Jump to content
scuy

bases are part of the models?

Recommended Posts

No need as I believe only flyers will utilize arcs (unless the arc marks on the acrylic bases are simply there due to repurposing of surplus), I'm fairly certain everything will use a 180 or 3 out of 4 side approach to shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Delboy

No need as I believe only flyers will utilize arcs (unless the arc marks on the acrylic bases are simply there due to repurposing of surplus), I'm fairly certain everything will use a 180 or 3 out of 4 side approach to shooting.

The flat edges of a model allow for Line of Sight to be determined with ease. Some models are listed as having Front Arcs (noted as F in their weapons profiles), some can fire to the Front, Left or Right (noted as F+L+R in their weapons profiles) and some can fire All Round (noted as AR in their weapons profiles)

 

I suppose folks could remove the models from their sculpted base and use acrylic if they really wanted to - it would be quite a modelling project to take on..... but if folks want to do that, provided they maintain the base sizes and orientation of the original model, they can.

 

d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have tools for that at work so i recon it will take 10 - 20sec/model. :)

But i would have preferred to have them separate and just buy clear bases or have the option to mount them on different scenic bases if i wanted to go for a different scenic element, say for example roads and more urban bases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 10mm scale infantry needs to be grouped on bases someway for practical reasons, but vehicles certainly don’t, and having fixed bases on the latter (especially rectangular ones) is a major spoiler from the visual impact point of view, which in my opinion is what table topping is all about.

And while infantry does need to be grouped on bases someway that certainly doesn’t mean they have to carry their own scenery around (which looks ridiculous in my opinion).

So it looks like Planetfall, for me, will become a huge conversion project, seriously limiting the amount of miniatures I will buy. 

And if the rules can’t handle vehicles not being on bases in some way, well, then I’m just not that interested in them anymore to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the "don't mind" camp. I would have preferred that the bases were separate with indents for the vehicles' wheels/tracks/legs/grav-pegs and leave the option to the player, but I have to conceded that this will make measuring a lot easier.

As someone who has "freed" their dystopian wars tiny fliers since the start I can attest that freeing up the models for placement on acrylic bases shouldn't take more than ten minutes with a jewelers saw.

The scenic elements on the infantry are nice, it's a shame they aren't carried over for the vehicles. There's not much space on the vehicle bases, but the totally open space is nagging at me. I'm sure I'll find some way to fill it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually very much pro bases. I've played FOW and the lack of bases on tanks drove me nuts, as it literally meant the paint was just scraping on the table and measurements were taken to weapons or hull, which was fiddly at 15mm and plain sadistic at 10mm scale.  Plus not having bases feels wrong, like you're playing with actual toy soldiers nstead of game pieces...but that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for fixed bases myself, definitely in the same boat as Pok, always hated that about FoW. :/

Also I don't get the need for acrylic bases, especially as I don't remember there being any that SG produces that would be in line with the vehicle bases, which is again going to be a rules issue if you undertake the conversion, your bases will need to match the standard issue ones to a mm as to not gain an unfair advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise, I'm just not getting the resistance to bases - seems an extreme reaction to something very minor from my pov...

If the wording remains the same from FI:P, and someone did decide to make their own bases, they will need to ensure that they match the model's supplied base exactly (mm for mm.) Seems a bit of a hassle for no gain other than the model has a clear base right? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise, I'm just not getting the resistance to bases - seems an extreme reaction to something very minor from my pov...

 

In my opinion bases never add to the visual appeal of a wargaming table, and that’s on the table they were made for, put them on any other table and they start to look really ugly really fast.

In a type of wargaming that’s all about visual appeal (if it isn’t then you’re wasting money) I can’t find that a “very minor problem”.

For me bases are a necessary evil in miniatures wargaming, and as such only to be used in cases that really can’t do without them.

And if you do have to use bases for miniatures you use the least obvious ones you can get away with.

So that means non-geometric shapes and flush edges…

 

Rules wise I don’t see the need for bases either.

I never had problems measuring to the center of a vehicle, but I’m not the type who’s going to fuss about a millimeter, and neither are the people I use to play with.

Other functions rules may assign to a base, mainly determining angles, can also be assigned to a template quite easily.

I use, for instance, a rules set for 15mm WW2 in which determining exact angles is very important, and I have never experienced problems using the templates that came with the game for that purpose.

As a matter of fact using a template for determining angles is actually a better solution because inaccuracy multiplies with distance in this case and a template will offer much increased accuracy over a small square base (and can be used to determine more than the four basic arcs a square/rectangular base can).

 

I would actually love to be able to combine Firestorm Armada and Planetfall in a campaign setting, but if I can’t have vehicles without bases because the rules set can’t handle them then it isn’t going to happen.

And this isn’t the only possible spoiler btw, the rules set will still have to convince me otherwise also, if it handles armor like the previous one did, for instance, it isn’t going to happen either.

In which case my wallet will let of a sigh of relief no doubt as FA is bleeding it pretty badly already… ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Other functions rules may assign to a base, mainly determining angles, can also be assigned to a template quite easily.

Which is even worse, at least from game perspective- you are adding another nonmodel to the list of things the game needs. More pointless clutter to the table, along with dice, status markers, measuring tools and all the junk. Not only is it aesthetically ugly, but also means if you forgot the template...too bad, you cant play the game. It may be just me, but the more junk you eliminate from your game, the better and more functional it is. Producing extra tokens, templates and so on when you can use a model base (or model itself) is just bad game design. Sure, you can't get rid of all of it without making the game too simplistic, but in that particular case, adding a template when you can use existing modelbase is pointless.

 

And yes, I realize you will disagree, just explaiing my pov. And yes, I do dislike the existence of the movement template in Firestorm, but spaceship games (naval in general) are really hard to design without one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bases are a plus as far as i'm concerned. i would argue that 90% of gamers would just stick a 'provided separately' base on anyway. most people who either want to do their own bases or want to use special scenic bases are crafty enough to just cut them off.

 

from Spartan's point of view, having the bases on gives the silicon mold a clear 'top' that helps them a lot. if any of you have experience with silicon molding you'll get what i mean, it's the difference between having a two-part mold (and all the mismatching and QA failing issues that plague some of the earlier FSA casts) and a single piece mold that you can just pop the miniature straight out. 

 

TLDR: having bases on is cheaper and cleaner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.