Topic: What are you thoughts on round bases?

[Zygmund]

... is it perhaps better to think GW stopped doing WFB and started AoS, rather than (per se) replacing one with the other?

Not just better, but best and right. Also saves you all the emotional trouble.

If you love WHFB, just skip anything AoS and keep doing what you love.

-Z

[knightofthelance]

Is AoS the "replacement" for WFB in every sense? I get that it is the second "core game" of GW and it is taking up the place of WFB in stores and it can be played with the same figures (although that is likely to change as old ones vanish and are replaced with new stuff) but ...

... is it perhaps better to think GW stopped doing WFB and started AoS, rather than (per se) replacing one with the other?

Try to pretend whatever you want if it makes you feel better. But the reality is that AoS did replace WFB, and no different line of thinking is going to actually change that.

[Alexis]

This is just going to descend into another shambles, isn't it? 

[Darknight]

But the reality is that AoS did replace WFB, and no different line of thinking is going to actually change that.

Oh, I agree it is a replacement in certain ways - but not in all, and I don't think it is helpful to think of it like that. Because a "replacement" implies it is taking the place of the previous thing ("re-place"). And while it is in terms of energy and support from GW, and space on the shelves etc. etc. it certainly isn't in the hearts and minds of fans.

That is what I mean. I think referring to it as the replacement for WFB is only going to cause upset - because it is (and I think we can all admit this) not widely liked (at least on this forum) by fans of WFB. It is so very different.

To Zygmund's point above - it is helpful to think of it as something new, because then one isn't thinking "this has taken / should take the place of WFB in my mind."

That is the point I am making - that is it not a replacement in every respect for WFB as 8th ed was for 7th ed.

[Zygmund]

This is just going to descend into another shambles, isn't it? 

The question has been answered: in WHFB bases matter, in WH:AoS they don't, and the rest is modelling aesthetics bound to be personal opinion.

So there's nothing left to discuss, really.

-Z

[knightofthelance]

This is just going to descend into another shambles, isn't it? 

The question has been answered: in WHFB bases matter, in WH:AoS they don't, and the rest is modelling aesthetics bound to be personal opinion.

So there's nothing left to discuss, really.

-Z

All my thoughts on round bases can be summed up with "Yep, that base is round".

Since my minis will be used for kings or war and WFB and the rare game of AoS I'll obviously keep them on squares. If all you are going to do is play AoS do what you want. Personally I think the work/expense of changing over  armies that are already finished is a bit daft, but it's fairly easy to make the case that this whole hobby is a bit daft, so do what you want.

[shavixmir]

Picasso.

'Nough said.

Square bases are functional, round bases are completely pointless.
Why not oval? Or just any random shape with round curves?
Unless you want a model to have a 360 degree arc of view, the round base doesn't add anything.
As for aesthetics... See first word.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

What are my thoughts on bases? I must admit my thoughts are usually baseless...

[Syn Ace]

 

Bases just don't matter in AoS other than supporting the model and being something to decorate. Personally, I like the look of a model when it's on a round or oval base more than square base-- more pleasing to my eye. Except when it's ranked up in a unit, then not so much, but what they did in the Lord of the Rings mass combat game with the unit base with circular cut outs was a nice solution. Square bases in WHFB were great for regimented units and for determining LoS and flanks. GW's problem was trying to jam larger figures onto 20mm bases.

AoS replaced WHFB. It's not a continuation other than they used its remnants as a springboard to launch the new product. Other than the conversion warscrolls, there's nothing other than the echoes of the fluff and some of the old participants (Sigmar, Chaos, etc) linking the two. And I refuse to play the bastardized crossover WHFB. I did buy some AoS units to play AoS and I'll stick with my WHFB for WHFB.

[Alexis]

Speaking of round bases:

Question regarding the correct oval base size that AoS regular cavalry seem to be re-based onto.  On the website, there different varieties and since I have never used them before I don't know which is which. http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Painting-Modelling?N=102299+4294965917&Nu=product.repositoryId&qty=12&sorting=phl&view=table&categoryId=cat440136a-flat

Would 60x35mm be what I'm after?

[StealthKnightSteg]

Speaking of round bases:

Question regarding the correct oval base size that AoS regular cavalry seem to be re-based onto.  On the website, there different varieties and since I have never used them before I don't know which is which. http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Painting-Modelling?N=102299+4294965917&Nu=product.repositoryId&qty=12&sorting=phl&view=table&categoryId=cat440136a-flat

Would 60x35mm be what I'm after?

yeah I would think so

[Reiksguard 1485]

Not a fan of round bases if I'm honest. Partly because I prefer the aesthetic of ranked up models (particularly state troops, Bretonnian archers, skeleton warriors etc) and partly because I like the in-game effect.

Modelling wise, I think it gives more opportunity to model and theme the army and make units more cohesive. For instance, when I read Uniforms and Heraldry, I decided to build Grundel's Defenders. The joy of square bases means I could model them like this, so that they are as similar as possible to the artwork:



But I could also arrange them in such a way that they still rank up with the command group up front, like this:

[Alexis]

Not a fan of round bases if I'm honest. Partly because I prefer the aesthetic of ranked up models (particularly state troops, Bretonnian archers, skeleton warriors etc) and partly because I like the in-game effect.

Modelling wise, I think it gives more opportunity to model and theme the army and make units more cohesive. For instance, when I read Uniforms and Heraldry, I decided to build Grundel's Defenders. The joy of square bases means I could model them like this, so that they are as similar as possible to the artwork:



But I could also arrange them in such a way that they still rank up with the command group up front, like this:

You've really got the picture from the Imperial Heraldry down well with that unit! Great work!

I suppose you can still rank them up if you use the circular movement trays with round bases, if it's the look you want? I know they would end up being wider than a normal tray if you are being strict, though. Personally, I plan to do that to display my units and perhaps for use in game.

[Darknight]

See my rules for ranked units if you wish to give that a try!