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.

Well they were on 25mm squares. They didn't get larger. Thats the crux of the whole issue. Until a faction gets s proper release... you have no idea what size rounds they will finally end up on.

But if you want to use them RIGHT NOW you have to rebase them RIGHT NOW. Which is why I wont' rebase a single model of my existing collection. Nor in 20 years will I ever rebase a model. I put too much time into my models to have to just rebase them in the future when GW decides they need to go to a bigger base size just because.

Which again isn't a problem unless you're going to be going to some tournament which will enforce you to rebase your entire collection to adhere to the new chart. Which I am not ever planning on doing so is a wash anyway.

and to bring this back to where it came from, this started with discussing having to rebase existing squares, to which I stated unless you are playing tournaments its not really a requirement, and then this was said which led us down the current conversation path:

Did I miss a controversy somewhere? Other than some units going up from 25mm to 32mm, I can't remember GW upping base sizes, and never with a GHB.

Indeed there were a numberr of models that went from 25mm squares to 32mm rounds, and from 20mm squares to 25mm rounds, and some people still have 20mm rounds and put their 20mm squares on 20mm rounds and then found out that everything is at a min 25mm rounds. And while it is "no ones' fault but yours for guessing wrong", having to rebase an entire collection is still only a requirement if you are playing in tournaments, and the entire base controversy itself with models going from 25 to 32s or 20 to 25 can be confusing in and of itself for many people who were involved before AOS and have older models, or indeed buy older models like chaos warriors or demons that were boxed pre-AOS and are on 25mm rounds (I still have a closet full of demon infantry boxes with 25mm rounds that I bought in 2016 at my GW store, which was after AOS released and the slaaneshi demon cast to order a few months ago shipped them ... with 25mm rounds. And this was 2018.

Now having gotten them I know if I want to use them in a tournament I should base them on 32s... but lets care to guess how many newer players are going to pick those boxes up and just glue their guys on the base in the box and then be told by someone that they are modeling for advantage and they can get a couple extra guys in combat and they shouldn't be allowed to play until they rebase? (I've heard that exact conversation a good dozen times in the past year)

Several heroes have had base size increases with the base size chart document. Festus the Leechlord still comes with a 32mm base despite the chart calling out a 40mm base for him, for example.

I didn't even realize that lol. My Festus is still on his 25. That would have been fun rebasing to a 32 and then find out he's now illegal and needs redone to a 40.

Especially as a character where we usually spend a lot more time than normal on the hobbying aspect.

Jacksmiles wrote:
Several heroes have had base size increases with the base size chart document. Festus the Leechlord still comes with a 32mm base despite the chart calling out a 40mm base for him, for example.

The base size chart was very random, like all ogors foing to 50mm. GW listened to feedback and changed many bases to the proper ones, but yeah.

Most kits that go from square to round have gonne up a size... (20mm square to 25mm round, 25mm square to 32mm round, etc...) but then heroes have gained an extra step in the chart.

Again, you guessed wrong on the base size, then blamed GW. GW doesn't even make 20mm rounds anymore, so thinking that would be the "correct" size doesn't make sense. You also don't have to look very far to see that nearly every model that was previously on a 25mm square went to a 32mm round. Why? Geometry. On square bases, 25mm refers to the vertices, but on a round, 25mm refers to the diameter. The "diameter" of a square base at its widest point (diagonally) would be just over 35mm. Technically, the base size decreased. (And I thought I'd never need the Pythagorean Theorem). I do agree that hero base sizes don't seem to have any rhyme or reason, though.

Its not consistent in the least. Here's one example.

In a chaos army, we have marauders and we have chaos warriors. Both on 25mm squares.

In AOS marauders are on 25mm rounds and chaos warriors are on 32mm rounds. Neither model increased in size physically.

Now if *all* 25mm squares went to 32mm rounds, that would be something valid. But they didn't. Some of them went up. Some of them stayed the same. Much like hero bases. It is not consistent in the least bit.

Screamers of Tzeentch going to 60mm from 25mm flying bases was an odd choice too. Edit: Although those are the only sizes of flying bases right? Still. That's a huge jump.

auticus wrote:
Its not consistent in the least. Here's one example.

In a chaos army, we have marauders and we have chaos warriors. Both on 25mm squares.

In AOS marauders are on 25mm rounds and chaos warriors are on 32mm rounds. Neither model increased in size physically.

Now if *all* 25mm squares went to 32mm rounds, that would be something valid. But they didn't. Some of them went up. Some of them stayed the same. Much like hero bases. It is not consistent in the least bit.

And what does that have to do with your assumption that GW is going to be wildly changing base sizes with every GHB? As far as I can tell, when a model kit was updated for AoS, they chose a round base size for that kit, and that hasn't changed since (with the one exception being daemon troops). This year, they released a chart for all the models who haven't had an "official" round base size yet and only changed a few when fans (justifiably) complained about some of the base sizes not making sense. On what grounds are you asserting GW is going to be changing base sizes again? This is important because this entire thread is about reasons people might not want to play AoS, so if you're going to make a claim that might discourage someone from playing the game, you need to be able to back it up.

