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.

 Flashman wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I'd just like to point out that it's tough to determine if models are in corner-to-corner contact when the corners are missing.

I'm expecting a similar combat system to 40K i.e. Anything within 2" of engaged models is part of the combat. It would arguably be more realistic than the current system. No battle is fought between two regiments of warriors standing politely in a queue waiting their turn to hit something.

"Arguably" being the key word there

 Charles Rampant wrote:
That big table is all about display; those troops are placed in a way that looks impressive and interesting. I wouldn't try to read anything too much into it.

The round based Nurgle stuff, that is the real question. Har de har. They look good, though; round bases always look best for display models.

It's to display that you can use square or round to play. So when new models come out with only round bases, no one freaks out because all of their 'old' models have square bases. As I suspect the rules will not require us to re-base models.

So basically, the models will be on a mad mix of bases that makes movement and other game resolutions more awkward, but there are people who don't care because their models will look sooo pwetty, and it'll give them more opportunities to throw altogether too much money at GW for gratuitous nick-nacks?

 Da Boss wrote:
But I thought Lizards weren't even going to be part of 9th edition?

I think that is inaccurate. The rumors were the next edition will allow multiple scales to represent multiple styles (small skirmish games and larger formation games)...aka a 'new' skirmish rule set and allowance of the old ruleset. The 'fluff' would be sold as post-EoT accompanies skirmish (where Liz have a small presence) and pre-EoT plus EoT accompanies large-block old style play (where Liz exist as we know now).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
But I thought Lizards weren't even going to be part of 9th edition?

Lizards in their current form likely won't be part of 9th edition. We will likely see them re-imagined in a form that will make them more unique and thus defensible as an IP in court.

I agree with those that have said the models look better on the round bases.

New stylistic aspects plus unique base sizes; unique product does it make (in my Yoda voice) Hummm....do we think that aligns with the 'new' base sizes for 40k? I imagine that WHFB round bases will NOT be just be 25mm rounds...

OR we could believe what GW told us. "That's just because it looks better...and you can do so much more hobby'ing now. Did we mention we have products for basing to help that larger base look better? "



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I'd just like to point out that it's tough to determine if models are in corner-to-corner contact when the corners are missing.

Not when you're playing a skirmish game with individual models (assuming the new rules set heads in this direction to match Dungeon Saga and the loads of other miniature games in a box that have been kickstarted in the last two years). And WotR already solved that dilemma with standard movement trays which create square formations with round based individual models. Solutions exist and GW already sells them

Warseer's Arthurius11 says early June. He's been pretty good with rumours usually. So hopefully we'll know soon.

Arthurius11 wrote:What an eventful weekend hey. Well I was out this weekend and met up with some acquaintances and they told me that there is something fantasy related coming in either the first or second week of June. They said they didn't know what it is, though I am positive they know and just wouldn't or couldn't tell me.

 Vermis wrote:
So basically, the models will be on a mad mix of bases that makes movement and other game resolutions more awkward, but there are people who don't care because their models will look sooo pwetty, and it'll give them more opportunities to throw altogether too much money at GW for gratuitous nick-nacks?

That's me. I can't wait for GW to release packs of the oval bases so I can buy them and rebase all my cavalry!

 Bottle wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
So basically, the models will be on a mad mix of bases that makes movement and other game resolutions more awkward, but there are people who don't care because their models will look sooo pwetty, and it'll give them more opportunities to throw altogether too much money at GW for gratuitous nick-nacks?

That's me. I can't wait for GW to release packs of the oval bases so I can buy them and rebase all my cavalry!

Not faulting your boundless enthusiasm, but...

 Bottle wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
So basically, the models will be on a mad mix of bases that makes movement and other game resolutions more awkward, but there are people who don't care because their models will look sooo pwetty, and it'll give them more opportunities to throw altogether too much money at GW for gratuitous nick-nacks?

That's me. I can't wait for GW to release packs of the oval bases so I can buy them and rebase all my cavalry!

#Sarcasm

???

Haha, no deadly serious.

Those oval bases look great so I really hope they become part of 9th. I've been eyeing up my cavalry on my one Skitarii oval base all day.

Do you mean these bases? http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Citadel-70x25mm-Oval-Bases
Because they have been around ever since the new scout biker models two Space Marine Codexes ago.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Do you mean these bases? http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Citadel-70x25mm-Oval-Bases
Because they have been around ever since the new scout biker models two Space Marine Codexes ago.

