Topic: What are you thoughts on round bases?

[Ondjage]

One of the major changes in AoS is the (seeming) transition to round bases. If they would release proper rules and a point system, would you be happy to play on round bases? Or would you rather keep playing on squares?

I personally think round bases are better for several reasons:

1. They look better on the battlefield: more space between the soldier looks more realistic than perfect rectangles marching around as if on parade.

2. The round shape is prettier: a single model is more pretty on a round base than on a square. This is a matter of opinion I guess.

3. It allows for more complex poses: when you don't have to rank up your soldiers, both the producer and thr consumer has alot more freedom when creating/assemblying models.

What do yall think?

[Baron von Klatz]

Well, square bases certainly have their own charm and ranked up infantry look fantastic.

Round bases allow alot more customization and you don't have to worry about ranked up troops knocking eachother  over due to a errant spear/halberd.

Making interesting formations would also be easier,  if warhammer was always on round bases the Bretonnians probably would have kept their wedge.

[FVC]

Um, they might be better for display? I guess?

But square bases are both smaller and rank up better, so far as actually playing a war-game goes, I'd be inclined to argue that they're objectively superior. At least in terms of function. Maybe you think the round bases look better, and that's not a point I can argue, but in terms of actually playing a game? Square is better.

(Regarding the aesthetics, I actually have no preference as far as infantry models go. I think cavalry look better with rectangular bases, but then again, even cavalry in 40k have rectangular bases, so I doubt anyone would argue that. Long oval bases for cavalry are ugly. But with infantry? I don't really care.)

[Oxycutor]

I prefer the ranked up look, which is more achievable with square bases, and square bases, movement trays, unit fillers can give a nice coherency to a unit.   

Stuff can be hard to rank up on small bases, but that's partly due to scale creep over the years, and the designers seemingly oblivious to practicality, since they haen't thought much about stability, ranking up, transporting or playing with miniatures in a lot of cases.

With AoS, going round, the not needing to be bases to base, solves the ranking up problem,  stability by going round, but I think that's just from a large base, re-basing on bigger squares would do just as much to solve that.

I've based my AoS stuff on square bases, partly because if there end up being rules for Stormcasts for WFB that would be accepted by the community, then I can use them in WFB games as well as AoS.

[Deuce]

If you want to have a unit ranked up, which I think is a key component of the sort of mass battle wargame that Warhammer had always been prior to AoS, square bases are just about the only choice. You can have a semblance of a ranked-up unit with round bases but it looks really higgledy-piggledy and messy: not just because it's very difficult to get the troops lined up straight but because the bases inevitably make them untidy. This is actually something that always bothered me about the Lord of the Rings game as a visual spectacle, when it tried to do larger battles. With a good specialist movement tray it might be possible to correct that issue, but why bother when square bases make the whole process straightforward in the first place?

In any game where facing is important, square bases immediately have an advantage too, as the base helps make things clear.

Round bases arguably do look better on individual models and for skirmish games there is certainly something to be said for them. But I don't think square bases look bad, either, and I've seen other skirmish games that use square bases and still look great. What I think is important in any case is consistency within a group of models: mixed square and round bases often look a bit of a mess. This was a problem that afflicted 40K until they started releasing large round bases to go with daemon models, and Blood Bowl likewise with its Big Guys.

[iatroblast]

Everything i wanted to say has already mentioned, so to sum it all up: The round shape is prettier with the exception of cavalry which imo looks good in rectangular bases as well, whlle square bases work better when you rank up models which are forced/trained to fight in a close order formation

If i had to choose only one though, i'd choose round for the looks (which i would regret later in a game with large units)

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

The only thing that should have a round base is a war machine.

[Ondjage]

Ya'll need Sigmar.

[scrubber]

LoTR started life on round bases, but once GW wnted you to play larger battles with them, guess what. The movement trays got squared up.

[valmir]

Aesthetically? Eh, whatevs. I like the look of ranked-up infantry. But I can also see how round bases are nice for single models. And in principle, I'm not necessarily opposed to round bases. I'm not exactly a "skware-bases-fo-lyf" type, even though ranked fantasy combat was, like, 90% of what drew me to WFB.

