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.

Hi all!

So, I got into Warhammer(40k) around the End Times for Fantasy, about 5-ish years ago now. At the time I had never been that much of a fantasy fan, and it seemed a bit convoluted, I was telling myself that I wasn't going to spend that much money on 40k, so a system with squillions of ranked troops, meant to hold or break specific formations was a bit offputting...

...when AOS came out, however, I shared that sense of something lost - I had grown kinda fond of the Old World, bubbling away in the background, a kind of parent figure to my real love, 40k. A bit further down the road, and I played Total War: Warhammer, and Totally fell in love. The high-fantasy silliness really appealed to me, and my affection for late medieval military history had blossomed a little more - both thanks in no small part to also pretty avidly consuming Pratchett, Miura Kentarou's Berserk and Peake's Gormenghast around the same time. I started to really seriously consider getting into Fantasy. My main points of interest are - Empire, Beastmen (are they chaos?), Vampire Counts, Skaven, Orcs and Goblins. On top of this, while I was painting my 40K dudes, I started watching Angory Tom's hysterical Total War campaigns on Youtube.

However...

...with the release of Warcry, it seems AOS is getting a bit nastier. A bit grittier. I'm not a fan of the magic doors where people go through to fight seemingly consequence-free battles in magic places faraway, but this seems different. As such, I'm tempted to see where it all leads.

That said, I'm really not much of a gamer. I like building and painting lil dudes best of all. So essentially, this argument comes down to 1. Square bases vs. Round bases and 2. Army composition, which I assume varies between the two systems, as the meta will inevitably be different, no?

I get that asking this question here might give me slightly biased answers... but what would you all reccommend?
Either, jump into Old World Fantasy, and get stuck into a lore I really enjoy, but a system that, one would assume, is dwindling, or one where I have a more recent sliver of interest in, but also much I'm not so keen on (I'm looking at you, sigmarines), but stands to be updated and grow.
Cheers for reading!

If you bought a game that you dislike most things about, but it gets regular updates, what is the point? Assuming that the aesthetics bother you, AOS is basically Magic 40K With Bows. Unless you plan on building in such a way that you can throw your Fantasy based stuff into your 40K stuff, it's kind of pointless to go full in on AOS if you're not entirely satisfied with it.


WFB gives you options both in older GW editions of the game and several other game systems out there. Kings Of War, if you have a group that will play it, is an option. Apparently a few European countries have active 6th edition tourneys, so older system gaming is still plausible.


ULTIMATELY, though, it comes down to what you would reach contentment with. If it's going to sit on your shelf, look cool, and never get a game? Then go with what looks cool. Is it going to get played? Find out what options you have locally or can make happen locally through social media.

I'm lucky that I have enough like minded people that I can still thrown in a game of 6th and some games of 3rd Ed.40K.. If it wasn't for that, I'm not sure I'd be gaming at all.

Beyond

 Just Tony wrote:
AOS is basically Magic 40K With Bows.

Is there any particular reason you prefer the system you play? And have you ever played Sigmar at all? Genuinely never played either, and probably won't get too much of a chance while I'm living in Japan, but I'm curious as to which you think is more fun?

I guess I'm allowing myself to be open to Sigmar, mainly because there's at least a potential for future change.
As for alternatives to Fantasy, like Kings of War, are any particularly active? Eg. I quite like some (not all) of the new Goblins releases for AOS, would these be permitted in certain systems, or is it a case of 'talk to who you play with'?

KOW still allows 3rd party minis in tourneys, so there's that.

I have watched AOS played on several occasions, but the play style does not fit with what I want from a game.


I stuck with 6th because of all the WFB editions it is better internally balanced until you take the books into account. If you get a copy of Ravening Hordes, I'd say it's the most balanced game of Fantasy you'll ever play. Even with the army book issues, there's no "autowin" factions at all, and even the worst netlists are able to be dealt with.

 posermcbogus wrote:

...when AOS came out, however, I shared that sense of something lost - I had grown kinda fond of the Old World, bubbling away in the background, a kind of parent figure to my real love, 40k. A bit further down the road, and I played Total War: Warhammer, and Totally fell in love. The high-fantasy silliness really appealed to me, and my affection for late medieval military history had blossomed a little more - both thanks in no small part to also pretty avidly consuming Pratchett, Miura Kentarou's Berserk and Peake's Gormenghast around the same time. I started to really seriously consider getting into Fantasy. My main points of interest are - Empire, Beastmen (are they chaos?), Vampire Counts, Skaven, Orcs and Goblins. On top of this, while I was painting my 40K dudes, I started watching Angory Tom's hysterical Total War campaigns on Youtube.