No, they mean the full oval ones like the Skitarii sniper thing is on, not the pill shaped ones.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Do you mean these bases? http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Citadel-70x25mm-Oval-Bases
Because they have been around ever since the new scout biker models two Space Marine Codexes ago.

No, they are just bike bases. I mean the 70mm oval bases as shown in the picture before, used by the Skitarii snipers and the Broodlord from the Tyranid vs blood angel starter. I don't think they are sold seperately, but even if they are I'll wait for official confirmation of thier use in 9th before I rebase everything, as enthusiastic as I am.

 Bottle wrote:
Maybe War Of The Ring style movement trays (inserts) or maybe we won't need movement trays at all? :-)

Implies a VERY small scale game... at which point I look to other games.

Skirmish is all nice and fine for others. I want to maneuver UNITS.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Maybe War Of The Ring style movement trays (inserts) or maybe we won't need movement trays at all? :-)

Implies a VERY small scale game... at which point I look to other games.

Skirmish is all nice and fine for others. I want to maneuver UNITS.

War of the Ring definitely wasn't a VERY small scale game.

 Flashman wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I'd just like to point out that it's tough to determine if models are in corner-to-corner contact when the corners are missing.

I'm expecting a similar combat system to 40K i.e. Anything within 2" of engaged models is part of the combat. It would arguably be more realistic than the current system. No battle is fought between two regiments of warriors standing politely in a queue waiting their turn to hit something.

Spoken like one who's never seen a line rolled up when one guy in the middle dies, and the people on either side have spread out too far to be mutually supporting. This allows a salient that basically flanks both sides of the line at the same time... which is a disaster in real melee combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flashman wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I'd just like to point out that it's tough to determine if models are in corner-to-corner contact when the corners are missing.

I'm expecting a similar combat system to 40K i.e. Anything within 2" of engaged models is part of the combat. It would arguably be more realistic than the current system. No battle is fought between two regiments of warriors standing politely in a queue waiting their turn to hit something.

Spoken like one who's never seen a line rolled up when one guy in the middle dies, and the people on either side have spread out too far to be mutually supporting. This allows a salient that basically flanks both sides of the line at the same time... which is a disaster in real melee combat.

There's a REASON tight formations were the rule all the way up to the civil war. Two (or more) people in mutually supporting range are vastly more dangerous than individuals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Maybe War Of The Ring style movement trays (inserts) or maybe we won't need movement trays at all? :-)

Implies a VERY small scale game... at which point I look to other games.

Skirmish is all nice and fine for others. I want to maneuver UNITS.

War of the Ring definitely wasn't a VERY small scale game.

Which used movement trays GW made a nice extra profit selling. Thus bringing me back to my original point...

 Vulcan wrote:
Which used movement trays GW made a nice extra profit selling. Thus bringing me back to my original point...

Is this really in question? GW, a corporation, exists to make money by selling things to you.

On the realism of new bases and trays... Where can I turn to see the historical realism of dragons that breath fire and green fungus men?

 Vulcan wrote:

 Flashman wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I'd just like to point out that it's tough to determine if models are in corner-to-corner contact when the corners are missing.

I'm expecting a similar combat system to 40K i.e. Anything within 2" of engaged models is part of the combat. It would arguably be more realistic than the current system. No battle is fought between two regiments of warriors standing politely in a queue waiting their turn to hit something.

Spoken like one who's never seen a line rolled up when one guy in the middle dies, and the people on either side have spread out too far to be mutually supporting. This allows a salient that basically flanks both sides of the line at the same time... which is a disaster in real melee combat.

Unsurprisingly, no I haven't seen historical combat in person

My point is that current Fantasy regiments just sit opposite each other, whereas in reality there would be a merging of combatants. I know the step up rule and 2nd rank attacks countered this a little, but I'm not opposed to a bit of 40K style clashes. The caveat to this is that the presence of the supporting (but not engaged) combatants should still be a factor in the outcome.

The easiest way to resolve that would be to have unit-vs-unit combat rather than model vs model. Then it wouldn't matter where the individual models were, because their position would be irrelevant to the fight.

If 9th went that way, it would be a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

 Flashman wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Flashman wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I'd just like to point out that it's tough to determine if models are in corner-to-corner contact when the corners are missing.

I'm expecting a similar combat system to 40K i.e. Anything within 2" of engaged models is part of the combat. It would arguably be more realistic than the current system. No battle is fought between two regiments of warriors standing politely in a queue waiting their turn to hit something.

