Warmachines: Round or not ?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • from a rules perspective - i firmly back square bases. Rounds create an exception, and exceptions mean complexity in writing.

    HOWEVER-

    i voted round because squares should have happened when 2.0 first dropped. Its too late, move on, lets put our resources elswhere.

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

    "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

    - Grouchy Badger

  • It feels like when we had that referendum and voted wrong, so Brussels made us have it again.

    I would just like to know at this stage. I don't care which. Please just pick one. I have ~8 warmachines without bases. Buying bases for my dwarves' artillery is the last thing I need to do to complete the army, and I was just looking at where to get 75mm rounds for my UD catapults. Now they will have to remain baseless until there is a decision.

    What changes will a square base make to the rules, exactly? It would be nice to not only make a decision based on whether or not we want to re-base, but if we could make a decision between this rule set or that one.
    Need some inspiration? Check out my plog: Sam's Painting Saga
  • Personally, to be honest I don't like having a mix of base shapes on a gaming table. Certain rare things can be on rounds like the Gnasher Wrecking Team because it's a random, spinning mover. But to me war machines just look smarter on squares and recatngles. Particularly things like cannons which have a definitive rectanglular outline, as does things like trebuchets and catapults.

    I find it somewhat visually distracting to have my infantry blocks and monsters on squares and war machines on rounds. But that's just my personal preference, it has no bearing or logic or argument to make the game better. Of course if everything is painted well and based it's not really a big deal visually.

    As I've said before, of course in tournament settings it would all have to be consistent to keep the rules mechanics even and fair. But outside that it shouldn't hugely impact games between two players with any common sense and a mindset of sensible fairness between them.

    But I've also said before there ARE simple fixes for this regardless of what shape base the 9th Age rules require for official games. Seriously, even in the most gigantic armies you have maybe at the most what, four, maybe five war machines? If your war machines are on squares, just make up a few round base "blanks"...that is, paint and texture the round bases with grass, dirt but leave them empty and don't glue the war machine to it. Just leave it glued to the rectangular base. Then during a game just take your war machines and place them on the rounds.

    Yes yes, I know there is a bit of overlap because of the corners of the squares, geometrically they won't fit perfectly within the area of the circle. But seriously, it's pretty close, certainly for gaming mechanics purposes it works.

    You don't have to pry and break off your war machines and glue them on new bases every time the rules change! The blank base idea also makes your war machines flexible and can be used in several different game systems and rule sets.
    There are many magic rings in the world Bilbo Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly!

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Baranovich ().

  • huitzilopochtli wrote:

    It feels like when we had that referendum and voted wrong, so Brussels made us have it again.

    I would just like to know at this stage. I don't care which. Please just pick one. I have ~8 warmachines without bases. Buying bases for my dwarves' artillery is the last thing I need to do to complete the army, and I was just looking at where to get 75mm rounds for my UD catapults. Now they will have to remain baseless until there is a decision.

    What changes will a square base make to the rules, exactly? It would be nice to not only make a decision based on whether or not we want to re-base, but if we could make a decision between this rule set or that one.
    This will be the ultimate decision for Gold. So I guess minimum of 5+ years. And future editions like 3.0 may not even decide to look at this, so potentially for ever.

    Roughly (we haven't looked into detailed proposals yet), round bases means rules basically as they are now.
    Square would be 360 LoS, pivot counts as moving. The primary purpose would be to remove the text in the rulebook required by the existence of round bases.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

    And some basic tactics for beginners (I should develop this properly at some point)
    No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
  • DanT wrote:

    This will be the ultimate decision for Gold. So I guess minimum of 5+ years. And future editions like 3.0 may not even decide to look at this, so potentially for ever.
    Roughly (we haven't looked into detailed proposals yet), round bases means rules basically as they are now.
    Square would be 360 LoS, pivot counts as moving. The primary purpose would be to remove the text in the rulebook required by the existence of round bases.
    Good to know. If it ends up being squares, I will glue the guns diagonally across the base. That way, I can deploy them in an overrun-proof way while still keeping them pointed at the enemy :P
    Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.
  • huitzilopochtli wrote:

    It feels like when we had that referendum and voted wrong, so Brussels made us have it again.