You and lots more. Total War Warhammer also helped.

 posermcbogus wrote:

My main points of interest are - Empire, Beastmen (are they chaos?), Vampire Counts, Skaven, Orcs and Goblins.

Ok. Lest talk availability for WHFB.

Empire - Moderately easy to collect, though knights are harder to find. GW do sell about half the range as Freeguilds. Not an active line for AOS.

Beastmen - Rereleased for AOS so availability is good. Yes, Beastmen are chaos.

Vampire Counts - Full faction still available and the range is greatly expanded.

Skaven - Only half the range is available.

Orcs and Goblins - Now lacking common orcs, nearly all basic orc model are now gone. Though other Greenskin subraces are still abailable. This might not hurt you much if you rely on the 'standard issue' savage orcs and night goblins.

Of the races you want if you do decide to collect for WHFB you can still get what you want, though some factions are easier than others. Tomb Kings are entirely gone, no models left with exception of Arkhan the Black, while Lizardmen have their full range with nothing missing. Though with most things you need to now source square bases. Of course if you get lucky with a swap or auction purchase then everything is available. There are also an increasing number of third party manufacturers.

 posermcbogus wrote:

However...
...with the release of Warcry, it seems AOS is getting a bit nastier. A bit grittier. I'm not a fan of the magic doors where people go through to fight seemingly consequence-free battles in magic places faraway, but this seems different. As such, I'm tempted to see where it all leads.

You like AOS to collect you dislike AOS not to collect, only you can decide this one.

 posermcbogus wrote:

That said, I'm really not much of a gamer. I like building and painting lil dudes best of all. So essentially, this argument comes down to 1. Square bases vs. Round bases and 2. Army composition, which I assume varies between the two systems, as the meta will inevitably be different, no?

You CAN play AOS with square bases, the base is simply a stand for the model, all ranges are measured from the model itself. This also means if you want to custom base your miniatures you are free to do so.

 posermcbogus wrote:

I get that asking this question here might give me slightly biased answers... but what would you all reccommend?

I am thoroughly biased towards WHFB over AOS, so I cannot give a subjective view.
However with regards to which form of WHFB to play (if you dont choose AOS) the best advice is to collect for several, some players will only play one edition. The key versions to play are 3rd - last skirmish level WHFB and all in one book. 6th - Major rebalance, 8th - Final version with the most unit spread and also look at continuency products various games labelled 8.5, 9th Age etc, though if you choose 9th Age stick to 1.0 or 1,1, post 1.1 it makes too many changes for legal reasons and ceases to be a form of Warhammer. All in all you can cover most bases by collecting army books for 6th and 8th.

 posermcbogus wrote:

Either, jump into Old World Fantasy, and get stuck into a lore I really enjoy, but a system that, one would assume, is dwindling, or one where I have a more recent sliver of interest in, but also much I'm not so keen on (I'm looking at you, sigmarines), but stands to be updated and grow.
Cheers for reading!

If you stick with old Warhammer you will not be short of company. However you can play other games in a Warhammer setting. Kings of War can be ported over, you need not fight your games in Mantica or with Mantic models. You can try Mordheim if you want a smaller scale game and if you like the rules there is nothing to stop you playing AOS but without the AOS setting. GW has supported in that by offering PDF's of all old Warhammer factions as is. Rules are very different, but if you want an AOS game set in Reikland of a skirmish or Vampire Counts vs Empire the AOS game provides everything you need, though you should note that characters are heavily abbreviated.
This might be your answer if you are on the fence, collect AOS but build Warhammer factions out of them. For pick up an play your (say) Empire faction are genetic Freeguild, for your own games at home they are the Empire subfaction you like fighting to defend their homes in the Old World. Or you might choose to ignore AOS for the abomination that it is and continue as normal playing Warhammer, of whatever rules edition you please.

Orlanth and Just Tony nailed it pretty much.

If you are more of the collector type, I would recommend a system with a lower unit count, so rather not 8th or 9th age, but 6th or 7th edition (these are very similar).
In 8th, units were more useful if made large due to certain special rules tailored for these (steadfast, horde rules). So
if you chose to collect AND to play 8th edition, you would have to paint a lot more models per single unit (which can be hard to come by, if you want to paint GW minis only and choose a specific army, for example tomb kings...), and can turn a bit dull when you have to paint that 50th Night Goblin or 40th Skavenslave (common unit size for chaff units in 8th were 40+ models per unit!!)