I don’t play Sigmar, because I got squatted (Bretonnia), and then when I decided to get back in, I lost Free People Keyword. And even if I don’t think the system is bad, I’m still feeling burnt. Espacially sense I also play Black Templars, and I lost my codex during Sixth. And during 7th/8th WHFB, steadfast rules made Bretonnia frankly unplayable as intended.

If they rerelease a generic human knight kit, and moved the Bretonnia Range/Keywords back to Free People. I’d think long and hard about coming back. And would likely do so. But the core issue is that I have to rebuild my army from scratch and my bretonnains while better rule wise then they were in late fantasy still feel overcosted. And then the nerfs to Pegasus Knights happened last year, which are my favorite models in the Bretonnia range.

So? Why not? Well because I was badly burnt. I might come back eventually, but I’d need a human knight kit back atleast.

On what grounds are you asserting GW is going to be changing base sizes again?

so if you're going to make a claim that might discourage someone from playing the game, you need to be able to back it up.

Easy. When the GHB dropped with the new base chart, there were items that changed base size (like the heroes).

There is nothing stopping them from adjusting that chart as needed.

They changed base sizes inconsistently on the game dropping. For example marauders and chaos warriors on 25mm squares, the warriors went to 32s.

They have changed base sizes incrementally as kits have been reboxed. Ex: reboxing chaos demon infantry moved them all to 32s from 25s.

They still send models out with the wrong base sizes. Examples being the made to order demonettes this year coming with 25mm bases, so you need to be up on what the bases for all models should be and not assume what comes in the box is correct.

It is not outside of the realm of possibility that the models you have today, even those released post-AOS, will come with bases that are not correct tomorrow and you will be forced to rebase if you are a tournament player. Ex being the stack of demon infantry I have boxed that came with 25mm rounds plus the made to order demonettes I have that came with 25mm rounds all in the post-AOS world sold either at my local GW store or on the website made to order.

It is not outside the realm of possibility if you have models that come from WHFB that your faction when it gets a new book finally will see those models get bumped up in base size , so if you are using legacy models and they are on 25s and you put them on 25s, they could jump to 32s. Or your heroes could jump to whatever GW decides they should jump to as some of them did this year with the new base chart.

If you are using only new models from new factions then you are probably fine. If you think the above is a rare chance, and you don't care, then bless you and I hope your good fortune stays with you.

Additionally some people just don't care about rebasing and will do it and it doesn't bother them. Bless them as well.

Karol wrote:
.

Can anyone explain to me why some legacy armies are so unpopular in AoS? The number of dark elf or egyptian undead armies on the polish trade facebook page easily doubles or triples the number of stormcasts being sold. Also unlike with other armies, the people that sell them only do bulk, no single models or single units.

Do you have a link? Tomb Kings sell for stupid money (like 150 Euro for an unopened battalion box) ushabtis also sell for over what they used to cost when available.

If there are good deals I'd love to have a look.

There were like two full DE armies on targowisko and I have seen some big monsters being sold a few weeks ago.

Legacy armies would be unpopular in AOS simply because they are typically not competitively viable and people understandably don't like playing with an army that has no shot at winning a game in a competitive environment. Second-hand markets are usually always full of armies that are regarded as weak, or armies that just received the nerf-bat from an FAQ or points change.

auticus wrote:
Legacy armies would be unpopular in AOS simply because they are typically not competitively viable and people understandably don't like playing with an army that has no shot at winning a game in a competitive environment. Second-hand markets are usually always full of armies that are regarded as weak, or armies that just received the nerf-bat from an FAQ or points change.

Tournaments are restrictive anyways; even among the handful tourney viable armies there are only a handful of viable builds. A bigger issue for many legacy armies is not being competent even casually; there are only a few non-battletome armies that can show up and not be sub-par in just a casual setting, and those armies do not look like they did in WHFB. The end result is a legacy army, while technically playable, does not make a functional army for many players.

Hopefully 2019 is the year of AoS releases like 2018 was the year of 40K releases; which should fix many battletome lacking armies. Just look at the huge wave of life that the new Beasts of Chaos Battletome has given to a multitude of minor factions that were put together to form the new Beast Herds of Chaos

If they could produce some more books in 2019 and bring a lot of these legacy armies up to par, that would make a huge difference.

auticus wrote:
If they could produce some more books in 2019 and bring a lot of these legacy armies up to par, that would make a huge difference.

I am partly thinking it better if the bulk of the legacy forces get re-envisioned to be more AoS. but I am kinda on the fence on that.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Again, that's personal to you. I was pleased in the idea that my own (large and themed) armies could now play multiple different armies and play styles without having to buy anything new for them. It was fun to have new tricks for old dogs.

Except that for example high elves splitting into many doesn't really give coherent army. 3-4 choice per army does not interesting army make.

Karol wrote:
There were like two full DE armies on targowisko and I have seen some big monsters being sold a few weeks ago.

Don't care much about DE but if there are cheap TK for sale I'd take as many as I could.

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Again, that's personal to you. I was pleased in the idea that my own (large and themed) armies could now play multiple different armies and play styles without having to buy anything new for them. It was fun to have new tricks for old dogs.

