Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I just wish they never grew the damned models to be so large. I don't really want units to have larger footprints due to increasing from 20/25 to 25/30, I just want the models to fit on 20/25 bases like they used to. The 5th ed Bretonnian Knights, for example, rank up perfectly well. The 6th edition ones, the nose of one horse is up the backside of the horse in front of it... who on earth approved that choice?

Aye. Scale creep is a harsh mistress. For one thing, she seems to leave all those designers with severe concussion...

Paradigm wrote:I think this would be the best solution quire honestly. Either go KoW route where the whole unit is one element, or the historical/WotR route where you build units from smaller, multi-based elements. Not only does this solve a lot of ranking issues, and minimise the need for stopping to make sure everyone is lined up perfectly/check model-by-model who is in combat, but it opens up a lot more aesthetic options, so people like you can have your neat regiments and people like me can have our looser formations on round bases and we can both be happy! If we both have, say, 4 elements of equal footprint in a unit, then it doesn't matter whether your guys line up perfectly or that mine are based 3-to-a-base rather than 5, and there are only a few things to check to determine who is in range or in combat ect.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Warhammer is going skirmish, and people get their individual-models-and-characters fix from that, the mass-battle version needs to go 'Warmaster 3.0'.

The reason I am doubting GW will take this route, though, is that by basing the system on elements, you can technically get away with less minis per unit space, whereas right now, if you want a block of 40 minis you need 40, and you're out of luck if you have 38 or 39.

Given that needing gazillions of expensive minis is one of the main issues driving people away from WFB in the fist place, I don't think they'd have much to lose. Heck, they're just about to roll out the skirmish version to get a few more sales. Although I'm fully aware GW would never acknowledge that, and blame poor WFB performance on the stronger economy, or sumpthin'.

Orock wrote:Some of you say you like blocks of troops better, but what if they change template weapons to work like 40k?

What if I slipped and fell in the shower?

Here's a frightening concept: other unit-block games don't use blast templates. Warhammer could easily do without too.

I really wish people would stop saying "they're just about to roll out the Skirmish version to get a few more sales".

Look up the rules for "Regiments of Renown". It was an official Games Workshop rules set, and still gets used at several of their shops as a way to generate interest for WFB.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Glasdir wrote:

apparently a few armies (lizardmen, brettonia and all the elves) are due some BIG changes, but they will be continued to be supported for a while in their current format.

I do not find this even remotely comforting.

neither do I as elves and lizards are all I have for WHFB, I'm just posting what I've read, it may or may not be true. in the end it's just a rumor, I've only seen one person say this so far so like I said take it with a large pinch of salt.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I really wish people would stop saying "they're just about to roll out the Skirmish version to get a few more sales".

'Cos WFB is doing so brilliantly and people love buying gazillions of overpriced plastics for it?

Look up the rules for "Regiments of Renown". It was an official Games Workshop rules set, and still gets used at several of their shops as a way to generate interest for WFB.

Never heard of it. Link to the rulebook?

 Vermis wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I really wish people would stop saying "they're just about to roll out the Skirmish version to get a few more sales".

'Cos WFB is doing so brilliantly and people love buying gazillions of overpriced plastics for it?

I was meaning that more in the terms of "They already have a skirmish set for WHFB."

Look up the rules for "Regiments of Renown". It was an official Games Workshop rules set, and still gets used at several of their shops as a way to generate interest for WFB.

Never heard of it. Link to the rulebook?

Wasn't a rulebook. It was initially used for Warhammer World as an "Event Pack".

The link is, as of this moment, still live

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I really wish people would stop saying "they're just about to roll out the Skirmish version to get a few more sales".

'Cos WFB is doing so brilliantly and people love buying gazillions of overpriced plastics for it?

I was meaning that more in the terms of "They already have a skirmish set for WHFB.

Look up the rules for "Regiments of Renown". It was an official Games Workshop rules set, and still gets used at several of their shops as a way to generate interest for WFB.

Never heard of it. Link to the rulebook?

Wasn't a rulebook. It was initially used for Warhammer World as an "Event Pack".

The link is, as of this moment, still live

It's not the first time they've released low model count rules for WHFB, they've had several over the years. I'm still not sure how it'd invalidate the statement "they are rolling out skirmish rules to get a few more sales"?

 Vermis wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I really wish people would stop saying "they're just about to roll out the Skirmish version to get a few more sales".

'Cos WFB is doing so brilliantly and people love buying gazillions of overpriced plastics for it?

I kind of question whether WFB pricing is the issue ... as a long-time 40K player who drifted away from WFB after a few years of getting destroyed using Ravening Hordes Brets against everyone else who had rulebooks and who is now returning to WFB, I am finding WFB actually a lot cheaper than 40K to get into. I just bought my son a pretty respectably sized Lizardman army for about $300 (two batallion boxes, a stegadon, and a couple skink boxes). No way I can buy any 40K army with that many minis for under $500 that I can think of.