Downisde with 6th or 7th is that some models were released later, and therefore have no rules.

Most of them you could of course house-rule as "count as.." or use some selfmade - or other unofficial sources to fill in the blanks.

I chose to pick up a fanmade rule system called Warhammer CE, which contains rules for all models since at least 5th edition, some even older (If you want some imperial Ogres or Reiksguard, or maybe collect a Chaos Dwarf, Kislev or Norsca army...).

 posermcbogus wrote:
Hi all!

So, I got into Warhammer(40k) around the End Times for Fantasy, about 5-ish years ago now. At the time I had never been that much of a fantasy fan, and it seemed a bit convoluted, I was telling myself that I wasn't going to spend that much money on 40k, so a system with squillions of ranked troops, meant to hold or break specific formations was a bit offputting...

...when AOS came out, however, I shared that sense of something lost - I had grown kinda fond of the Old World, bubbling away in the background, a kind of parent figure to my real love, 40k. A bit further down the road, and I played Total War: Warhammer, and Totally fell in love. The high-fantasy silliness really appealed to me, and my affection for late medieval military history had blossomed a little more - both thanks in no small part to also pretty avidly consuming Pratchett, Miura Kentarou's Berserk and Peake's Gormenghast around the same time. I started to really seriously consider getting into Fantasy. My main points of interest are - Empire, Beastmen (are they chaos?), Vampire Counts, Skaven, Orcs and Goblins. On top of this, while I was painting my 40K dudes, I started watching Angory Tom's hysterical Total War campaigns on Youtube.

However...

...with the release of Warcry, it seems AOS is getting a bit nastier. A bit grittier. I'm not a fan of the magic doors where people go through to fight seemingly consequence-free battles in magic places faraway, but this seems different. As such, I'm tempted to see where it all leads.

That said, I'm really not much of a gamer. I like building and painting lil dudes best of all. So essentially, this argument comes down to 1. Square bases vs. Round bases and 2. Army composition, which I assume varies between the two systems, as the meta will inevitably be different, no?

I get that asking this question here might give me slightly biased answers... but what would you all reccommend?
Either, jump into Old World Fantasy, and get stuck into a lore I really enjoy, but a system that, one would assume, is dwindling, or one where I have a more recent sliver of interest in, but also much I'm not so keen on (I'm looking at you, sigmarines), but stands to be updated and grow.
Cheers for reading!

A few thoughts:

1) Skaven are pretty much unchanged in models since Old World - I'm not sure what the earlier poster meant by "onyl half the range" because pretty much the whole range is still for sale, heck a good few are still in metal. Meanwhile the missing "slave rats" were typically never used because they were unaffordable whilst most used clan rat models.

2) I'd say go for the round bases. Most units in Old World moved on movement trays and you can easily make them to take round based models. So having them on round bases means you can easily use them in both games without too much trouble. Not as ideal for heroes; but the way I see it the Old World game is going to vary a lot on your local area as to if its supported and its likely going to dwindle in support as the years keep rolling on; meanwhile AoS is GW's new baby for fantasy and is going to keep getting support into the long term. So as a long term choice round aoS bases just makes more sense to to with; esp if you're more a casual gamer.

3) Lore wise you can easily get stuck into the Old World books and stories - Black Library has even been making it cheaper and easier with regular publications of collected editions which typically wrap up 3 or more main stories and sometimes short stories too.

4) The lore for AoS has improved by leaps and bounds since the earlier Realm Wars novels. A lot of the new stuff is as gritty and dark as the Old World. I'd recommend checking out the novella series as well as the Inferno (new) books and such. There's a lot on offer and its growing in volume and quality and depth.

We're not exactly short of fantasy plastics these days, and historicals (metal or Perry/Fireforge plastics) are a good stand-in for the Empire and a lot of Brettonians (Fireforge even do Pegasus kits for their knights).

Friend and I are doing a WFB 6th Edition campaign set in Estalia. We're using Italian Wars metals from The Assault Group and Perry Wars of the Roses plastics for Empire and Dogs of War armies, with my elf, skaven, undead and dwarf forces for changes of viewpoint. We've played full battles down to skirmishes to keep a campaign narrative moving.

Using an old game gives you the freedom to experiment. Ravening Hordes lists are great, but you may want to mix a Skaven Abomination, or Demigryph knights, into your list.

