lastbesthope
Mongoose
Ripple said:
You know what they say about assumptions.
:lol:
LordClinto said:
I wouldn't complain if I was your opponent.
LBH
Fighter Bases
- Thread starter animus
- Start date
You know what they say about assumptions.
:lol:
I wouldn't complain if I was your opponent.
LBH
The fighter base is ridiculously large in the first place.
I have a problem with the base size in general and stacking - I mean it's space! Forget the three dimensional aspect for a second, the scale is vast. a 1 inch base should accomodate an entire fleet.
For game reasons (mostly so ships don't fall down) I'll accept the no-stacking.
I have a problem with the base size in general and stacking - I mean it's space! Forget the three dimensional aspect for a second, the scale is vast. a 1 inch base should accomodate an entire fleet.
For game reasons (mostly so ships don't fall down) I'll accept the no-stacking.
I based my vorlon fighters individually on small GW round bases...just looked right an no one has come hunting me.
LBH, it is a serious question, how does a fighter support another fighter? The wise ass remark, while funny, does not answer the question. From the description the only answer I could come up with was you stack the two bases. If you have any real insight or know of a 'ruling' on the issue like the fighters can stack on bases one that caught us all by surprise I would love to know as with Arm. out it makes a big difference how many fighters can be in how much space.
Ripple
LBH, it is a serious question, how does a fighter support another fighter? The wise ass remark, while funny, does not answer the question. From the description the only answer I could come up with was you stack the two bases. If you have any real insight or know of a 'ruling' on the issue like the fighters can stack on bases one that caught us all by surprise I would love to know as with Arm. out it makes a big difference how many fighters can be in how much space.
Ripple
Iain McGhee
Mongoose
Personally, I use the SST round bases with 2 or 3 fighters per base. To represent escorting (or just launched) fighters I sit the fighter stand on top of one of the Mongoose originals. Obviously touching the escorted flight.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
There is no official answer to this. Personally, I sit all supporting flights behind, and in contact with, the flight/ship they are supporting. Of course, I use smaller thicker bases that don't physically stack easily.Ripple said:
Wulf
During the development of Epic A we came up with the solution of defining a recommended base size minimum and maximum. We found that to be far more acceptable to most players rather than attempting to 'force' a fixed size onto people, which, lets be honest is unacceptable and uneccessary.
For example, rather than dictate exactly the size of an infantry base we simply said it 'should' contain between 3 and 7 figures, be no more than 20mm across any one side and no less than 5mm. This meant people who preferred 20mm x 20mm bases were just as valid for tournaments as those that had the newer 20mm x 5mm. There is no reason the same cannot be applied to ACTA and let common sense prevail.
You should not enforce a specific base size onto players because most will have their own preferences if even only for aesthetics. Provided they are sensible and a consensus is reached as to how any odd sized bases should be interpreted prior to the game, there is no problem.
If a player is determined to mount their models onto either ridiculously small or large bases purely to exploit a rule its generally obvious that they are doing so. If they refuse to adopt a standard approach then they are probably not a player you honestly would enjoy a game against anyway, so just walk away.
In over fifteen years of playing in various tournaments I can count on one hand the number of players I have encountered who are macro/micro rule players and only twice have I ever walked away from a game because of determined rule exploitation. Its simply not that big a deal and most definately does
not require enforced base sizes.
Like LBH says, the guide he linked to is very useful, but it should remain just that in my opinion; a guide.
Just my 2 credits worth.
Regards
Carl
DropChief said:
Carl,
Actually, many game systems have specific basing conventions for their games. Here are just a few:
Hordes of the Things
DBA
DBM
DBR
Warhammer Fantasy
40k
Confrontation
Warmachine
Heavy Gear
What this does is allow for consistancy in the game system. In games like Epic and DBA, the nuber of figures per base is done so that when using figures from different manufactuers you can easily tell what the stand is. For example in DBA, Shooters have 3 figures with their respective missle weapons, why Psiloi have 2 figures.
