worst.

          • Muninwing

            i have like fifty of them…

            the only reason i’d have to come back to playing would be to use my old armies and try to have fun like i used to. so if you’re telling me that the bucket-o-ungors (or gors) that i still have are useless, then that’s a reason for me not to bother.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Tzaangors are pretty great.

          • Muninwing

            yes. but that has nothing to do with my army.

            this comment is one of the many definitive moments that really prove that AoS and WHF are nothing alike and have nothing to do with each other except porting the models from one to the other.

            i got into Beasts of Chaos back at the end of 6th. I have about 4000 points of Nurgle-based Beastmen. maybe had they released the Tzaangors of today back then i’d have made a different decision. even in the 7th-8th ed Beastmen book, i could still field my Pestigors as Bestigors that happened to passing around a really bad cold. but my lowly ungors had a use too.

            but i knew where they were from. i knew their fluff, their behavior, their attitudes, their style. i could point to a map with actual defined locations on it and state that they were from that location… and then i could find more information about those places. they played in a very specific way, and differently than any other army because there were defined movement tactics.

            now, the only thing that seems to matter is if i’m using the new tzaangors.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Are you shocked that you would have to use the new models from a new system to have the benefit of updated rules and fluff?

            Beastmen were all over the place and were created in many different ways, I don’t think you could point to a map and say, this is where they come from.

          • Muninwing

            i would argue that the fluff has not been updated so much as whited out and replaced with a vague intention…

            as for the “new models” thing — no, i like nurgle. i want to play nurgle. i don’t want to only be able to play well if i decide to go tzeentch. i don’t want to have to play khorne just to play either. at least i’m not all in with slaanesh, or i’d really be screwed.

            or, you know, a Brettonian player.

            but that’s actually my point. if they were actually linked games with a continuity between them, i could actually use them in one and the other. but you’re arguing that i cannot and that if i want to play i have to suck it up and re-purchase.

            so that guy that petulantly set fire to his Dark Elves? he really wasn’t going to be able to use them again. not really.

            that might be an exaggeration. but still, it’s built on the same argument. the GW narrative of “no, these are totally linked!” really does their product a disservice.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Seems a bit entitled.

          • ZeeLobby

            LoL. Welcome to the Age of Sigmar dilemma, haha.

          • Muninwing

            i care about ungors.

            then again, i miss when i could use them effectively in a fun game. so… early 7th edition WHF?

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            No you don’t.

            You only are about the Gor life.

    • winterman

      You could argue the old WHFB units have been given extra attacks if they are large to specifically deal with the issue of not getting everyone into the combat.

  • Rainthezangoose

    Plus this basically means that if you stack bases with 1″ models you can get two ranks for combat. Which is dumb. Really needs fixing

    AoS needs to be base to base, and points need to more flexible.

  • Jacob Karlsson

    If I’m not mistaken the game’s FAQ document tells us that it’s perfectly fine to measure base to base.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Q: If my opponent and I agree, are we allowed to modify the
      rules to Warhammer Age of Sigmar?
      A: Yes, you can. Many players tweak or change the
      rules found on the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet,
      resulting in what are usually referred to as ‘house
      rules’. For instance, one of the most commonly seen
      house rules is to measure distances from base to base,
      ignoring limbs and weapons that hang over the edge of
      the model’s base. This changes the dynamic of combat slightly, and requires a certain amount of common sense
      to adjudicate in instances where a model does not come
      with a base or is mounted on a scratch-built base, but it
      can prevent carefully painted and modeled bases getting
      damaged as they are stacked on top of each other.
      Other house rules may modify how armies are chosen,
      how scenery works, or anything else the players see fit
      to change. You can decide amongst your own gaming
      group if you will use any house rules, as long as you all
      agree. If you’re playing in a campaign, we recommend
      having the same house rules apply to all the games.

      • thereturnofsuppuppers

        Me to my opponent.

        “Hello mate, want to use base to base?”

        “Sure”

        “Cool”

        And so, using simple human interaction, all problems were solved and this article made redundant.

        • generalchaos34

          You must have never met “that guy.” I’ve had the misfortune of playing with a lot of them regularly (sometimes its play with them or never at all) who will argue the meaning of the word “the” and how it interacts with a rule allowing them to do something completely stupid and ridiculous, then I just sigh and start taking my models off, because whats the poing of even rolling that many saves…

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            So in conversation before a game you ask

            “Hello mate, want to use base to base?”

            And he says what?