Except that for example high elves splitting into many doesn't really give coherent army. 3-4 choice per army does not interesting army make.

To you, maybe. My High Elves are 85% Chrace themed. The idea of breaking down the army to 3-4 choices was actually very interesting tactically, having to play up the armies strengths and really having to work around their weaknesses.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Again, that's personal to you. I was pleased in the idea that my own (large and themed) armies could now play multiple different armies and play styles without having to buy anything new for them. It was fun to have new tricks for old dogs.

Except that for example high elves splitting into many doesn't really give coherent army. 3-4 choice per army does not interesting army make.

To you, maybe. My High Elves are 85% Chrace themed. The idea of breaking down the army to 3-4 choices was actually very interesting tactically, having to play up the armies strengths and really having to work around their weaknesses.

Funny you mention that. Do I add to my army lion warriors or do I add to my army lion charriots. What a choice! What an AMAZING choice! Whopping two units.

Even my chrace themed high elves had more variety than that...

Dial it back a bit, it makes it irritating to try and talk to you otherwise.

But like I said, your choice. I actually ran the Lion Rangers list a few times now and yes it is limited. But it is also very tactical. I really enjoyed having to actually think about all possibilities and how I can counter my opponent with the list at hand. I would suggest you try it a few times before complaining and then come back with an informed opinion.

Honestly factions with only 2 models in them are just waiting for updates of some kind. The only viable way to run many of them is as either allies to a larger faction or as a Grand Alliance group where you pick from a wide spread of units without faction abilities.

Otherwise if you love them by all means go for the, but its very clear that its not the way GW intends to market their armies long term. 2 models isn't much diversity when you consider that you've at least got to take battleline and then are limited to only 1/4 allies to add any variety.

 Geemoney wrote:
I don't think the game is very fun. My experience with Iron Jawz is charge everything and then lose because all the other armies are better then yours in combat.

That's my main problem with it.

I love the models, I think the factions are cool, I enjoy the new setting and the lore, however I don't particularly enjoy the game or how some armies look and function on the tabletop (more like gangs of models buffing each other than armies).

I gave it an honest shot for a good while (over 2 years!), but it didn't win me over sadly. I really wanted to like it!

During WFB 8th edition I had already jumped into KoW for my fantasy fix. So it would take a lot for AoS to convert me over. I have tried it and just found it lacking, it isn't due to a simple system as I am a big fan of Dragon Rampant; which could be argued is a simpler system.

I like some of the newer models, but I think what puts me off is the high fantasy aspect. I really like fantasy, more than I do sci-fi for miniature and board gaming. It could be the over the top high fantasy that puts me off, my age demographic grew up on LotR, not M:TG, Pokémon, and Yu-Gi-Oh. I much prefer a subtle fantasy that is firmly based in the Medieval time period.

Thats definitely a common issue that I hear locally. The high fantasy akin to magic the gathering vs the lower fantasy ala LOTR.

But they also support LOTR as a game system so they have both their uber high heavy metal fantasy and their low LOTR fantasy systems.

Since when did JRR Tolkien become "low" fantasy?

gaks got talking trees and undead armies! Low fantasy my shiny white patooshie.

 darkcloak wrote:
Since when did JRR Tolkien become "low" fantasy?

gaks got talking trees and undead armies! Low fantasy my shiny white patooshie.

No one said it was low fantasy, but rather a subtle less over the top fantasy. AoS looks to be inspired by things like M:TG. Where everything is powerful looking and lifted from a 80's heavy metal album artwork.

LotR is more about the measure of the character, inner strength, while also being in a world with magic, it just happens to be less about spectacle.

Tolkien's magics are low end in that most of the mages are not actually throwing that much magic around, Gandalf hardly casts many spells and only does so when he really must (he's more likely to cast spells whilst blowing smoke rings than he is to cast them in battles). There's only one dragon of note in all the lands, one balrog, a giant spider and a few others. Even when the Ents march to war they say its probably their last time to do so as their race is slowly ebbing away.

Elves leave the shores of Middle Earth almost down to the last handful who remain; and they don't come to war on the side of humans; whilst Dwarves are a shattered race, not totally so, but they are not in the best of condition.


It's reasonably low fantasy when you compare it to something like Malazan, DnD or a lot of other more epic high fantasy stories of today. I think Lord of the Rings sort of sneaks around being labelled as "low fantasy" because its such a massive gateway book into fantasy itself for many and also a huge cornerstone of many inspirations and derivative works.



Also keeping in mind that low and high are only rough measures used to give a feel for the level of magic in a story and that there are multiple ways to interpret it

Lord of the Rings is what most would consider low-magic high-fantasy. Magic is hard to come by and powerful, and the world is significantly different from ours. The Old World setting would be high-magic high-fantasy (though several of the stories like Gotrek and Felix probably fall into the low-fantasy category). The best classification of Age of Sigmar would be epic fantasy (the more recent developments are actually moving closer to high-fantasy). It takes a lot of cues from Norse mythology. Most of the novels and short stories that have come out-though, focus more on the "common man", so I would classify them more as high-fantasy.