Practically? My problem is that the AoS ruleset doesn't seem to be particularly conducive to effective use of round bases. The "skirmish" approach seems at odds with the fact you are rewarded for having larger (20+) units, compressed into a smaller space (in a unit coherence sense). As opposed to 40k, where the base shape and size in general seems to be in perfect synchrony with the rules and standard army sizes.

As I've intimated elsewhere, I really think it's too early to judge AoS, because we don't really have any of the "real" armies yet. I fully expect a lot of the unpleasant weirdnesses to stabilise as the actual vision for the game emerges over time.

[Warlord]

The only thing that should have a round base is a war machine.

QFT.

Also a few other units (who were already on round bases) such as Fanatics and such.

[Xathrodox86]

Like everything related to AoS they're shit. Round bases belong in 40K. One of the biggest appeals of WFB was always the rank and file system. We skirmish game now. Very poor skirmish game.

[The Real Rick Salamone]

EEFL


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mottdon]

^This.

[Ursa Doom]

Square bases is better for deciding field of vision.

[Dosiere]

Requiring round bases and using them to measure distances would be preferable in AoS to all the base humping that goes on from these model to model shenanigans. Since I magnetize all my bases anyway I could always put troops on round bases in a rank n file tray anyway, althougnitmwould look strange it would actually make ranking up easier since you could pivot models on the tray.

[Philhelm]

Round bases will look good on the Frostgrave miniatures I hope to purchase this week.

[The Peacemaker]

Round bases kills unit fillers - the utlimate in cool poses.

I guess you can pose your guys different on round bases but when combat starts you have to squish in to get attacks so its the same thing as square.
When I think about all the mini's I've glued together for ranked formations my complaint isn't that the base is square, its that the base is too small. 20mm base is pretty small.  40k imperial guardsmen are on 25mm but fantasy humans are on 20mm.
Also, Empire state troops are just kinda the worst in general for their pose. I don't see rounds making it better except for the fact that the rounds are on bigger bases which is my whole point.


As for the round bases looking better - that is 100% eye of the beholder. I played 40k and fantasy and i think both are equal. in terms of looks.

[Zygmund]

Round bases bring with them a different game design philosophy, and AoS is a different game.

You can play WH: AoS with any base form, there seems to be nothing in the rules that is connected to the base form. Whereas the proper base size and form is crucial for WHFB.

We don't regularly compare WH40K to WHFB, we don't regularly compare Fantasy Football to Kings of War. Why should we compare WH: AoS to WHFB?

Yes, square bases make it easier to determine the arc of view, if that arc is determined to be 90 degrees in the rules.

Yes, bigger bases allow for more freedom in posing, and 25mm round is bigger than 20mm square. Yet 25mm round is not bigger than 25mm square, and 40mm round is not bigger than 40mm square. It's a matter of base area, not of base form. As to whether round or square is more pleasing for the eye in a showcase, that's purely a question of aesthetic taste.

These are my thoughts on round bases (vs. square bases).

-Z

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

We don't regularly compare WH40K to WHFB, we don't regularly compare Fantasy Football to Kings of War. Why should we compare WH: AoS to WHFB?

Because GW specifically says that it can be played with the WFB models. As far as I know, they never urged anyone to use 40K models in WFB or vice versa (barring Daemons, of course).

[Zygmund]

We don't regularly compare WH40K to WHFB, we don't regularly compare Fantasy Football to Kings of War. Why should we compare WH: AoS to WHFB?

Because GW specifically says that it can be played with the WFB models.

And it can be played. So what?

-Z

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

So you should not be surprised people are comparing the two.

[Zygmund]

So you should not be surprised people are comparing the two.

You can play AoS with either, and it doesn't really matter. So what's the point?

-Z

[knightofthelance]

We don't regularly compare WH40K to WHFB, we don't regularly compare Fantasy Football to Kings of War. Why should we compare WH: AoS to WHFB?

Seriously? None of those other examples seem to be direct replacements for another. When that happens you should expect to see comparisons.

[Darknight]

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?