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.

I am very disappointed to have learn that Warhammer Old world will be using square bases. Why not have them as circle bases so you could just the same models for AoS and Old World? Simply just make movement trays that hold circle bases so they can be played in rank and file formation.

I have been looking for a reason to get into AoS for years now and finally was deciding to learning about the Warhammer Old World. But not so sure again, I just can't see myself buying and painting orruks twice to have one set in square bases and another in circle. I will also say the square bases as a display piece also simply look ugly.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/21/square-bases-and-kislev-ascendant-see-your-questions-about-warhammer-the-old-world-answered/

There are two reasons for square bases:
1st: The old system did have them. Warhammer until the 8th edition always was a rank and file system and used square bases. The round bases and more skirmish character for AoS were one of the reasons for many players for not making the jump from one system to the other. So of course they want their square bases back when the "real" Warhammer returns with "the old world".
2nd: If bases would be the same in both systems, how could GW get you to buy the same models twice?

JadeDoo wrote:
I am very disappointed to have learn that Warhammer Old world will be using square bases. Why not have them as circle bases so you could just the same models for AoS and Old World? Simply just make movement trays that hold circle bases so they can be played in rank and file formation.

I have been looking for a reason to get into AoS for years now and finally was deciding to learning about the Warhammer Old World. But not so sure again, I just can't see myself buying and painting orruks twice to have one set in square bases and another in circle. I will also say the square bases as a display piece also simply look ugly.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/21/square-bases-and-kislev-ascendant-see-your-questions-about-warhammer-the-old-world-answered/

You know funny thing is GW won't come to your home and burn you if you do use such movement trays

Movement trays are practically mandatory ANYWAY.

a big part of Warhammer always was the possibility to change formation according to your needs

Regimentsbases that fit round bases would mean fixed formations and an important part of Warhammer be gone

that said, with 25mm being the smallest base, there is no need to have square bases as 25mm round is valid and possible
you need a movement try anyway and you can change formation as the footprint of the unit is the same

and people play Kings of War with AoS based models for years now, and it is not an issue either (so the movement trays already exist)

 Appolyon wrote:
There are two reasons for square bases:
1st: The old system did have them. Warhammer until the 8th edition always was a rank and file system and used square bases. The round bases and more skirmish character for AoS were one of the reasons for many players for not making the jump from one system to the other. So of course they want their square bases back when the "real" Warhammer returns with "the old world".
2nd: If bases would be the same in both systems, how could GW get you to buy the same models twice?

3rd - Because round bases don't make any sense in a ranked formation game. They don't rank up neatly without a movement tray (and movement trays aren't terribly practical if changing formation is a thing).
4th - Square bases are better for establishing flanks and rear arcs, and
5th - those 'round bases into square formation' movement trays look ugly.

We've known that TOW was going to use square bases since it was first announced.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
We've known that TOW was going to use square bases since it was first announced.

That was, indeed, the very first thing we knew about it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
We've known that TOW was going to use square bases since it was first announced.

That was, indeed, the very first thing we knew about it.

From the second the announcement was made you had people on here and other places suggesting this was Warmaster, or AOS Apocalypse, or some other non-square game, usually with a side of "Just play AOS guise!" for good measure. Having to repeat it is simply par for the course.

JadeDoo wrote:
I am very disappointed to have learn that Warhammer Old world will be using square bases. Why not have them as circle bases so you could just the same models for AoS and Old World? Simply just make movement trays that hold circle bases so they can be played in rank and file formation.

I have been looking for a reason to get into AoS for years now and finally was deciding to learning about the Warhammer Old World. But not so sure again, I just can't see myself buying and painting orruks twice to have one set in square bases and another in circle. I will also say the square bases as a display piece also simply look ugly.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/21/square-bases-and-kislev-ascendant-see-your-questions-about-warhammer-the-old-world-answered/

Ah... the whole point of TOW is ranks and flanks. It's a lot harder to move units en masse with round bases.

If you want to leave yours on round bases, no big deal. Just get a movement tray.

 Appolyon wrote:

2nd: If bases would be the same in both systems, how could GW get you to buy the same models twice?

If you put daemons on a 40K table with square bases are you cheating?
I know you are not if you do so for AoS.

thing is, with bases does it actually matter?

think about it, in combat what matters? its the number of models fighting, outside combat its the units foot print. square base/round base/rectangular base they all tend to end up on movement trays regardless for practicality except solo models and maybe small skirmish units

combine with a move from 20mm square to 25mm square and the bulk being on 25mm round with a tray wouldn't matter except perhaps being able to rotate slightly to make ranking up easier

for GW the square base v round base thing seems partly "you can use your old models (rebasing required!)" and partly a way to try and keep the split between old world and AoS models

for a player though.. how big of an issue would it be if the army opposite you was on 25mm rounds on trays?

maybe less flexible for formation changes, I think since I started playing again with BfSP I have maybe changed formation a handful of times, and even then I had alternative trays

Have you tried fitting AoS bases on movement trays? Any idea how few you get? You would have "regiments" of 6 dudes with enough space between them for an ogre to walk through, which looks ridiculous.