The advantage of having basing conventions is that it allows for easier balancing of given abilities, especially ranged abilities as the angles off the bases are consistant.
In a game like ACTA in which bases of ships cannot overlap, it is a huge disadvantage to have a larger sized base, especially in games where there are a large number of figures on the table.
The other reason for basing conventions being enforced is for playtesting. It provides a consistancy between playtesting groups. This way a figure takes up the same physical space if you are using FA scale mini's or Full Scale minis in all of the playtest groups.
I could go on for pages on this, but this fight has gone on before, and I don't see this issue being resolved anytime soon.
Dave
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Wulf Corbett said:
What Wulf said, there is no official answer as yet, I'd say they have to be at leat in base to base contact. And it wasn't onwe of the two instances that Matt stated as beoing allowed overlap so I guess base contact is the way to go.
LBH
I am sorry Dave, but I completely disagree with the above. The models and the bases are a complete abstract, they should have no effect on the game whatsoever. How else otherwise could it be allowed to use counters in tournaments, where is their 'base size'?
The one constant that should be used for measuring ranges is either the marked centrepoint of the counter, or the stem of the model, not the base edge. Equally to determine the firing arcs you use either the marked arcs on the printed counters or the beam of the model itself. The base size is completely irrelevant, it only has an effect as you rightly say on how fighters and other ships make direct base contact or stacking. It has nothing to do with measuring ranges or determining firing arcs whatsoever.
They have conventions, yes. But they are not enforced! 40K has never had an enforced basing convention, players have always been allowed to use whatever base they feel is most appropriate for their models. I and many other tournament players I know have used larger bases (and smaller) than what is the convention for years and encountered no resistance whatsoever.
Taking ACTA as an example, how do you determine what is acceptable for a Poseidon for example? Some people use one large base, others two smaller along the length of the carrier, others yet two large ones. Again, there is wisdom in recommending a convention, but there is no requirement to enforce it.
I agree with what you are saying about helping to tell what a stand is, however I can assure you with regards to Epic it has absolutely nothing to do with telling what they are when using figures from a different manufacturer??? :shock:
The reasons for basing conventions has always been to allow the player enough creative freedom to represent their models the way they like as an abstract without compromising the integrity of the game mechanics.
I completely agree with you! However, it is not a good enough reason to dictate how players base their models.
Oh no, no, no! I am sorry Dave but here I really disagree. Models are a total abstract, they are not to scale! That is the reason you measure everything from the stem point, its the one constant. There is an excellent explanation in the Battlefleet Gothic rules that explains the abstract rule very well which is well worth looking up. Obviously I am not going to reproduce it here, but in principle just think of your ships as giant representations on the table of what the ship is. Clearly the physical size of the model (and the base) is completely irrelevant if you use the stem for all your measurements. The size of one ship compared to another is only for representation, it shouldn't be taken as any kind of guide for measurements otherwise we would have gaming tables that were miles across and Starfury fighters that were about 0.5 mm in length
I am not trying to pick a fight here and completely respect where you are coming from, I just feel your reasons are flawed. There are many compelling reasons for having a basing convention, most of them common sense, but there isn't a reason for 'enforcing' it. The simple reason is I just do not believe for one second that it is actually enforcable.
Who is going to tell me at the next tournament that my fighters are not based correctly just because I chose to not use the hexagonal ones provided and so on so forth.
I agree with you that it probably isn't gojng to get resolved anytime soon too. But also I don't think thats really that big a deal to be honest.
As LordClinto said:
I totally agree with the above. The base + models is just an abstract representation of a squadron of fighters, it doesn't really matter whether there are six actual models on there, three, or even just the words 'Here be Fighters' painted in pink! Provided both players know what it represents its fine. Where it becomes a problem is if a player thinks its ok to stick one fighter on a 50mm diameter base and use the edge to measure his range :roll:
It doesn't need enforced base sizes to fix that problem, it just needs all that players opponents to inform them what a donkey he/she is and refuse to play them. They will soon fix their attitude, or alternatively find very few opponents willing to play them.
