| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Basing conventions and breaking them http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28798 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Uberspoons [ Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Basing conventions and breaking them |
Hi, New to the forum and a returnee to Epic after a 20 year absence. Will I bemoked and chastised for basing my Imp Guard vehicles on 40mm rounds. The reason being is that I want to make the bases have added scenic value to the aesthetic of the great little models. I'll be doing a painting log on the appropriate forum for my Imp Guard, Tau and Marine armies....... |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Basing conventions and breaking them |
I think a sentinel on a 40mm round base might be pushing it (purely for practical reasons) but there are no 'rules' on basing vehicles really.... I say go for it! |
|
| Author: | David Wasilewski [ Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Basing conventions and breaking them |
I'm a newbie too and I have recently encountered this conundrum. My thoughts are as follows: There are rules for basing infantry and light vehicles so you need to stick with these. 25mm rounds or 25mm square or the 'strip' bases (40mm by 12mm I think) seem to be the most common on this forum? As far as I can tell there are no rules for basing vehicles. I take this to read that you measure firing distances and distances for combat range, fire fight ranges etc from the vehicle not the base so the base isn't important. The 'downside' to basing vehicles on 40mm bases is that may interfere with how they interact with terrain. My 'solution' is to compromise and stick everything apart from super heavies and war machines on 25mm round bases (Troublemaker games ones). I think I'll stick the superheavies and smaller war machines on 40mm rounds and the huge machines (Warlord Titans, Capitol Imperialis etc) can go on 60mm round bases. There are no 'right or wrong' answers really as they're your figures! Dave |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Basing conventions and breaking them |
Ya, no rules for AV/WE basing (you measure to the model). I try to keep the base as tight to the model as I can though. Which ever way you do it, just talk about it with your opponent before hand so you're on the same page with regards to measurements. |
|
| Author: | carlisimo109 [ Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Basing conventions and breaking them |
I could see those bases getting in the way. In an engagement, there’s a difference between being in contact vs. just being within 15cm. In shooting, infantry in contact with an armored vehicle get a cover save. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it; you just need to think about how friendly and enemy units will come into contact with your vehicles when they need to. It would not be ideal to treat the vehicles as 40mm circles… that would affect the game, especially by constricting your opponent’s movement lanes. The obvious alternative is to let units climb onto those bases, which might be tough if they’re full of scenery. Or you could use markers that indicate a unit is actually 10-15mm forward of its actual position, in contact with the vehicle. We’re pretty flexible. |
|
| Author: | splash [ Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Basing conventions and breaking them |
I base everything, but make sure whatever bases I do use fit the miniature(s) snugly, unless I do some scenery on them. |
|
| Author: | jimmyzimms [ Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Basing conventions and breaking them |
Basing a vehicle has no inherent limitations about measuring or figuring out if something is in cover or not. You'd simply use the base edge for making these determinations instead of the model. As long as you're not being a complete bell-end this is something I'm sure is easy to discuss in the 5 minute warmup. The real point is to be fair and mutually agree and be consistent. For example, in my last local, everyone had standardized on FoW bases on vehicles so it was quite nice as we measured coherency, distance, "being in" cover/CC/B2B/etc by the base edge. As for instance, a Chimera or Rhino or Leman Russ fit just about perfectly on the small base (bigger stuff like Land Raiders used the Medium base). So as is often said around these parts, do what works for you and have fun. edit: I'd also like to point out that basing a vehicle doesn't preclude using another convention such as the center of the vehicle for measuring distance or whatnot. Again, 5 minute warmup |
|
| Author: | MephistonAG [ Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Basing conventions and breaking them |
In general if you try to keep to an area of 500cm2 I don't think you'd go to far wrong. So 25mm diameter (the UK 2p size) is probably best for infantry if you are looking at round bases. The real downside with larger bases is that it is easier for enemies to get into base to base with you, and harder for you to get into base to base with enemies. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|