Oh here you go. Courtesy of Kings of War, here's a "20-man block" unit tray with cutouts for 32mm bases. Yay so satisfying.

I have quite a few games with circular bases on movement trays where the bases touch side to side, its essentially a flat base with sort of four pointed stars

works quite nicely, as does a magnetic tray with models on metal discs

this for a game aimed at 20mm square individual bases, provides the same unit frontage and same unit depth with 20mm round bases which make the same figures look nicer for individual use in skirmish games

just because that example you show is horrible doesn't mean it cannot be done properly

note have also tried ranking up some AoS models on 25mm round bases into rank and file, it worked just fine, models that overhang etc are usually easier to rank on round that square as its easier to rotate slightly, and models where it won't work with a round base certainly won't work with square either where the width & depth of the bases are identical in either case


Automatically Appended Next Post:
incidentally my point was not they should use round, or that they should not, my point was as long as the unit footprint and frontage is the same that it doesn't matter

Well AoS bases aren't 20mm, bar the fodderest of fodder they start at 32mm.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Well AoS bases aren't 20mm, bar the fodderest of fodder they start at 32mm.

yes, strangely I am away of that, I am also aware that a circle is generally the same shape as the diameter increases, and that the 25mm round AoS bases I have will, curiously, fit in the footprint of a 25mm square base - which was sort of the entire point I was making

Cool story brah, your point isn't useful for the majority of factions.

But to be clear, my initial post was just replying to the topic, not challenging your post in particuar.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Cool story brah, your point isn't useful for the majority of factions.

But to be clear, my initial post was just replying to the topic, not challenging your post in particuar.

which is fine, though of course there is nothing stopping GW, who appear to be changing the size of the square bases anyway from say making a 32mm square base for models that could do with it

point being as noted if the frontage and footprint matches does the rest matter, and indeed since unit spacers have been a thing, along with multi-basing etc for a while how critical is it really if a block thats "five models wide" only actually has four as long as both sides know whats going on (say a tray with the five model frontages shown), at the end of the day the models are really only markers anyway, though nice looking ones and if its a way to get more people and more factions able to play I'm all for it

leopard wrote:
thing is, with bases does it actually matter?

we don't know is this depends on the rules

if we get standard R&F rules, bases don't matter at all, just the unit size
if we get rules like previous editions were models within a regiment can only attack whatever models are in direct base contact (which than makes a difference for champion and heroes) base size will matter

I agree with most of the 'pro-square' arguments, with the primary one being able to rerank units easier.

But honestly, I play Game of Thrones, and am starting Conquest, and I just don't like the look of the rounds base trays. Too hard to match up models to basing materials, unless you number or something, and assign trays to specific units.

 kodos wrote:
a big part of Warhammer always was the possibility to change formation according to your needs

Regimentsbases that fit round bases would mean fixed formations and an important part of Warhammer be gone

that said, with 25mm being the smallest base, there is no need to have square bases as 25mm round is valid and possible
you need a movement try anyway and you can change formation as the footprint of the unit is the same

and people play Kings of War with AoS based models for years now, and it is not an issue either (so the movement trays already exist)

Are they? perhaps some small units like Skinks (if Lizardmen come to Old World) or some gobbos still use 20mm.

Deleted.

 Guillérmidas wrote:

Are they? perhaps some small units like Skinks (if Lizardmen come to Old World) or some gobbos still use 20mm.

They were pretty explicit in saying 25mm would be the smallest base size. Its one of the few things we know.

Grail Seeker wrote:

 Guillérmidas wrote:

Are they? perhaps some small units like Skinks (if Lizardmen come to Old World) or some gobbos still use 20mm.

They were pretty explicit in saying 25mm would be the smallest base size. Its one of the few things we know.

]

Which is very annoying for those of us with Skaven armies, and literally hundreds of minis on 20mm bases.

Skaven are not part of the main game anyway

And from GWs point of view, they are all on 25mm round anyway

 kodos wrote:
Skaven are not part of the main game anyway

And from GWs point of view, they are all on 25mm round anyway

IF you play AoS, which some of us do not. And let's face it, the whole TOW thing is just a desperate attempt to get our money going back into their wallets.

 Vulcan wrote:
And let's face it, the whole TOW thing is just a desperate attempt to get our money going back into their wallets.

Breaking news - Companies provide goods and/or services in exchange for currency from consumers.

 RustyNumber wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
And let's face it, the whole TOW thing is just a desperate attempt to get our money going back into their wallets.

Breaking news - Companies provide goods and/or services in exchange for currency from consumers.

Ideally, goods and/or services the consumers want, and a lot of us are not yet convinced that TOW is something we want.

 Vulcan wrote:
Which is very annoying for those of us with Skaven armies, and literally hundreds of minis on 20mm bases.

Yeah, I'm not rebasing my horde of Night Goblins. At this point I think the most likely outcome is that I sit out newhammer fantasy.

There hasn't been enough rules-based news for me to make a hearty assessment of my future game plans, but the DID make it clear that I could use movement tray spaces to play with my existing models, so there's that.

Yep. We can make all-new movement trays to replace all the old ones we built up over the years so we could play games with hundreds of Skaven or Night Goblins...