That's the thing about an old system. It's dead, so it's easier to make rules for something. Use the recent rules and adjust points/stats to what "feels" right for the edition you're in.

I guess it depends if you want to just collect, play casually or competitive, availability in the area, etc...

You can always build a Fantasy army, as it will also be viable 99% in AoS. Squares are a requirement for the former, but rounds aren't essential for the later. Models in Fantasy will most likely have an equivalent in AoS, if not directly, at least through "count as" for the rules (ex: using High Elves as Darkling Coven, etc...). If some models are no longer available, there are tons of alternative companies that serve well.

I say this from the perspective of a primarily Fantasy collector/player that doesn't mind delving into AoS for some not too serious fun. Fantasy armies work good enough for AoS if you aren't concerned about competitive playing, and find like-minded colleagues. So you can have both!

Howabout neither and go for lord of the rings? Fantasy? Check. GW? Check. Rules available still from GW unlike older fantasy battles.

Man, the consensus around 6th ed. is surprising - I'll have to give it a more thorough look! Thanks guys.
I was aware of the whole 'base shape isn't important in sigmar' thing, and I know a fair few kits still come with square bases, so I might just have to ruminate on that. There's something oddly satisfying about square bases, especially for a different game system. Got a kind of retro feel, maybe?

tneva82 wrote:
Howabout neither and go for lord of the rings? Fantasy? Check. GW? Check. Rules available still from GW unlike older fantasy battles.

Ahh, unfortunately, LoTR has never really done it for me. Heresy, I know, but I just never could get into it as a kid very much.

Fair enough. Obviously if you don't enjoy LOTR even as a book the game is unlikely to appeal

 posermcbogus wrote:
Man, the consensus around 6th ed. is surprising - I'll have to give it a more thorough look! Thanks guys.

Not actually so. There are two camps, those open to playing WHFB in general and those who only endorse one rules system, the former is frankly more socially healthy, of the latter most who are vocally partisan on Dakka are 6th fans, some to a fault. Dakka doesn't have a toxic 8th community, but they certainly do exist elsewhere.

This is relevant because some on this thread will recommend WHFB including 6th, some will only acknowledge 6th. This creates a false consensus based on volume. If you look down the thread history since AOS there are a number of 8th players on Dakka, I havent heard any on this thread yet bar myself, and I am one of those recommending open editions.

The best advice I can give you is to collect as many army books as you can afford and are relevant to you. The wider net you spread the more options are open to you. Please remember any consensus on Dakka with regards to player volume is worthless unless those posting on this thread live near you and agree to meet. So you really need to be asking in your local community for what they want to play, for this end a mix of 6th and 8th will give you the optimum chance of getting players. Once you have players you can decide for yourself which edition you want to play and our opinions no longer matter.

 Orlanth wrote:

 posermcbogus wrote:
Man, the consensus around 6th ed. is surprising - I'll have to give it a more thorough look! Thanks guys.

Not actually so. There are two camps, those open to playing WHFB in general and those who only endorse one rules system, the former is frankly more socially healthy, of the latter most who are vocally partisan on Dakka are 6th fans, some to a fault. Dakka doesn't have a toxic 8th community, but they certainly do exist elsewhere.

Psssssssssssssst, he's talking about me in the second camp. I have played every version of WFB from 5th on up, I stick with what gives me the best gaming experience for me. It has nothing to do with being "partisan".

 Orlanth wrote:
This is relevant because some on this thread will recommend WHFB including 6th, some will only acknowledge 6th. This creates a false consensus based on volume. If you look down the thread history since AOS there are a number of 8th players on Dakka, I havent heard any on this thread yet bar myself, and I am one of those recommending open editions.

You're not the only one recommending other editions. I laid out my personal preference. Maybe you need to reread my first post.

 Orlanth wrote:
The best advice I can give you is to collect as many army books as you can afford and are relevant to you. The wider net you spread the more options are open to you. Please remember any consensus on Dakka with regards to player volume is worthless unless those posting on this thread live near you and agree to meet. So you really need to be asking in your local community for what they want to play, for this end a mix of 6th and 8th will give you the optimum chance of getting players. Once you have players you can decide for yourself which edition you want to play and our opinions no longer matter.

On this part we agree. What people you can play against will dictate more that any one person's input on here.

 posermcbogus wrote:
Hi all!

So, I got into Warhammer(40k) around the End Times for Fantasy, about 5-ish years ago now. At the time I had never been that much of a fantasy fan, and it seemed a bit convoluted, I was telling myself that I wasn't going to spend that much money on 40k, so a system with squillions of ranked troops, meant to hold or break specific formations was a bit offputting...