Latest rumors i've been hearing is that either square or circle bases will be feasible for play. To what degree (as in, design wise, full mutability between the two, or "Technically yes everythign can be on square, but if you're on square you can't do XYZ, whereas circle can do all that square can + XYZ" or something along those lines remains to be seen).

What i'm really interested in is there is full mutability in bases, how is distance measuring going to be handled, if not from base (stands to reason that in various instances with various bases, a square base or a circle base would be advantageous if measurements happen base to base).

I am wondering if they are going to move to, for the larger scale game, a "representative" system. I.e. - you have a movement tray, and its populated by models, but the "tray size" defines the number of attacks, etc, by the rules.... or something along those kind of lines. Not sure how it works in other games, but i know it exists - essentially the # of models in the unit actually on the table isn't representative of what the unit itself can actually do / output, etc.

Anyone know how this works in games like KoW, etc, that have representative sized units rather than precise sized units ? I know of the design concept, but have never actually played a game where it's been employed.

Were this such system used, it would stand to reason then that your base size truly doesn't matter if there's a macro-sized tray / holder / base etc., that your micro based models sit on, and this is the basis of measurement and other factors.

Or it could be something unique, who knows. Sorta thinking out loud a bit.

 Haight wrote:
Latest rumors i've been hearing is that either square or circle bases will be feasible for play. To what degree (as in, design wise, full mutability between the two, or "Technically yes everythign can be on square, but if you're on square you can't do XYZ, whereas circle can do all that square can + XYZ" or something along those lines remains to be seen).

What i'm really interested in is there is full mutability in bases, how is distance measuring going to be handled, if not from base (stands to reason that in various instances with various bases, a square base or a circle base would be advantageous if measurements happen base to base).

I am wondering if they are going to move to, for the larger scale game, a "representative" system. I.e. - you have a movement tray, and its populated by models, but the "tray size" defines the number of attacks, etc, by the rules.... or something along those kind of lines. Not sure how it works in other games, but i know it exists - essentially the # of models in the unit actually on the table isn't representative of what the unit itself can actually do / output, etc.

Anyone know how this works in games like KoW, etc, that have representative sized units rather than precise sized units ? I know of the design concept, but have never actually played a game where it's been employed.

Were this such system used, it would stand to reason then that your base size truly doesn't matter if there's a macro-sized tray / holder / base etc., that your micro based models sit on, and this is the basis of measurement and other factors.

Or it could be something unique, who knows. Sorta thinking out loud a bit.

In KoW, the template of the unit (the amount of space it would take up with ranked minis on proper square bases) matters, the number/position of minis within that is entirely irrelevant. For example, I play it with round-based LotR minis in loose formation, and for a unit of '20' models that should be on 20mm bases (so a 100x80mm tray) I'll typically just arrange 8-12 minis in an aesthetically pleasing formation, with no effect on gameplay.

As for WFB, I'd love to see the mass battle variant take on a similar, unit based system. Individual models/profiles within units at this scope of game just gets clunky for no real gain.. Set stats per element (whether that's a KoW style full regiment or a WotR style subdivision of a regiment) would be a huge leap forward, and the only thing that might get me to consider it over KoW.

For the rumoured skirmish variant, I can see the circle/square issue being resolved by nothing more than 'use whatever you prefer'. They're already taking this approach in 40k, where 32 and 25mm bases are basically interchangeable, and frankly, I can't see it causing an issue in either system. As long as measuring sill goes edge to edge, the distances between bases will be the same regardless of base size, and any advantage you could somehow gain would be just as much a disadvantage elsewhere.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Haight wrote:
Latest rumors i've been hearing is that either square or circle bases will be feasible for play. To what degree (as in, design wise, full mutability between the two, or "Technically yes everythign can be on square, but if you're on square you can't do XYZ, whereas circle can do all that square can + XYZ" or something along those lines remains to be seen).

What i'm really interested in is there is full mutability in bases, how is distance measuring going to be handled, if not from base (stands to reason that in various instances with various bases, a square base or a circle base would be advantageous if measurements happen base to base).

I am wondering if they are going to move to, for the larger scale game, a "representative" system. I.e. - you have a movement tray, and its populated by models, but the "tray size" defines the number of attacks, etc, by the rules.... or something along those kind of lines. Not sure how it works in other games, but i know it exists - essentially the # of models in the unit actually on the table isn't representative of what the unit itself can actually do / output, etc.

Anyone know how this works in games like KoW, etc, that have representative sized units rather than precise sized units ? I know of the design concept, but have never actually played a game where it's been employed.

Were this such system used, it would stand to reason then that your base size truly doesn't matter if there's a macro-sized tray / holder / base etc., that your micro based models sit on, and this is the basis of measurement and other factors.

Or it could be something unique, who knows. Sorta thinking out loud a bit.