        • mgdavey

          I didn’t realize AoS had a Strawman faction.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Which one of those is the strawman, is it me or my hypothetical opponent?

          • mgdavey

            Nobody is saying that you can’t solve the problem by agreeing on a different rule with your opponent. Thus the straw man. It’s still valid to point out that the rule as written has problems. (As does the ‘solution’ by the way).

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            The article asks the question

            ”is it time to “update” the rules to account for this “base” problem?”

            I posit no and provide an example of how the rule does not require updating.

          • mgdavey

            You show that the rule does not need to be changed by providing an example of two people changing it. Problem sloved.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Now, you are strawmanning.

            I did not set up the position that I think there should be only 1 rule in use and that it should be changed.

            I created an example where it was possible to agree to use an alternative, but equally valid rule that would solve the issue for players who feel that the model to model rule creates problems for them.

          • mgdavey

            We all agree that any two players can agree to change any rule they want. You did not create that “solution”. But that does not address the point the author of the article is making: the rule as written is a problem and it would be a good idea to change it in the rule book.

            “Hey mate you want to play base to base?”
            “We can play base to base, or model to model”
            “Yeah, I know, I asking you which we should play?”
            “We can play either”
            “Yeah but which one?”
            “Yes”

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            A ruleset is not just theoretical, it has to be usable in the context of its players.

            If we all agree that any two players can agree to change any rule they want, providing two alternative suggestions on rules is the solution.

  • This isn’t actually an issue, measure model to model. Is it part of the model? Then that’s what you measure from. And yes, put your models on the base if it is overly large

    • EnTyme

      You try putting your models on top of my carefully painted base, and we’re gonna have words.

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        And here’s the issue.

      • Maybe you should be playing a different game, it’s part of the rules

        • Admiral Raptor

          Maybe you should try actually playing the game. It takes ten minutes to realize model to model doesn’t work. That’s when you switch to base to base and go on with your life. The only people who play model to model after their first games are the try hard WAACs looking for unfair advantages. You seem like you fit in well with them.

          • Lol how does model to model in any way not work? I’m sure I’m SUPER WAAC in my narrative play, 🙄 literally never even looked at the points, I just play path to glory and Hinterlands, but ok jump to insults 👌

          • Admiral Raptor

            Sure you do. Hey I bet your three colour Beastclaw raiders look great at your casual games.

            Model to model is pointless when there are no standard base sizes and models are designed for looks instead of play. The only thing model to model is good for is ruining nice bases. Some of us respect our opponents models, I can see how that might be a hard concept for you.

          • …ok, I mean first of all I don’t play with models (like at all) till they’re done, second of all, if someone’s base can’t have a model set on it they need to invest in a better varnish. Third of all, what’s with crapping on Ogres players? I play beastmen personally, with some slaves to darkness, but the mournfang Cav are fantastic.
            And if you’re really curious about my projects I frequently post them on Twitter (though I don’t have any pics of my main army up, since I’m mostly working on AoS28 conversions) https://mobile.twitter.com/crimson_oracle

          • Oh, I mean yeah, nobody likes ungors, not even other ungors!

  • Gabe

    Did they not answer this in a FAQ stating that the base was to be ignored when it comes to archaon? That’s what myself and others at my local shop have been doing at least.

  • Chad Morrison

    I believe it is based to ensure in matched play though

  • Commissar Molotov

    Wow, what a great rules-set you’ve got there.

  • Flan man

    In the general’s handbook, it states that you and your opponent can agree to measure model to model for faster play. Small amount of researsh could have eliminated this whole article.

    • Parthis

      Correction; a small amount of research would have eliminated all the Ad impressions and revenue. Conclusion; research is bad.

  • mgdavey

    Evidently the fact that you are free to change any rule that you don’t like, and or not play a game you don’t like means that it’s an insult to the readers intelligence to discuss problems with any rules as written. Thanks to everyone who pointed that out.

    • ThorOdinson

      That people have to discuss changing that rule so frequently says quite a bit about how crappy a rule it is.

  • Frank Krifka

    This is about as much of a problem as being attacked by a gang of angry clowns. Sure it happens occasionally, but it’s not really enough of an issue that we need an official calcification or sweeping solution to handle it.

  • Xodis

    Not really a base problem unless people try to make it a problem, generally you dont want to play with those people anyways. That being said, B2B has become the standard with my games.

  • Tesq

    use 40k rule for measure distance so many less time loss..

    horizontal base to base
    vertical measurment = every 3″ = cohesion/or cc when in buildings/ruin; case solved.