...when AOS came out, however, I shared that sense of something lost - I had grown kinda fond of the Old World, bubbling away in the background, a kind of parent figure to my real love, 40k. A bit further down the road, and I played Total War: Warhammer, and Totally fell in love. The high-fantasy silliness really appealed to me, and my affection for late medieval military history had blossomed a little more - both thanks in no small part to also pretty avidly consuming Pratchett, Miura Kentarou's Berserk and Peake's Gormenghast around the same time. I started to really seriously consider getting into Fantasy. My main points of interest are - Empire, Beastmen (are they chaos?), Vampire Counts, Skaven, Orcs and Goblins. On top of this, while I was painting my 40K dudes, I started watching Angory Tom's hysterical Total War campaigns on Youtube.

However...

...with the release of Warcry, it seems AOS is getting a bit nastier. A bit grittier. I'm not a fan of the magic doors where people go through to fight seemingly consequence-free battles in magic places faraway, but this seems different. As such, I'm tempted to see where it all leads.

That said, I'm really not much of a gamer. I like building and painting lil dudes best of all. So essentially, this argument comes down to 1. Square bases vs. Round bases and 2. Army composition, which I assume varies between the two systems, as the meta will inevitably be different, no?

I get that asking this question here might give me slightly biased answers... but what would you all reccommend?
Either, jump into Old World Fantasy, and get stuck into a lore I really enjoy, but a system that, one would assume, is dwindling, or one where I have a more recent sliver of interest in, but also much I'm not so keen on (I'm looking at you, sigmarines), but stands to be updated and grow.
Cheers for reading!

For the quotation in bold, a few questions came up that I have to ask:

What difference does it make which edition or part of the genre if all that you are into is Lore and Painting?

Are you even going to play a game with these models, or are they basically dioramas?

Are you trying to start up a paint commission business?

Ultimately it sounds like you just want to make a few diorama's with some models. In that case go nuts with what you like. You don't need our permission with anything.

I will chime in that while TECHNICALLY base size and shape is not important to AOS, that most of the community will have a raging poop on you if you try to use squares.

Tournament standard is that you would have rebased your squares to proper sized circles. And most people like to go off of tournament standard.

So if you do the AOS with squares route (i do this with my older models as well) just be prepared for some heavy disdain primarily from competitive type players.

Orlanth wrote:
The best advice I can give you is to collect as many army books as you can afford and are relevant to you. The wider net you spread the more options are open to you. Please remember any consensus on Dakka with regards to player volume is worthless unless those posting on this thread live near you and agree to meet. So you really need to be asking in your local community for what they want to play, for this end a mix of 6th and 8th will give you the optimum chance of getting players. Once you have players you can decide for yourself which edition you want to play and our opinions no longer matter.

Okay, 6-8th seems like a reasonable spread - since the rulebooks have been discontinued, am I gonna have to scour ebay to get my rules fix, or are there community resources for keeping stuff alive after the end times?

TinyLegions wrote:
What difference does it make which edition or part of the genre if all that you are into is Lore and Painting?

Are you even going to play a game with these models, or are they basically dioramas?

Are you trying to start up a paint commission business?

Ultimately it sounds like you just want to make a few diorama's with some models. In that case go nuts with what you like. You don't need our permission with anything.

A fair conclusion, and TBH, kind of one I am ultimately going to follow. I don't do any hobby stuff that isn't fun.
I'm kind of on the fence a bit. Part of me just likes having collections of painted models, but I will say that I like the idea of them also being viable for gaming (even if I take a total pasting). I've never tried diorama stuff, and I really think I prefer being able to hold a mini in my hands, and I'm far from good enought (nor have the time) for commissions. So while modeling and collecting are kind of at the forefront, I'd also like to be able to eventually take those models, and use them for something, especially relating to the fluff that inspired me to work on them. It's always cool to see the little dudes you spent a while painting take to the battlefield, even if, in my case, they don't survive all that long.

auticus wrote:I will chime in that while TECHNICALLY base size and shape is not important to AOS, that most of the community will have a raging poop on you if you try to use squares.

Tournament standard is that you would have rebased your squares to proper sized circles. And most people like to go off of tournament standard.

So if you do the AOS with squares route (i do this with my older models as well) just be prepared for some heavy disdain primarily from competitive type players.