In KoW, the template of the unit (the amount of space it would take up with ranked minis on proper square bases) matters, the number/position of minis within that is entirely irrelevant. For example, I play it with round-based LotR minis in loose formation, and for a unit of '20' models that should be on 20mm bases (so a 100x80mm tray) I'll typically just arrange 8-12 minis in an aesthetically pleasing formation, with no effect on gameplay.

As for WFB, I'd love to see the mass battle variant take on a similar, unit based system. Individual models/profiles within units at this scope of game just gets clunky for no real gain.. Set stats per element (whether that's a KoW style full regiment or a WotR style subdivision of a regiment) would be a huge leap forward, and the only thing that might get me to consider it over KoW.

For the rumoured skirmish variant, I can see the circle/square issue being resolved by nothing more than 'use whatever you prefer'. They're already taking this approach in 40k, where 32 and 25mm bases are basically interchangeable, and frankly, I can't see it causing an issue in either system. As long as measuring sill goes edge to edge, the distances between bases will be the same regardless of base size, and any advantage you could somehow gain would be just as much a disadvantage elsewhere.

Thanks for the heads up, interesting and is closely what i thought it would be like.

What i am concerned about is the "use whatever base you want". For instance, if we look at 40k 25 vs. 32, it is easier to get a 32 mm base within 2" of more targets. Minutely so, but still - so. Its a small advantage if you have that model on a 32 mm if you want that model in melee with things, and by proxy if you want to keep it just an itsy bitsy bit more safe, mounting it on a 25mm base maxes sense.

Yes, these are really small advantages and probably only truly matter one turn out of the game (on the initial charge), and even only in scenarios just on the peripheral of threat range. That said, it is a bit of mineable advantage, and that rankles my nose a little.

If it's the same way (use whatever you want square or round, all are equal, measure base to base), it seems to me that there is similar small, but measureable, mineable advantage. Particularly if there are no arcs in the game, a square base will give a bit of edge over a circular in certain instances.


I dunno. I mean... its not huge, but i dont' think how you base your minis should give you an in game advantage.


I guess we'll just have to see. I'm pretty much in full on game design nerd pontification mode now.

Ah, yeah, I can see how it might cause (tiny) problems with area-based interacts. I was basing (pun not intended ) my assumptions on a LotR style game, where every mini is an individual and area effects are very rare, so an 'extra distance' gained/lost on your turn would be the opposite in the enemy turn.

Eg: if charge range is 15cm, and being on a square base keeps me 2-3mm safe from being charged in the enemy turn (whereas if I used a round base they could get me), then I'm just as far out of charge range come my turn. In that situation, neither side is gaining or losing anything that the other doesn't.

 Paradigm wrote:
Ah, yeah, I can see how it might cause (tiny) problems with area-based interacts. I was basing (pun not intended ) my assumptions on a LotR style game, where every mini is an individual and area effects are very rare, so an 'extra distance' gained/lost on your turn would be the opposite in the enemy turn.

Eg: if charge range is 15cm, and being on a square base keeps me 2-3mm safe from being charged in the enemy turn (whereas if I used a round base they could get me), then I'm just as far out of charge range come my turn. In that situation, neither side is gaining or losing anything that the other doesn't.

Base size has no bearing on ranges as ranges are measured from the edge of the base. It's all about frontage and area of effect. A powerful CC unit is even more powerful if it's on 20mm bases rather than 25mm bases because it can get even more models in combat. A 5 wide unit of 20mm models can wheel through a larger angle than a 5 wide unit on a 25mm base. A hard to shift unit is better off on larger bases because it covers a larger area of the table. Base size is much more important in WHFB than it is even in 40 (where the positives tend to trade off the negatives for most units).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Ah, yeah, I can see how it might cause (tiny) problems with area-based interacts. I was basing (pun not intended ) my assumptions on a LotR style game, where every mini is an individual and area effects are very rare, so an 'extra distance' gained/lost on your turn would be the opposite in the enemy turn.

Eg: if charge range is 15cm, and being on a square base keeps me 2-3mm safe from being charged in the enemy turn (whereas if I used a round base they could get me), then I'm just as far out of charge range come my turn. In that situation, neither side is gaining or losing anything that the other doesn't.

Base size has no bearing on ranges as ranges are measured from the edge of the base. It's all about frontage and area of effect. A powerful CC unit is even more powerful if it's on 20mm bases rather than 25mm bases because it can get even more models in combat. A 5 wide unit of 20mm models can wheel through a larger angle than a 5 wide unit on a 25mm base. A hard to shift unit is better off on larger bases because it covers a larger area of the table. Base size is much more important in WHFB than it is even in 40 (where the positives tend to trade off the negatives for most units).

Yeah, like I say, I'm talking about the (hypothetical) skirmish variant where frontage/wheeling/area likely won't matter much, if at all. If the bases are going to be square and round, though, the mass battle version needs to either go the element route or go home.