  • Earl Tower

    And this is why I never made the WH Fantasy to AoS change. If I want a fluid game with lots of assault and open formations I’ll play 40K or a good WW2 game. I went into Warhammer Fantasy ages ago from playing Ancients. In my fantasy games, and other archaic styles of warfare, I want blocks of troops, combat lines, turning flanks and all the other realities of warfare by melee weapon and limited range. AoS just does not do that for me.

  • Camden Poole

    Players with any since will agree that base to base is the most logical and easiest way to play. And if they don’t, the last rule in the rule book. ” The Most Important Rule”, I can just disagree with you and force a dice roll and choose how it is interpreted.

    • Ben_S

      What if I disagree about how The Most Important Rule is interpreted?

      • thereturnofsuppuppers

        You’re playing 40k

    • mgdavey

      If you have to solve every disagreement with a dice roll, there’s a problem and you’re probably not following the Most Important Rule.

  • Admiral Raptor

    Non issue. Nobody has been playing model to model since the game launched.

    • mgdavey

      Then isn’t it an issue if the rule in the book is different from how everybody actually plays it?

      • Admiral Raptor

        Not if there’s universal agreement. This is a GW game we’re talking about here. It was never going to be masterfully designed. It’s a bit of a triumph that the community has ignored what is easily the worst rule in the game.

    • ThorOdinson

      If you have a rule which nobody wants to abide by, then clearly the rule IS a problem.

      • Parthis

        Agreed. Just understand why the rule exists; it’s a transition from square to round. I suspect we’ll see this stuff go away.

    • crcovar

      I must be a nobody.

  • Munn

    Yeah like 5 people total who play sigmar actually measure to the model.

    • thereturnofsuppuppers

      Do you like Ungors Munn?

  • biome3

    Well most people play matched play anyway, which you need the generals handbook for, and I’m pretty sure it says that you can measure base to base in there, it might have to be one of those house rules that everyone uses, this sort of thing isn’t really an issue in open or narrative play, if we can get matched play right maybe everyone will finally be happy.

  • Xodis

    What we need are clear cylinders for all sized models so we can just measure volume to volume, plus you have the free bonus of all your models being protected from knock overs and even dust!

    • crcovar

      Clearly everyone should just be using pogs.

  • Ravingbantha

    AoS has been out for how long, and it still can’t get something as simple as measuring one mini from another. But by all means, let’s make 40K as ‘simple’ as AoS.

  • PrehistoricUF0

    Base to base. Simple. Agree beforehand and it’s a non-issue imo.

  • I don’t agree, I think AoS being base agnostic is a good thing. Classic models look better on squares and aesthetic should be a higher priority than game mechanics. Plus, movement trays still have a place for blocks of 50 models. I started basing my Nurgle army after AoS came out, and I went for square bases because they are IMHO pretty much all around better (and they came with all my minis), if GW suddenly decided to mandate bases (and let’s be real, there are no actual rules about base size in 40k either), I definitely would not be willing to rebase, it’s not a question of cost or effort.

    • Ryan C

      I disagree, I feel rounds are better for aesthetic on every model. Square is only of benefit if you need rank and flank style gameplay, which AoS did away with.

      Personally I’ve rebased almost all my fantasy minis already.

      I don’t think GW would force any strict basing rules but I could see them adding a paragraph just for match play that reads something like: “Round bases are recommended for matched play as they allow for a consistent distance measure from all sides of the model in order to avoid confusion and disputes.” which then mostly leaves it up to players and events to enforce, if they want.

      • Oh yeah, I would never play matched play, not when path to glory exists! That’s all I’ve ever wanted from Fantasy, ever since I was first exposed to the Realms of Chaos books as a kid

        • Ryan C

          That fair, I think its great the game is designed for so many different types of player. I tried Path to Glory years and years ago when the first PtG supplement came in in a white dwarf, was never really my thing. Personally AoS was a dead fish to me until matched play and points were released with the general’s handbook.

          • Yeah, one of the things about PtG is the unit sizes are never large. I literally can’t bring myself to paint 50 of a model, and I prefer to have a name and background written out for every model I build and paint

          • Ryan C

            I can see that, most of the time I’m playing with unpainted figs because I struggle to paint lots of rank and file a well. But I still prefer bigger scale.

            The other PtG challenge I always found was due to its nature and how your warband grows and shrinks over the course of a campaign based largely on dice rolls that the group of players quickly shrinks as those who get unlucky just stop showing up. (forgive me if this isn’t how it works now, I haven’t actually played PtG in a decade or more)

          • It totally is, things start to unbalance…but then you just arrange for a two vs one and smash the big dog haha

          • Ryan C

            Ah, the other big barriers I always had was you kinda need a big group or regular players. 99% of my games are 1 off matches also I never really was a fan of dice deciding what models I should buy.