This is news to me. Is it really that common? It sounds a bit TFG, but I can also sort of understand it maybe? In terms of playing, does it particularly affect anything at all, or is this like an aesthetic issue?
Cheers so much for all the input, fellas, very helpful!

 posermcbogus wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
The best advice I can give you is to collect as many army books as you can afford and are relevant to you. The wider net you spread the more options are open to you. Please remember any consensus on Dakka with regards to player volume is worthless unless those posting on this thread live near you and agree to meet. So you really need to be asking in your local community for what they want to play, for this end a mix of 6th and 8th will give you the optimum chance of getting players. Once you have players you can decide for yourself which edition you want to play and our opinions no longer matter.

Okay, 6-8th seems like a reasonable spread - since the rulebooks have been discontinued, am I gonna have to scour ebay to get my rules fix, or are there community resources for keeping stuff alive after the end times?

Broadly speaking yes.

First there are techniques to importing later units into 6th (and earlier) from later warhammer. I say techniques because you dont as much download rules as choose a template to decide how to import rules from 8th to earlier editions. These techniques very by player group.

For AOS units and third party content normally it involves homebrew rules additions. There is no standardisation for this so again its all about what your player group will go with, the homebrew content is found all over the internet anything from extra factions to importing AOS units. A lot is superflous though, someone came and imported Gloomspite Gits into 8th without checking to see that actually night goblins and forest golbins are already in Warhammer, all AOS did was add a plethora of silly names to units found in most O&G army books from 5th onwards. The only exception being the named types of Gobbapalooza characters which are not needed as they are all Night Goblin Shamen and big Bosses with different wargear options from the item lists. AOS character types are 'necessary' only because all templating of character is removed often leaving factions with just one generic fighter and one generic wizard with little to no optimisation.
On the other hand the homebrew Albion and Araby army books etc are often a good include and production standards on many 3rd party army books are high replicating edition based book covers etc. You have to take each online publication individually and judge for yourself, balance is guaranteed, but then again it never was.

This is important because the most impressive models were released for 8th or post Warhammer. Thankfully most of the newer models are comperable to older ones, so there is a port in somewhere at least to 8th, and this can be backfit further. The main issue here will be base size. greater daemons post WHFB have got a lot bigger and will not fit on any normal Warhammer base, unless you go overkill for a 100x150. some recent models wont even fit on that. The plastic Black Coach is a lovely kit but it needs a custom base. the wartchword here is rule of cool, many many models are simply bigger than they were and need a different basing standard. This can get odd as some existing models in the Warhammer range got a size change. Manticore for example, there wis a wide girth between what Dieter Helsnicht rode and the manticore in the Chaos Lord on Manticre set, which while currently an AOS kit was originally made for 8th. This is not unusual, the Cauldron of Blood had massive size changes, I have no doubt had WHFB remained the Grail Reliquae would have got huge too.

The more you investigate the less of an issue it is. Sure if a monster requires a chariot base rather than a 40x40 it makes a huge difference to how cannon work against it, but we cant expect everything to resolve itself seamlessly. With that exception you can just roll with the base size changes and import models you like from 8th edition rules (or play 8th). Storm of Magic also has a number of includes, if you play editions of Warhammer that allow a broad range of monster includes such as 5th you could port in stats from Storm of Magic as the core mechanics have changed very little since 3rd and special rules that do not apply to different editions can be ignored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 posermcbogus wrote:

auticus wrote:I will chime in that while TECHNICALLY base size and shape is not important to AOS, that most of the community will have a raging poop on you if you try to use squares.

Tournament standard is that you would have rebased your squares to proper sized circles. And most people like to go off of tournament standard.

So if you do the AOS with squares route (i do this with my older models as well) just be prepared for some heavy disdain primarily from competitive type players.

This is news to me. Is it really that common? It sounds a bit TFG, but I can also sort of understand it maybe? In terms of playing, does it particularly affect anything at all, or is this like an aesthetic issue?
Cheers so much for all the input, fellas, very helpful!

I have not seen this but sadly it seems a reasonable account. Toxic AOS is something I have no problem believing exists.
However YMMV, anyone with an anti square base agenda in my local GW would be talked down quickly. Now admittedly I do not see a lot of square bases, most people still only play 40K, but AOS is played and if someone came in with old based units they haven't got around to rebasing yet, or refuse to for edition variety people are cool with it.
Some people moved to clear plastic bases and again people are cool with it, it is allowed in shop, but they were penalised at tourney on the presentation bonus marks, though not for incorrect base size, but for using non GW product. In official UK tourneys square bases are not formally penalised.