Spoken like one who's never seen a line rolled up when one guy in the middle dies, and the people on either side have spread out too far to be mutually supporting. This allows a salient that basically flanks both sides of the line at the same time... which is a disaster in real melee combat.

Unsurprisingly, no I haven't seen historical combat in person

My point is that current Fantasy regiments just sit opposite each other, whereas in real there would be a merging of combatants. I know the step up rule and 2nd rank attacks countered this a little, but I'm not opposed to a bit of 40K style clashes. The caveat to this is that the presence of the supporting (but not engaged) combatants should still be a factor in the outcome.

This is something the Skirmish LotR game did well. Yes, the minis acted individually, but the position and repositioning of those minis in assorted formations was crucial. To me, a fluid game of manoeuvre, plugging gaps and exploiting terrain or weaknesses in the enemy positions is more accurate, not to mention more fun, than 'my square block of troops lines up with your square block of troops and we fight until one runs away or runs out of bodies'.

It's the same reason that I hate minis ranked up on square bases, it's just boring as hell in my opinion .

I have a different opinion of square and round bases, but that's opinion for you.

My dislike of regiments in Fantasy also stems from the difficulty of modelling miniatures to rank up properly. You have make aesthetic sacrifices when you are posing models to make sure they can stand next to each other.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Which used movement trays GW made a nice extra profit selling. Thus bringing me back to my original point...

Is this really in question? GW, a corporation, exists to make money by selling things to you.

On the realism of new bases and trays... Where can I turn to see the historical realism of dragons that breath fire and green fungus men?

Warhammer has a whole heap of fantasy elements, but these are all based on edged weapon combat. The rules try to replicate this, while mixing in the daemons and fireballs and ratmen.

To me, anything that adds to the realism of the edged weapon combat makes the game better, as it provides a solid foundation for the fantasy elements to be fantasitical. Imaging that dragon running amok is a lot easier for me (and maybe others) because I can visualize it running around if there are phalanxes of spearmen and formed regiments of cavalry. We don't know how dragons work, but we have a fair idea of how people prepared for and fought using spears, bows and swords.

I genuinely don't get why people say "It's magic and daemons, it can't possibly be realistic", because even the most out there fiction has to obey its own internal logic to be believable. Otherwise it's just a bunch of loose concepts running around in a mess. Warhammer is based on dudes with swords. It should have some connection to how that worked in reality.

I personally wish that commanders actually commanded forces in Fantasy instead of soloing heaps of guys. Also having the game work based on units would make the game a lot better.

I think that if they simply took one of the popular historical games and then added fantasy elements the game would be perfect.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I personally wish that commanders actually commanded forces in Fantasy instead of soloing heaps of guys.

Personally, I don't like systems where your choice of commander influences the whole force. The overall 'commander' of your force is really you, and their 'effects' are how well you command your units. Meanwhile, the heroes on the board are just that, heroes, leading by example or by supporting the force with magic/other buffs. For a historical game then that's less accurate, but in a fantasy setting, the prowess of mighty warriors and powerful mages should be front and centre.

Also having the game work based on units would make the game a lot better.

I do like unit based systems for huge battles, but I can't see WFB ever beating Kings of War on that front. KoW has faster mechanics, element-based units (allowing for multibasing/far more dynamic armies than square-based model-by-model WFB armies) and is an overall better system for mass battles. GW do one thing better, and that's detail, which works far better in a smaller Skirmish system than in unit based mass battles.

 Flashman wrote:
My dislike of regiments in Fantasy also stems from the difficulty of modelling miniatures to rank up properly. You have make aesthetic sacrifices when you are posing models to make sure they can stand next to each other.

Again, I disagree. I don't think it's an aesthetic sacrifice to model the miniatures in poses that suits ranking up because it makes the regiment on a whole look cool. Some of my favourite WHFB models are the ones that individually have very little variation in pose but as a whole regiment look awesome.

KOW has a nice, simple, quick rule set, yes.

With about the replay depth of checkers, in my opinion.

Obviously others disagree.

Well said, Flash Felix.

Paradigm wrote:To me, a fluid game of manoeuvre, plugging gaps and exploiting terrain or weaknesses in the enemy positions is more accurate, not to mention more fun, than 'my square block of troops lines up with your square block of troops and we fight until one runs away or runs out of bodies'.