          • Oh yeah, that definitely is a challenge, I am lucky having several very popular FLGSs nearby, plus a basement with gaming space.

          • Ryan C

            Ya, so matched play works really well for what I do. It gives me relatively balanced games that work in isolation. I also personally am much more of a fan of knowing I’m going into a game where its fairly even.

  • Matthew Pomeroy

    I dislike how flimsy the base is on that airship, that looks ready to break with the slightest twitch.

  • nuggy

    This system is also used for Mutant chronicles so it’s not really gw stealing from pp, its more like common sense.

  • rtheom

    I’ve used both base-to-base and model-to-model in my games and I have seen very little difference in either case. Of course I’m also not playing with people that are going to try to get every tiny advantage they can, the same types of guys that will fuss over templates in 40K, so maybe that helps.

    • crcovar

      Remember the 32mm base controversy? I feel like the same people who think measuring model-to-model is a “big problem” are the same kind of players who freaked out over the 4mm base increase.

  • The whole “ignore the base, measure model-to-model” is the ultimate evolution of the single worst piece of design any GW game has ever suffered: True Line of Sight. It doesn’t work, it never has worked, and it never will work. Standardized base sizes exist for a reason, and that reason is not just to prop up the model.

    And I know whose fault this one is, because Alessio STILL talks about how proud he is of it, how it’s his favorite rule ever, and wonderful of an idea it is.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Bases aren’t standardized any more.

      • Aren’t they? GW manufactures a variety of sizes, but they are generic and used for many models each, rather than every individual model having its own base, as with some RPG-oriented mini lines.

    • thereturnofsuppuppers

      It works in a thematic way.

  • Beefcake the mighty

    Give GW time. They are still figuring out this “game design” stuff.

  • Randy Randalman

    This is a problem for literally zero people on planet earth. Everyone uses base-to-base, and I promise GW will include that in the new GHB.

    • thereturnofsuppuppers

      Randy, what do you think of Ungors?

      • Matthew Pomeroy

        well they are clearly not gors

    • Orangecoke

      It would just be better to not have the official rules contradict that.

    • ragelion

      It’s already in the GHB, they outright tell you can use base to base if you want to hence I don’t understand this article.

  • ThorOdinson

    My favorite part is how my Demigryph Knights have to overlap bases in order to remain within coherency. >_>

  • ragelion

    The general handbook and the faq says you can use base to base if you want all it takes is simple human interaction. I don’t understand the point of this article.

  • Gonzalo Eduardo

    With my friends we houserule every game using the measure rules from Malifaux (base to base, 2″ for human size minis). I can’t understand why GW and other companies still use the model to model thing…

  • I don’t understand the point of this other than to stir salt. Its already a part of the GHB as an alternate way to play in black and white. I don’t understand why people are up in arms over it because its an “alternate” way to play. Like making it the official one way to play only is going to change how we play our game anyway? Nearly everyone does base to base anyway. Who cares that its an “alternate” way to play.

  • Borwol

    Ups. My homemade bases werent that good idea as i thought :p

  • Scott Staten

    This also can fix a major issue with moving certain large models. As an example,t he High Elf dragon is a beautiful model, but it is very long and skinny with wings sticking straight out the side.

    Technically the model can only move as far as the longest distance any part of the model travels to do the moivement. so the 8 1/2 inch long model uses just over 13 inches of movement!

    At full health, IIRC, the model has 14 inches of movement, meaning as soon as the dragon takes a wound, it cannot even turn around. Measuring from the base (or a fixed point on the base for a round base) still limits the maneuvrability of such a big model, but does not lock it into as predictable a path.

  • Agent OfBolas

    What’s the problem with measuring distances in game where “measure from model to model, ignore the bases”. Seriously … ignoring base size/shape is one of best features in AoS as I can use the same miniatures for WFB and AoS.

  • Stormandreas

    People need to realise they have to use COMMON SENSE to play Sigmar.
    It’s not bloody hard to just discuss something with you’re opponent and have a fun game. Sigmar is NOT designed to be competitive, its designed to be a game where you spend maybe an hour with a mate playing for the goddamn fun of playing.
    Why do people always want to make things as competitive as possible and not just have fun with a GODDAMN GAME anymore. It’s a GAME, treat it like one, and have fun!