Like I say, I am not flaming you Dave, I completely respect your reasons and understand where your coming from, I just think there are other ways to resolve any problems that arise with base size abuses that don't include attempting to enforce the un-enforcable
.. Here you and I agree 100% I don't really care how many fighters are on it, as long as it is a 'sensible' abstract of what it is supposed to represent.
I am going to shut up now
Regards
Carl
lastbesthope
Mongoose
DropChief said:
Base size does matter in ACTA, as apart from a couple of fighter special cases, bases are not allowed to overlap, nor are counters.
True counters have a different 'base size' than the equivalently based ship, but they are at least a standard and known size.
LBH
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Isn't it the FRONTAGE that's fixed in these games? The base depth can vary if the minis on it require a longer base. I know for certain that's the case with HotT. So the base sizes are merely guidelines.Davesaint said:
Wulf
LBH I don't disagree with what you are saying, however, if they are so critical that they require enforcing how can you possibly have the following?
G'Quan Counter 50mm x 27mm
G'Quan model Base 60mm (diameter)
Sho'Kar Counter 50mm x 27mm
Sho'Kar Model Base 25mm diameter
Just taking the G'Quan its a difference of between +20% and +100%
With the Sho'Kar its between -8% (approx) and -100%
Yes, the counter sizes are all the same and in a way that further makes my point. How can it be so critical when the deviation in base size of some of the counters to their model equivalent base is as much as -100% to +100% ??
If a situation comes up where it becomes suddenly critical that the accuracy of the base size is important then I am sure a consensus can be reached between the players. If it can't be then I would question whether that person was worth playing in the first place.
In the situations where the written word of the rule and the practicality of the model clash, common sense should always previal.
Let me give you two examples if I may:
Example 1: The rule states models can be placed on planets. The reality: I am NOT making flat paper planets just to accomodate, I agree with my opponent that we both know where his ship is if he simply places it next to the nice model planet I have on the table. Common sense.
Example 2: My opponent has decided to base his honking large Poseidon on two large 60mm bases for stability. He wants to drive it between a gap between two of my ships but the gap is too narrow to finish his move because the second base is too wide and would overlap one of my bases. If he had a nice little 27mm wide counter it wouldn't be a problem. The reality: He places his ship so that it fits on the table even though its not exactly where it should be. For all measuring and firing arc purposes we agree to measure from where it 'should' be.
I am not saying base size doesn't have an effect in the game, I am saying the base size guide you linked to should be just that, a guide, nothing more.
Using the edges of a base as any kind of arbitary boundary is not a good game mechanic, its just too wildly innaccurate as my example above shows. Its a classic example of creating one rule to stop one issue (stacking) which then creates a whole raft of new problems by making something that should be irrelevant, namely base size, suddenly relevant.
My only point in all this is not that base size doesn't have an effect in ACTA, but that its not acceptable to try to tell collectors just what size base they 'have' to put their models on.
Guide them yes, don't dictate to them though.
Your point is taken though LBH
Regards
Carl
lastbesthope
Mongoose
DropChief said:
They only require enforcing if people start extracvting the urine.
DropChief said:
With planets capable of being over 10" in diameter, that could be hard to keep track of.
DropChief said:
Fair enough, gentlemanly agreements make happy gamers.
DropChief said:
It is currently a guide and nothing more, I said as much when I linked to it. It was drawn up for possible future enforcement, should too much urine start being extracted :lol:
DropChief said:
It is not acceptable to dictate to collector's no, but it is to gamers. When base size is important enough in the rules, then standards should be set and must be adhered to in official games. (Notice I said IF it becomes important enough) If you're just gaming for fun then of course it doesn't matter.
LBH
DropChief said:LBH I don't disagree with what you are saying, however, if they are so critical that they require enforcing how can you possibly have the following?
G'Quan Counter 50mm x 27mm
G'Quan model Base 60mm (diameter)
Sho'Kar Counter 50mm x 27mm
Sho'Kar Model Base 25mm diameter
Just taking the G'Quan its a difference of between +20% and +100%
With the Sho'Kar its between -8% (approx) and -100%
Yes, the counter sizes are all the same and in a way that further makes my point. How can it be so critical when the deviation in base size of some of the counters to their model equivalent base is as much as -100% to +100% ??
