Discussion in 'General Hobby/Tabletop Chat' started by NIGHTBRINGER, May 7, 2017.
VC had cheesier rules that were easier to play, so more people gravitated to them.
Not in my eyes, but like EA games GW only seems to care for the opinions of the masses.
However, GW aren't completely anti-Tomb Kings because I went down to my local GW yesterday and there was someone painting a Necrosphinx on a rectangular base and the staff didn't mind in the slightest. But then I do live in Britain where the GW staff are always cheery blokes, even the one who kept using Warriors of Chaos against my Lizardmen purely to win several years ago. Are the GW staff similarly friendly down your way?
Mine either. I don't really care for Vampire Counts but I love Tomb Kings.
Of course popularity is purely a product of the masses... and that is where the money lies.
I don't see how they could say something. It is still their product, so there isn't really much they can (or would even be inclined) to do about it.
That has been my experience. Personally I've never met an unfriendly GW staffer.
Same here - It's why I've been campaigning that TK are better and that GW should have kept them and ditched VC!
Only if you're a Ferengi...
If I were to start a fantasy wargame, I would make sure every faction would get a decent update regularly and that no faction would be almost permanently in the limelight. Not only would it make the game more popular, it would also give the game a strong, loyal fanbase!
Suppose not, I was just saying that they don't actively discriminate against TK even though they don't make them anymore.
Neither have I - one thing GW do very well is that they always have really nice staff!
It definitely sounds like a viable option. On the flip side, there has to be a reason why GW, who is by far the industry leader, chooses not to adopt it. That said, your idea might very well work.
Indeed! GW has historically been pretty good like that. In my experience you've always been able to bring in and use older discontinued GW models.
GW don't need to adopt it as they make so much money from Space Marines (and now Stormcast), and the fact that all their stuff, not just Space Marine stuff, is so expensive. They're certainly very comfortably off in the wealth scale so they don't need to do such a thing. If there was a bad side, then probably it would be if a less popular army was updated then it would result in an overall loss as more money would have been spent doing the research, development and mould making than would have been received from players purchasing the new releases. On the other hand, you could counteract this by saying that bringing out new releases for a less popular army may attract more people to start collecting and playing that army, especially if the miniatures looked really original such as the new Kharadron Overlords miniatures for AoS.
Certainly agree with you there - I played a fantasy game at my local GW store once with my ancient 4th Edition metal Dwarf hammerers, that I had received from a relative who is more of a 40K man, and they didn't mind a bit. I also saw that some of the miniatures in their showcase still had square or rectangular bases even though they were now using them for AoS, which was nice to see.
That's because it's hip to be square!
All hail the king, baby.
Like a Bossk, square bases FTW!
Ok I know you are talking from a gameplay perspective here, but from an aesthetical point if view I disagree. Round bases look so much better IMO.
I am fond of square bases . That said, even in AoS, each kind of base got its Pros and Cons.
Square bases are better in Fantasy because units can be ranked up more easily. Even though AoS supports the use of round bases, you could still use square bases to rank your minis up in base contact with each other, just as you would in Fantasy, because models can be within 1" of each other. Certainly there are no disadvantages with this now that templates are not used in AoS, and is often advantageous if you have spear-armed troops as they are more likely to be within their 2" range of the unit they are fighting in melee.
Round bases have a slight edge in terms of aesthetics, though it is only a very minor advantage. At the end of the day, it still comes down to the model.
I'd say that the one advantage that AoS has over Warhammer proper, is the fact that the bases are a little larger. The models feel like they have a bit more space and you can do more with the base in terms of basing decorations. Also, I really wish that WFB had adopted larger base sizes so models could rank up easily without any issue.
In terms of game play, square has round beat. Square bases can do what round bases can, but it doesn't work the other way around (without the use of specialized movement trays).
@NIGHTBRINGER is spot on, here.
Round bases got a better aesthetic, but a part of it is due to them being larger, so with more field for decorations.
Regarding game advantages... speaking about AoS: larger bases means that your screen units cover a larger portion of the battlefield, making them much more efficient in their job, and your horde threatens much more space.
Smaller, square bases, means that your models are going to hit with a larger number of them (you can exploit reach, you can pile in a greater number and so on), and if your behemoth is mounted on a square base, can by hit in melee by a smaller number of enemy's models.
Square bases are my jam. Rank n Flank forever!
What if the enemy models stop short of touching the big square corner base and instead ring it about in a rough oval relying on their "reach" distance (whatever is defined in the rules) to attack the behemoth?
I have zero games of AoS xp.
I am asking what happens as if someone operates as stated in the first paragraph.
Is AoS being played differently from the way it is written?
No that would be perfectly legal.
Oh and of course if you don't houserule AoS the bases don't count at all anyway.
....nobody does that though I think. Even official tournaments measure base2base.
I'm not sure it's legal. In the pile in a model must move toward the closest enemy model, if you are not phisically in contact, then you should close in.
If you measure from models and not from bases, then you should also overlap bases.... and even GW (in the GHB If i recall correctly) recognize that to measure from base to base is an "house rule" that can be considered official, because no one wants models placed over decorated bases.
Nobody forces you to pile in all the way. You can stay a few millimeters away.
That has its advantages or disadvantages.
That being said: you are still kinda right in that you must be closer than 0.5" with at least one model after charging.