    I would just like to know at this stage. I don't care which. Please just pick one. I have ~8 warmachines without bases. Buying bases for my dwarves' artillery is the last thing I need to do to complete the army, and I was just looking at where to get 75mm rounds for my UD catapults. Now they will have to remain baseless until there is a decision.

    What changes will a square base make to the rules, exactly? It would be nice to not only make a decision based on whether or not we want to re-base, but if we could make a decision between this rule set or that one.
    Base them permanently on rounds and then take some empty square bases and texture them as you normally would. Then during a game you can simply place the round-based war machines on top of the square bases and then move them and play normally. Makes them usable either way and bases are not that expensive in the grand scheme of things.

    All due respect but in my opinion this whole topic shouldn't be hinging on what will the devs. finally decide for Gold. You can make it work no matter which they decide.
    There are many magic rings in the world Bilbo Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly!
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    This will be the ultimate decision for Gold. So I guess minimum of 5+ years. And future editions like 3.0 may not even decide to look at this, so potentially for ever.
    Roughly (we haven't looked into detailed proposals yet), round bases means rules basically as they are now.
    Square would be 360 LoS, pivot counts as moving. The primary purpose would be to remove the text in the rulebook required by the existence of round bases.
    Good to know. If it ends up being squares, I will glue the guns diagonally across the base. That way, I can deploy them in an overrun-proof way while still keeping them pointed at the enemy :P
    Lol!
    There are many magic rings in the world Bilbo Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly!
  • Baranovich wrote:

    This is what I'm talking about in my post above. I mean is it really not feasible to use flexible basing like I suggest?
    Is it really not feasible to leave established, functioning rules alone?
    "An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you *stand, Men of the West!*"

    -Aragorn, son of Arathorn
  • Baranovich wrote:

    This is what I'm talking about in my post above. I mean is it really not feasible to use flexible basing like I suggest?
    Not really.

    Assuming an 80mm diameter circle, that square is 70.90mm wide, which is not a useful base size to use.
    Equally the diagonal across the square is larger than 80mm at 100.27mm, making it useful for preventing movement as it takes up more potential width and can allow more movement past it's narrower measurement.

    The centre being the same doesn't matter as much as the width being the same.

    If we went from rounds to squares we would take the 80mm round and change it to an 80mm square.
    You can put your 80mm round base on an 80mm square very easily for things like tournaments and at home games you're free to use whatever rules tweaks you want.

    Which is the same as using round base models to play the game, like many Warhammer Fantasy Daemons players did in Warhammer 8th edition and still do today when using those same models to play T9A. They use trays, we also have plenty of players who use round base models of other companies and use trays to get them to fit the square base system we use for models right now.
  • Baranovich wrote:

    huitzilopochtli wrote:

    It feels like when we had that referendum and voted wrong, so Brussels made us have it again.

    I would just like to know at this stage. I don't care which. Please just pick one. I have ~8 warmachines without bases. Buying bases for my dwarves' artillery is the last thing I need to do to complete the army, and I was just looking at where to get 75mm rounds for my UD catapults. Now they will have to remain baseless until there is a decision.

    What changes will a square base make to the rules, exactly? It would be nice to not only make a decision based on whether or not we want to re-base, but if we could make a decision between this rule set or that one.
    Base them permanently on rounds and then take some empty square bases and texture them as you normally would. Then during a game you can simply place the round-based war machines on top of the square bases and then move them and play normally. Makes them usable either way and bases are not that expensive in the grand scheme of things.

    All due respect but in my opinion this whole topic shouldn't be hinging on what will the devs. finally decide for Gold. You can make it work no matter which they decide.