 Orlanth wrote:
[...] In official UK tourneys square bases are not formally penalised.

Because it's normal to require that models adhere to the GW base size chart, which tells you which round/oval base the models are supposed to be based on.
Lets look at the biggest UK AoS tournament, the South Coast GT pack for instance - All models with textured/painted bases of the appropriate size as per GW base chart.

The amount of misinformation about AoS in this thread is not surprising, given that many that hang out here loathe AoS, but given that the OP only posted here and not in an AoS section, I presume he had his answer before posting and mainly wanted a confirmation.

Actually the base sizes are a suggestion. Here is the actual wording

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_core_rules_designers_commentary_base_sizes_en2.pdf

It will depend on your community. My community is mostly official tournament mode AF. Tournaments almost all have gone to enforcing rounds at least here in the states.

I have squares on my older demon models, and I run events that specifically state you can use what base the model comes with, and every year at every event I run I have had to have words with people that thought this was cheating.

Go into the AOS forums here and ask or go to the tga forums and ask about using squares and see what responses you get.

I'm just saying to go in with both eyes open about it.

GW makes it a suggestion because GW doesn't want to turn people away or annoy customers with a change they made. In reality, in general, most people "prefer" you to stick to the current established standard. For AoS this means round bases.

It's also likely that any attitude people have now will only get stronger as time passes since that increases the number of people who will be getting into the game new who will have new models all on round bases. Meanwhile those with old bases will either move on; buy new armies or rebase; some will stick it out but might use round movement trays or there are also some square to round modifier attachments out there as well.


If you're starting fresh it just seems to make a lot more sense to go with the round and then use movement trays for playing old warhammer.

 Overread wrote:


If you're starting fresh it just seems to make a lot more sense to go with the round and then use movement trays for playing old warhammer.

I am not sure that would really work for old warhammer. Lots of the round bases have a larger area than their Fantasy equivalent, so it wouldn't fit for such purpose.
Infantry that was on 20mm or 25mm square turns into 25mm and 32mm rounds. So for example, you can't fit 10 Chaos Warriors on 32mm rounds on a 125x50mm square tray.

This does work for KoW, where the 50%+1 thing allows to fit nicely larger bases on the tray while still being "legal".

To solve the issue between square/rounds for AoS+Fantasy use, I go the other way around. Build squares, and sticking rounds under (which are larger) temporarily for AoS. Since it respects the "oficial" size, people are cool with this (except for the odd TFG).

Spiky Norman wrote:
The amount of misinformation about AoS in this thread is not surprising, given that many that hang out here loathe AoS, but given that the OP only posted here and not in an AoS section, I presume he had his answer before posting and mainly wanted a confirmation.

I mean, I posted in here because I was hoping that the community still playing fantasy (which, as I mentioned in the OP, is the version I'm slightly more interested in. Figured, in a toss-up between the two, I decided I'd post to the board most relevant to my interests. Last I checked double-posting isn't allowed?) might be a bit more enthusiastic, and less concerned with meta-gaming and the cutting edge of a living ruleset, as the 40k community tends to be in my personal experience. While I'll be totally honest, and openly state that I've got a few reservations about AOS, I'm not gonna rule it out. I asked about it in my OP, and would gladly hear advocates for it, rather than presumptions about me. If I just wanted a confirmation, then I probably would've known more than "I kinda like this, what's the most fun way of doing it?".

Hmm, I'm still not certain as to the basing issue. Leaning more towards square, because I'm not super into tourney playing tbh

If you are not overly concerned with playing then you may as well just go with what makes you happier, that sounds like WHFB. I prefer 6th personally but if you are more into the fluff and modelling/painting side then you can always port your army to Kings of War or 9th Age or whatever if you then decide you want to play (or track down old hammer players, there are still many around and Facebook will be your friend here).

Go with what you are more interested in, why sell yourself short off the bat?

 posermcbogus wrote:

I mean, I posted in here because I was hoping that the community still playing fantasy (which, as I mentioned in the OP, is the version I'm slightly more interested in. Figured, in a toss-up between the two, I decided I'd post to the board most relevant to my interests. Last I checked double-posting isn't allowed?) might be a bit more enthusiastic, and less concerned with meta-gaming and the cutting edge of a living ruleset, as the 40k community tends to be in my personal experience. While I'll be totally honest, and openly state that I've got a few reservations about AOS, I'm not gonna rule it out. I asked about it in my OP, and would gladly hear advocates for it, rather than presumptions about me. If I just wanted a confirmation, then I probably would've known more than "I kinda like this, what's the most fun way of doing it?".