But then you either have to stick with small, skirmish games, or micromanage big games and take ages over it. (one of WFB's failings, IMO)
Besides, you can't use unit bases to maneuvre and plug gaps, as well as smash together? Not to mention that only a couple of multibased battle games go with an entire unit on one big base.

Paradigm wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I personally wish that commanders actually commanded forces in Fantasy instead of soloing heaps of guys.

Personally, I don't like systems where your choice of commander influences the whole force. The overall 'commander' of your force is really you, and their 'effects' are how well you command your units. Meanwhile, the heroes on the board are just that, heroes, leading by example or by supporting the force with magic/other buffs. For a historical game then that's less accurate, but in a fantasy setting, the prowess of mighty warriors and powerful mages should be front and centre.

I have to agree with Swastakowey: Heroes and even generals being little more than WFB-style unit-chewing machines was one of the things that put me off KoW. Again, it might work better if you stick to smaller games. (or to predetermined stories and dark-age sagas) Otherwise you can get the ol' herohammer effect and a lot of near-redundant wound markers.
Also, some of us like the huge-armies-clashing aspect of fantasy settings.

I do like unit based systems for huge battles, but I can't see WFB ever beating Kings of War on that front. KoW has faster mechanics, element-based units (allowing for multibasing/far more dynamic armies than square-based model-by-model WFB armies) and is an overall better system for mass battles. GW do one thing better, and that's detail, which works far better in a smaller Skirmish system than in unit based mass battles.

Well, now I'm confused about what you like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
KOW has a nice, simple, quick rule set, yes.

With about the replay depth of checkers, in my opinion.

Obviously others disagree.

What's the replay depth of a horde sitting there and steadfasting for ages?

 Vulcan wrote:
KOW has a nice, simple, quick rule set, yes.

With about the replay depth of checkers, in my opinion.

Obviously others disagree.

8th edition fantasy has even less replay depth

 Vermis wrote:

I do like unit based systems for huge battles, but I can't see WFB ever beating Kings of War on that front. KoW has faster mechanics, element-based units (allowing for multibasing/far more dynamic armies than square-based model-by-model WFB armies) and is an overall better system for mass battles. GW do one thing better, and that's detail, which works far better in a smaller Skirmish system than in unit based mass battles.

Well, now I'm confused about what you like.

To put it simply, I like to have the option for both large scale, mechanically streamlined mass battles, and also for deeper, individual-model based rules for smaller games. However, I think KoW does the former so well that, in my perfect world, I would love to see WFB take it's tradition of per-model rules and embrace it fully, so that there is a ruleset out there for detailed small-to-mid sized battles, using individually based and independent minis, as that fits so much better with the level of detail GW like to put in their games.

My dream WFB 9th would basically be LotR with more emphasis on magic, with individual models on round bases acting independently of one another. As far as I'm concerned, that's mechanically better, aesthetically better, and more fun than WFB in it's current state.

Like I say, KoW beats out WFB on the mass battle level as it:
- has no casualty removal, keeping games looking great and avoiding dregs of units running around
- has no requirements to rank up troops, which is something I find exceptionally dull visually
- is more streamlined, yet just as tactical
- doesn't deal with minutae that bogs down games on that scale

Thus, a mass battle WFB is basically redundant to me, whereas a skirmish style, platoon level game fills a niche that no widely available game other than LotR really does, and that I think would suit GW's style of detail far better. It would also make entering the game far more palatable financially: £25 for 10 White Lions or Phoenix Guard is fine if that is actually a usable and effective number of them, but I have no interest in buying the 3 boxes I'd need to make them a worthwhile regiment in the current system.

Of course, this is all personal preference, but if WFB 9th is a mass battle like it is now then it might as well not exist to me, whereas if it's like LotR of even 40k and does away with what I find the most off putting aspects (square bases in ranks, regiments with casualty removal) then I'll likely have a fully painted army or two by Christmas!

 Bottle wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
So basically, the models will be on a mad mix of bases that makes movement and other game resolutions more awkward, but there are people who don't care because their models will look sooo pwetty, and it'll give them more opportunities to throw altogether too much money at GW for gratuitous nick-nacks?

That's me. I can't wait for GW to release packs of the oval bases so I can buy them and rebase all my cavalry!

Why not just cut any form you want from thick plastic sheet, lasercut 3mm MDF, make silicon moulds and cast your own bases in epoxy, PU or god-damn candlewax...?