If a situation comes up where it becomes suddenly critical that the accuracy of the base size is important then I am sure a consensus can be reached between the players. If it can't be then I would question whether that person was worth playing in the first place.
In the situations where the written word of the rule and the practicality of the model clash, common sense should always previal.
Let me give you two examples if I may:
Example 1: The rule states models can be placed on planets. The reality: I am NOT making flat paper planets just to accomodate, I agree with my opponent that we both know where his ship is if he simply places it next to the nice model planet I have on the table. Common sense.
Example 2: My opponent has decided to base his honking large Poseidon on two large 60mm bases for stability. He wants to drive it between a gap between two of my ships but the gap is too narrow to finish his move because the second base is too wide and would overlap one of my bases. If he had a nice little 27mm wide counter it wouldn't be a problem. The reality: He places his ship so that it fits on the table even though its not exactly where it should be. For all measuring and firing arc purposes we agree to measure from where it 'should' be.
I am not saying base size doesn't have an effect in the game, I am saying the base size guide you linked to should be just that, a guide, nothing more.
Using the edges of a base as any kind of arbitary boundary is not a good game mechanic, its just too wildly innaccurate as my example above shows. Its a classic example of creating one rule to stop one issue (stacking) which then creates a whole raft of new problems by making something that should be irrelevant, namely base size, suddenly relevant.
My only point in all this is not that base size doesn't have an effect in ACTA, but that its not acceptable to try to tell collectors just what size base they 'have' to put their models on.
Guide them yes, don't dictate to them though.
Your point is taken though LBH
Regards
Carl
Carl,
In ACTA the size of the model does not matter, it is the amount of space that the base of the ship takes up that matters. A problem with this is as follows:
There are several "eras" of minis that are being used for ACTA.
Era 1 - AOG full Scale Minis. The larger full scale minis used 2 1" hex bases , while the smaller ones used 1" bases. This was not a big deal as it was in the rules that you measured from the first base for range, and the game was played on a hex based map.
Era 2 - AOG Fleet Action Scale Minis - All of these figures were based on a 1" hex base. This game was also played on a hex based map
Era 3 - Current ACTA - Some ships come with 2" Round and some come with 1" round bases. Fighters retained their 1" hex bases Played on a "free form" map using an inches based movement system. Bases can't overlap.
The problem comes when people who have the old AOG figs on their original hex bases and people have the current 2" round bases. Since the only thing that matters is the space that the base physically takes up, the older models can fit into much smaller areas than the newer based models. This becomes a disadvantage to people who are just getting into the game using the figs purchased from mongoose. The problem will get worse with the large models. Well them and the Drazi who have all of their ships based on 2" round bases.
It has been my opinion that ships should be based on the same bases that Mongoose releases with their figures. This provides consistancy. As far as counters go, I don't have a problem with them as they are what Mongoose is producing.
BTW, Pre-Armageddon fighters could not overlap ship sized bases, so it was possible, since you measure center of base to the stem of the target model for ranges, for fighters with range 2 guns to be out of range of their target ship due to how the target ship was based.
Dave
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Davesaint said:
Actually I don't think this was mentioned in Armageddon.
Matthew mentioned at one of the events that he'd always assumed people knew fiighters could move onto the base of the ship that they were attacking, he never even thought anyone would think otherwise.
LBH
Don't you just hate it, I just wrote a really really really long reply and spent so long waffling on it timed out when I submitted it. :roll:
That'll teach me not to cut-n-paste :?
Shame really as I had a really good demonstration to emphasise my point using a rubber band, particle accelerator and a Vorlon Destroyer mini. Oh well.
Carl
That'll teach me not to cut-n-paste :?
Shame really as I had a really good demonstration to emphasise my point using a rubber band, particle accelerator and a Vorlon Destroyer mini. Oh well.
Carl