Hmm, I'm still not certain as to the basing issue. Leaning more towards square, because I'm not super into tourney playing tbh

AoS is like an ultra-steamlined version of 40K. I'm not interested in AoS because I have other, better, skirmish games that I can play (e.g. Warlords of Erewhon, Mordheim, even 40k to an extent etc). If you don't want to duplicate the play style (as a base rule set) of 40k then it's probably best to avoid AoS unless there is another aspect you enjoy (e.g. the models). If you are after a different style of game then WFB is a rank and file that is more about the positioning rather than setting up groups in regions to give you the best advantage. To be open one of the things I can't stand is when games become one or more mosh pits.

The disadvantage with later versions of WFB is that reasonably sized units became hideously expensive and also required lots of painting time of the same models. In an age when you can get almost instant gratification from a computer game / TV / other entertainment it puts people off from playing. Depending on who you are, WFB needs more patience and longer term planning. Earlier versions used smaller groups of units though.

I also find the writing style for both 40k and AoS is all about epic epicness with every battle, story being greater than the last. As someone that has read lots of books I find that style tedious, boring and predictable. The writing in my view in 6th and earlier I felt was much better stylistically.

The disadvantage of WFB is that models are no longer made - although suitable alternatives are made for a lot of armies (e.g. from Mantic) although you wouldn't be able to use these in a GW store without being taken to a darkened room at the back of the shop.

As for squares vs rounds. If you put things on rounds you definitely can't use them in WFB as they won't rank properly. If you put them on squares then you can play either game (+ others like Mordheim). GW just got rid of squares to cut costs nothing more. If someone has a 1st world issue because you use squares in AoS when you have spent hours building and painting your models then IMHO they aren't worth playing against anyway! Squares allow you to play more games and get more out of your models in my view and hence you can play both WFB and AoS.

 posermcbogus wrote:

I mean, I posted in here because I was hoping that the community still playing fantasy which, as I mentioned in the OP, is the version I'm slightly more interested in.

Do that then. If you make a WHFB army of your choice you can find others doing same, if you have two or mo0re armies you can host. Hosting is a good way forward, you collect the armies and you invite people to play. All they need do is turn up.

 posermcbogus wrote:

Hmm, I'm still not certain as to the basing issue. Leaning more towards square, because I'm not super into tourney playing tbh

You can do both if you are on the fence. I am no AOS fan but I did both. My Orc and goblin army is filled with ordinary orcs and goblins with a unit of Mantic trolls and an elite of black orcs. No weird stuff. I wanted a theme of an evil horde bent on slaughter and plunder rather than troops of homicidal clowns. So the night goblins I had from Skull Pass finally had a use, in AOS. They became Moonclan. AOS is to my mind an unserious game, there is no lore to speak of. Events happen but they never have real consequence and there is no notable gameworld to invest in. So it became a setting for an army I didn't really like very much. The weird stuff in O&G has its place, and I admit it is popular but it was never for me. So I put them on round bases, bought some resin squigs of different sizes on ebay (this was long before Gloomspite Gits came out) and I had my AOS army. Done. Now bqack to WHFB and my real focus.

One thing in favour of AOS, not that I like it is that you can make an AOS army out of anything so long as it fits one of the four meta factions. So if you have excess models after a build you can round base them and port them into AOS. I bought some auction lots to top up my Empire and Dwarf army and this has led me to have too many models of certain units. I might throw them together into an AOS soup one day, or given them away to someone else doing same.

 Whirlwind wrote:

As for squares vs rounds. If you put things on rounds you definitely can't use them in WFB as they won't rank properly. If you put them on squares then you can play either game (+ others like Mordheim). GW just got rid of squares to cut costs nothing more. If someone has a 1st world issue because you use squares in AoS when you have spent hours building and painting your models then IMHO they aren't worth playing against anyway! Squares allow you to play more games and get more out of your models in my view and hence you can play both WFB and AoS.

QFT. As said earlier I don't have any trouble believing that some AOS players will get pedantic over square bases, however I have not encountered anyway. Perhaps my local community is just more laid back then some.

You typically only find the hyper competitive tournament guys pedantic about the base sizes, because the extra 2 mm or whatever on the square means you can get a guy or two extra in combat that you normally couldn't, which to them is the same as fielding an extra 1000 points in a 2000 point game.