    I'm not interested in double basing - it diminishes the aesthetic for me and I very much care how my army looks.

    DanT wrote:

    This will be the ultimate decision for Gold. So I guess minimum of 5+ years. And future editions like 3.0 may not even decide to look at this, so potentially for ever.

    Roughly (we haven't looked into detailed proposals yet), round bases means rules basically as they are now.
    Square would be 360 LoS, pivot counts as moving. The primary purpose would be to remove the text in the rulebook required by the existence of round bases.
    May not even look at it?

    So warmachines would be slightly weaker with a -1 to hit anything not initially in the front arc?
    Need some inspiration? Check out my plog: Sam's Painting Saga
  • huitzilopochtli wrote:



    May not even look at it?
    So warmachines would be slightly weaker with a -1 to hit anything not initially in the front arc?
    The "may not even look at it" is for a point in time that is so far in the future that I cannot reasonably make any definite prediction.

    No, warmachines would have 360 shooting arc. Their shooting would be essentially identical, the differences would be enemy aligning to them, calculating who can fight etc.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

    And some basic tactics for beginners (I should develop this properly at some point)
    No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
  • DanT wrote:

    huitzilopochtli wrote:

    May not even look at it?
    So warmachines would be slightly weaker with a -1 to hit anything not initially in the front arc?
    The "may not even look at it" is for a point in time that is so far in the future that I cannot reasonably make any definite prediction.
    No, warmachines would have 360 shooting arc. Their shooting would be essentially identical, the differences would be enemy aligning to them, calculating who can fight etc.
    well, if no real rule change would be linked to a change of bases, then rebasing IMO would not be worth it.
    Where can you change the vote. :P

    I personally dont get it why every unit in the game should have a to-hit modifier for moving and shooting (except for senseful weapons or fluffy background), but the most cumbersome things (warmachines) do not. :whistling:

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester


  • DJWoodelf wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    huitzilopochtli wrote:

    May not even look at it?
    So warmachines would be slightly weaker with a -1 to hit anything not initially in the front arc?
    The "may not even look at it" is for a point in time that is so far in the future that I cannot reasonably make any definite prediction.No, warmachines would have 360 shooting arc. Their shooting would be essentially identical, the differences would be enemy aligning to them, calculating who can fight etc.
    well, if no real rule change would be linked to a change of bases, then rebasing IMO would not be worth it.Where can you change the vote. :P

    I personally dont get it why every unit in the game should have a to-hit modifier for moving and shooting (except for senseful weapons or fluffy background), but the most cumbersome things (warmachines) do not. :whistling:
    Their move and shoot penalty is that they can't shoot; that's pretty restrictive, worse than a -7 to hit
    "An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you *stand, Men of the West!*"

    -Aragorn, son of Arathorn
  • Look, many war machines simply having the ability to “Pivot” during a battle is nonsense (trebuchets/catapults/most siege weapons), but it’s part of the game because it makes the weapons fun and playable.

    Having war machines on rounds while every other unit is on rectangles is bad design and the rules governing charging a war machine are needlessly complicated because of it.

    Rebasing is a hassle (although honestly it’s not that bad, but effort is always worse than no effort), but at the end of the day it will simplify a game that is already needlessly complex. I vote 100% for switching to rectangles, making los and shooting 360, and making any pivots count as moving for the purposes of not being able to shoot that turn (so people don’t pivot immediately before a charge to get a beneficial overrun)
  • Ludaman wrote:

    ...shooting 360, and making any pivots count as moving for the purposes of not being able to shoot that turn (so people don’t pivot immediately before a charge to get a beneficial overrun)
    why pivot if you can shoot 360 degrees?

    Why should you be allowed to dictate any warmachine overrun while you cant do it if a single goblin, zombie or whatever is in the way.

    Free pivot for a trebuchet which basically is fixed on the battlefield but a handgunner even gets -2 doing that.

    Honestly, all warmachines would need to be even unwieldy.

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester