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.

 Shadox wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think part of what appeals about rank and file games is how they're densely packed units. Something is lost when the formation becomes too loose.

Of course that contradicts the idea of having something easier to get into, but something like this just looks cool standing opposite you on the battlefield...

Believe me, I fully understand that. Few things are cooler than a full shieldwall of spearmen, which your opponent has to charge.

I don't want to loose that phalanx feeling either, but I believe there is a middle ground between "I have to pose all my models with them holding their weapons up, so they don't use up more than 25cm²" and the Khorne Wrathmongers.

I think a unit like that would probably end up on 40mm bases as they aren't the sort of unit that would form nice ranks and files anyway.

A large part of the problem was GW grew the scale but the bases stayed the same size, though personally I would have rather they didn't grow the scale instead of growing the base sizes anyway. Someone mentioned Bestigors earlier, I'm not familiar with the models but maybe the solution there is another intermediate base size like 30mm (similar to how 40k introduced 32mm) or maybe the models need a redesign. I think GW lost their way for a while in the early days of multipose when it came to WHFB model posing, producing stuff that neither looked good nor ranked up easily. Savage Orcs are a good example of a unit that looks dynamic and chaotic while still being able to mount up in a dense formation on 25mm bases (so long as you're a bit careful).

But there is always a conflict between wanting uniquely posed models and having them rank up easily. I definitely went through a phase of wanting all my WHFB models to look unique, after a while I grew out of it and realised the aesthetic beauty of WHFB is not the individual model, but the regiment as a whole. These days I only pose my champions / heroes / lords, though even that's sometimes a bit of a headache, a couple of units I've had to custom make a command group around my lord so he'll fit in the unit. A solution might just be to allow the Lord / Hero to stand next to the unit while counting as being "in" the unit at an arbitrary location.

kenofyork wrote:
I can not imagine dwarves spending countless hours on their hair before battle................throw on a hat and get to marching.

I went back to 3rd edition and it will take a peach of a rules set for me to move ahead.

Just my $.02.

Have you ever had long hair? It gets manky and unmanageable if you don't take care of it. Keep it clean and tied back when you have a job to do. If it's long enough; braids are also quite practical.

I hear you on sticking to a game that works for you though. GW will have to make something phenomenal and entirely change how they treat their games and players before I even consider getting something from GW again.

 Overread wrote:
Daughters of Khaine Witch Aelves are rank and file models and yet have a very dynamic pose to them.

And it was a nightmare to put them in formation, if you remember it well like I do.

While I remember the memes when they reveal their Old World project, I don't have a lot of hope they will actually return to the old WFB with the squares the same size. It feels they're not compatible anymore to GW's upscaled plastic kits while keeping the dynamism of their new sculpts. I feel like a minimum of 25 mm for all infantries (not just orcs, chaos and some others) is more than needed. Could see monstruous infantry on 50 mm squares while cavalry can certainly work on their usual 25x50 mm (though for some, even that is getting tight...).

We still have a long time ahead before we even have a glimpse of the actual game mechanisms.

It still baffles me they keep trying to work a Hype when they are so early in the project. It's not even an Alpha if they're just working on the maps.

I'm willing to bet they have a pretty sound idea of the game rules already- they have the various different editions or warhammer to workwith, along with thier own experiences of it, alongside what various competitors are doing.

We know from interviews that as much as it may seem like everyone in the studio only knows warhammer, they all have an exposure to various other games, and are probably fans of them. At the very least, I'm sure they read the rule books.

I really think the thing we are waiting on is the models to get sculpted, and maybe other art assets created.

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I'm willing to bet they have a pretty sound idea of the game rules already- they have the various different editions or warhammer to workwith, along with thier own experiences of it, alongside what various competitors are doing.

We know from interviews that as much as it may seem like everyone in the studio only knows warhammer, they all have an exposure to various other games, and are probably fans of them. At the very least, I'm sure they read the rule books.

I really think the thing we are waiting on is the models to get sculpted, and maybe other art assets created.

I'd like to think GW rules writers are well versed and have extensively played lots of different rule sets... though based on their writing a lot of the time it feels like they have barely playtested the rules they just wrote let alone rules to other games.

I think they are trying to be too exact for their own good sometimes.

I've tried a few times to get into GW rules with the boxed games, most recently the rules for the underworlds game, and I found them not very well written.

At the end of the day, the rules really don't need to be more than two pages opposing each other so you can see everything, a quick reference flow chart and an errata to cover specific situations.

Instead its full of dumb special key words where there don't need to be and wording that is meant to be exact but is instead very muddling.

And good-gods, the video explanation for direchasm was HUGELY confusing. It took me watching two guys just playing to realize how simple a game it actually is to play.

Now I've never actually branched into main AoS or 40k, but I cant imagine they are any better.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

But there is always a conflict between wanting uniquely posed models and having them rank up easily. I definitely went through a phase of wanting all my WHFB models to look unique, after a while I grew out of it and realised the aesthetic beauty of WHFB is not the individual model, but the regiment as a whole. These days I only pose my champions / heroes / lords, though even that's sometimes a bit of a headache, a couple of units I've had to custom make a command group around my lord so he'll fit in the unit. A solution might just be to allow the Lord / Hero to stand next to the unit while counting as being "in" the unit at an arbitrary location.

Models on circular bases rank up in movement trays better than models on same size square bases. You can adjust the angles of the figures individually on the fly.

Base shape on the model doesn't really matter if they are all on a movement tray anyway. Which is why I'll bet if/when this comes out there will be many rebased onto round bases and movement trays with round slots on them - because if GW doesn't do it themselves gamers will do it to have cross compatible models.

That is true, but the issue becomes the absolutely massive frontage on stuff that is on 32mm rounds. I think 25mm works well enough, but the bigger sizes are stupid on movement trays.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:


Trademark is to do with logos, names, symbols etc, its to identify or associate something with a specific brand/source so you can differ them from other similar things and tell which is which - the Trademark for Bretonnians has absolutely nothing to do with the models themselves. The aesthetics of them doesn't matter regarding that at all and won't make any difference in terms of "defending" it, they just have to use the trademark to do that. It's copyright that can involve aspects of appearance, identity, portrayal etc but having lsomething ike the aesthetic style or theming of a miniature be protected under copyright is more difficult, as they can't really own the general idea underlying them.

It isn't a requirement for them to change the look and style of any of the old miniatures to "defend" them.

I was using "Trademark" as a catch all for trying to protect their games and IP by making visually unique models that aren't easily represented by Historical counterparts, oh, and let's not forget the stupid names too. I'd be really surprised if these "old Brets" end up looking like Medieval Tournament Knights with helm decorations and barding/trapping. If they keep the same look, I can go to a dozen other miniature providers and get similar looking miniatures for a fraction of the price.

If GW continues to be GW, we'll see continued swelling of miniature sizes (just look at the 5th ed Bret Knights compared to 7th, or whenever they re-did the plastic knights), the look will change, and they'll try to do something cute with the basing to just make it a bigger PITA.

I'd be super surprised if they kept it anything like what older editions of WHFB looked like.

Sabots and other movement trays are a common thing nowadays, so as folks have mentioned, that's a possibility. The other unknown is potential table size. 40k went from bog standard marines on 25s to Primaris on 32s, larger centerpiece models, and a smaller game surface. Don't you think "TOW" will aim to do the same thing, to maximize on the sales of gaming mats and surfaces? GW managed, over the 7 editions I've been playing 40k, to finally push me out, and I no longer buy or collect. AT is the only active game GW has that has kept me paying the slightest attention.

I'll be monitoring this as well, but its likely I'll just return to the "dead" editions of the games I enjoy(ed) and continue to play those.

40k went from bog standard marines on 25s to Primaris on 32s

Just a correction here, bog standard marines went to 32s before Primaris happened.

Particularly for assault marines and some characters, this was actually helpful (less tipping over)

 DarkBlack wrote:

kenofyork wrote:
I can not imagine dwarves spending countless hours on their hair before battle................throw on a hat and get to marching.

I went back to 3rd edition and it will take a peach of a rules set for me to move ahead.

Just my $.02.

Have you ever had long hair? It gets manky and unmanageable if you don't take care of it. Keep it clean and tied back when you have a job to do. If it's long enough; braids are also quite practical.

I hear you on sticking to a game that works for you though. GW will have to make something phenomenal and entirely change how they treat their games and players before I even consider getting something from GW again.

Aye. I can absolutely see them braid their hair before battle. It's what the Spartans (famously long-haired in antiquity) did before battles. I imagine them taking care of their luxurious hair just as well as they would maintain their weapons and armour. Various Germanic peoples (on which the Dwarfs are strongly culturally based) had similarly good hair-care regimes. Vikings washed it all the time, and combs are amongst the most common items found from them. Early Frankish kings had their hair braided when their nation was at war. Presumably most long-haired people in history did. Pretty embarrassing to die because your hair got in front of your face during a battle.

Also, braids made for great helmet padding. Pretty sure the aforementioned Spartans did that.

 Da Boss wrote:
That is true, but the issue becomes the absolutely massive frontage on stuff that is on 32mm rounds. I think 25mm works well enough, but the bigger sizes are stupid on movement trays.

Was that a problem with the width of the ranks or the amount of stuff that was crammed on the table that made manvouvering wide formations a chore?

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I think they are trying to be too exact for their own good sometimes.

I've tried a few times to get into GW rules with the boxed games, most recently the rules for the underworlds game, and I found them not very well written.

At the end of the day, the rules really don't need to be more than two pages opposing each other so you can see everything, a quick reference flow chart and an errata to cover specific situations.

Instead its full of dumb special key words where there don't need to be and wording that is meant to be exact but is instead very muddling.

And good-gods, the video explanation for direchasm was HUGELY confusing. It took me watching two guys just playing to realize how simple a game it actually is to play.

Now I've never actually branched into main AoS or 40k, but I cant imagine they are any better.

Yeah, maybe a touch more than 2 pages as I think some diagrams are helpful, but the WHFB rules were absolutely terribly written. To understand how one thing worked you'd often have to flip through 3 or 4 different sections of the rulebook, then 2 or 3 different sections of your army book, assuming you knew where those sections were to look them up in the first place.

I think it was just a case of the rules never being rewritten, they just kept getting adapted and it needed someone with a fresh set of eyes to come in and say "hey guys, this writing is hairy balls, lets just start from scratch".

The game itself wasn't that complicated, and if you learned simply by being taught (like most of us) then you might not appreciate how god awful the rules must have been for someone who only has the rulebook and army books to go off.

That said, GW have managed to screw up even the simplest of rulesets to the point of feeling like they weren't playtested (I'm looking at you, 2019 release of Aeronautica Imperialis).

They will most likely stay the exact same scale as before. Many kits, including some newer boxes of miniatures and those directly from their warehouse that have both square and circular bases. Building my death army for AoS gave me 40 squares that I promptly used for other games in two boxes, with circulars as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I think they are trying to be too exact for their own good sometimes.

I've tried a few times to get into GW rules with the boxed games, most recently the rules for the underworlds game, and I found them not very well written.

At the end of the day, the rules really don't need to be more than two pages opposing each other so you can see everything, a quick reference flow chart and an errata to cover specific situations.

Instead its full of dumb special key words where there don't need to be and wording that is meant to be exact but is instead very muddling.

And good-gods, the video explanation for direchasm was HUGELY confusing. It took me watching two guys just playing to realize how simple a game it actually is to play.

Now I've never actually branched into main AoS or 40k, but I cant imagine they are any better.

Yeah, maybe a touch more than 2 pages as I think some diagrams are helpful, but the WHFB rules were absolutely terribly written. To understand how one thing worked you'd often have to flip through 3 or 4 different sections of the rulebook, then 2 or 3 different sections of your army book, assuming you knew where those sections were to look them up in the first place.

I think it was just a case of the rules never being rewritten, they just kept getting adapted and it needed someone with a fresh set of eyes to come in and say "hey guys, this writing is hairy balls, lets just start from scratch".

The game itself wasn't that complicated, and if you learned simply by being taught (like most of us) then you might not appreciate how god awful the rules must have been for someone who only has the rulebook and army books to go off.

That said, GW have managed to screw up even the simplest of rulesets to the point of feeling like they weren't playtested (I'm looking at you, 2019 release of Aeronautica Imperialis).

Correction: 7th and 8th Edition rules sucked.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:


Trademark is to do with logos, names, symbols etc, its to identify or associate something with a specific brand/source so you can differ them from other similar things and tell which is which - the Trademark for Bretonnians has absolutely nothing to do with the models themselves. The aesthetics of them doesn't matter regarding that at all and won't make any difference in terms of "defending" it, they just have to use the trademark to do that. It's copyright that can involve aspects of appearance, identity, portrayal etc but having lsomething ike the aesthetic style or theming of a miniature be protected under copyright is more difficult, as they can't really own the general idea underlying them.

It isn't a requirement for them to change the look and style of any of the old miniatures to "defend" them.

I was using "Trademark" as a catch all for trying to protect their games and IP by making visually unique models that aren't easily represented by Historical counterparts, oh, and let's not forget the stupid names too. I'd be really surprised if these "old Brets" end up looking like Medieval Tournament Knights with helm decorations and barding/trapping. If they keep the same look, I can go to a dozen other miniature providers and get similar looking miniatures for a fraction of the price.

I really don't get where this "Everything has to be entirely unique now so they can defend it" comes from, as while the latest factions of Age of Sigmar are quite varied and unique in comparison to something like the typical WHFB armies, there are still large sections of it that do not follow that idea and are something that has similar miniatures by other manufacturers. Part of the unique thematic side of those AoS armies also comes just from the setting in the first place, with the change from a gritty dark sword-and-sorcery/Tolkien style fantasy to a much more stylized and exaggerated Mythic/Epic fantasy. I'd be very suprised if new Bretonians don't have the Bretonian theme, because that's been a defining characteristic of them for years and is just what makes them what they are. I don't see where this supposed push for everything now having to be changed to being unique even at the cost of their previous iconic aspects is.

We can always just hope that GW has become more comfortable with the old look and named based on the success and uniqueness of the Total War game

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I think they are trying to be too exact for their own good sometimes.

I've tried a few times to get into GW rules with the boxed games, most recently the rules for the underworlds game, and I found them not very well written.

At the end of the day, the rules really don't need to be more than two pages opposing each other so you can see everything, a quick reference flow chart and an errata to cover specific situations.

Instead its full of dumb special key words where there don't need to be and wording that is meant to be exact but is instead very muddling.

And good-gods, the video explanation for direchasm was HUGELY confusing. It took me watching two guys just playing to realize how simple a game it actually is to play.

Now I've never actually branched into main AoS or 40k, but I cant imagine they are any better.

Yeah, maybe a touch more than 2 pages as I think some diagrams are helpful, but the WHFB rules were absolutely terribly written. To understand how one thing worked you'd often have to flip through 3 or 4 different sections of the rulebook, then 2 or 3 different sections of your army book, assuming you knew where those sections were to look them up in the first place.

I think it was just a case of the rules never being rewritten, they just kept getting adapted and it needed someone with a fresh set of eyes to come in and say "hey guys, this writing is hairy balls, lets just start from scratch".

The game itself wasn't that complicated, and if you learned simply by being taught (like most of us) then you might not appreciate how god awful the rules must have been for someone who only has the rulebook and army books to go off.

That said, GW have managed to screw up even the simplest of rulesets to the point of feeling like they weren't playtested (I'm looking at you, 2019 release of Aeronautica Imperialis).

With the exception of the minutiae, the 6th Ed. WFB rules fit on a 2 sided card that came in the boxed set with a second 2 sided card that covered the magic section that was released in an issue of White Dwarf. Both were also available as a free pdf on GW's website, which I have access to through a wayback machine link. That isn't exactly complicated, and the minutiae in the book expands and adds clarity. You could still play 6th using nothing but those two cards and a copy of Ravening Hordes.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

GrosseSax wrote:
As someone (along with my normal group) who had been introduced to WHFB through Total War and instantly fell in love with the setting, we were very disappointed to find that the entire TT setting was nuked a few years prior to us discovering it.

I don't think there is any better example of how badly thought out the launch of AoS was than the fact that they did it just before the release of the biggest and most anticipated video game based on their IP.

Was it even announced at the time?

Yup. Warhammer Total War was announced in April 2015 and came out May 2016, AoS starter set was released in July 2015.

And GW would have been much more aware of when video games based on their IP would be coming, or at least what games are currently in production, than the public. Well, they should and if they weren't then that just reinforces my point.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:


Trademark is to do with logos, names, symbols etc, its to identify or associate something with a specific brand/source so you can differ them from other similar things and tell which is which - the Trademark for Bretonnians has absolutely nothing to do with the models themselves. The aesthetics of them doesn't matter regarding that at all and won't make any difference in terms of "defending" it, they just have to use the trademark to do that. It's copyright that can involve aspects of appearance, identity, portrayal etc but having lsomething ike the aesthetic style or theming of a miniature be protected under copyright is more difficult, as they can't really own the general idea underlying them.

It isn't a requirement for them to change the look and style of any of the old miniatures to "defend" them.

I was using "Trademark" as a catch all for trying to protect their games and IP by making visually unique models that aren't easily represented by Historical counterparts, oh, and let's not forget the stupid names too. I'd be really surprised if these "old Brets" end up looking like Medieval Tournament Knights with helm decorations and barding/trapping. If they keep the same look, I can go to a dozen other miniature providers and get similar looking miniatures for a fraction of the price.

I really don't get where this "Everything has to be entirely unique now so they can defend it" comes from, as while the latest factions of Age of Sigmar are quite varied and unique in comparison to something like the typical WHFB armies, there are still large sections of it that do not follow that idea and are something that has similar miniatures by other manufacturers. Part of the unique thematic side of those AoS armies also comes just from the setting in the first place, with the change from a gritty dark sword-and-sorcery/Tolkien style fantasy to a much more stylized and exaggerated Mythic/Epic fantasy. I'd be very suprised if new Bretonians don't have the Bretonian theme, because that's been a defining characteristic of them for years and is just what makes them what they are. I don't see where this supposed push for everything now having to be changed to being unique even at the cost of their previous iconic aspects is.

I cringe whenever I hear someone say these two words like its some deep and meaningful explanation for everything, but: Chapterhouse lawsuit.

Man, look at us all strung out like crack addicts. We have a 75 page thread about a game that won't release for years.

We got ten pages of comments about a simple map.

Why can't we all move on?

It is coming up on a decade since I've played WHFB. I regularly play games with both better models and immensely better rules, but I still linger around here and my heart still beats a little faster whenever I see this thread crop up.

Them nostalgia goggles really are something.

Well it was around for 30 years - for many gamers it was something they grew up with either directly or in the background of one of their main hobbies. So yeah its not surprising there's a lot of nostalgic love about it.

 Just Tony wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I think they are trying to be too exact for their own good sometimes.

I've tried a few times to get into GW rules with the boxed games, most recently the rules for the underworlds game, and I found them not very well written.

At the end of the day, the rules really don't need to be more than two pages opposing each other so you can see everything, a quick reference flow chart and an errata to cover specific situations.

Instead its full of dumb special key words where there don't need to be and wording that is meant to be exact but is instead very muddling.

And good-gods, the video explanation for direchasm was HUGELY confusing. It took me watching two guys just playing to realize how simple a game it actually is to play.

Now I've never actually branched into main AoS or 40k, but I cant imagine they are any better.

Yeah, maybe a touch more than 2 pages as I think some diagrams are helpful, but the WHFB rules were absolutely terribly written. To understand how one thing worked you'd often have to flip through 3 or 4 different sections of the rulebook, then 2 or 3 different sections of your army book, assuming you knew where those sections were to look them up in the first place.

I think it was just a case of the rules never being rewritten, they just kept getting adapted and it needed someone with a fresh set of eyes to come in and say "hey guys, this writing is hairy balls, lets just start from scratch".

The game itself wasn't that complicated, and if you learned simply by being taught (like most of us) then you might not appreciate how god awful the rules must have been for someone who only has the rulebook and army books to go off.

That said, GW have managed to screw up even the simplest of rulesets to the point of feeling like they weren't playtested (I'm looking at you, 2019 release of Aeronautica Imperialis).

With the exception of the minutiae, the 6th Ed. WFB rules fit on a 2 sided card that came in the boxed set with a second 2 sided card that covered the magic section that was released in an issue of White Dwarf. Both were also available as a free pdf on GW's website, which I have access to through a wayback machine link. That isn't exactly complicated, and the minutiae in the book expands and adds clarity. You could still play 6th using nothing but those two cards and a copy of Ravening Hordes.

Well that's 4 pages then, and still the minutiae was mostly required to play. I think someone who didn't already know how to play the game probably wouldn't have been able to figure it out from the reference sheets, and there was a whole heap of rules missing (different weapon types, special rules, firing and charge arcs, what to do with multiple charges all come to mind). I don't really remember how well written the 6th edition rules were, it's so long since I've read them, I don't remember them being significantly different than 7th in terms of how the rules were written and structured (play style was obviously very different). I probably still have a copy kicking around somewhere unless it got junked or sold.

But yeah, if it's written concisely and with a few diagrams to help out, I think a small pamphlet should be enough to cover the rules without needing the gigantic convoluted rulebook with more cross references than the bible, and then summarise the flow of a turn on a reference sheet to help people not forget things.

 Gallahad wrote:
Man, look at us all strung out like crack addicts. We have a 75 page thread about a game that won't release for years.

We got ten pages of comments about a simple map.

Why can't we all move on?

It is coming up on a decade since I've played WHFB. I regularly play games with both better models and immensely better rules, but I still linger around here and my heart still beats a little faster whenever I see this thread crop up.

Them nostalgia goggles really are something.

It evokes comfy feelings and nothing has been able to fill that gap yet (for me). Yes, large parts of my excitement can be attributed to nostalgia, but there is also an inherent quality in the world, factions and units they created.

 Overread wrote:
Well it was around for 30 years - for many gamers it was something they grew up with either directly or in the background of one of their main hobbies. So yeah its not surprising there's a lot of nostalgic love about it.

Yeah, I started my journey into to table top gaming in the mid 90's, scarily it's been a part of my life for longer than it hasn't, if it weren't for my friend who bought a boxed set way back when I was 10 years old, I wouldn't be on this forum now...

...I still blame him for that

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:


Trademark is to do with logos, names, symbols etc, its to identify or associate something with a specific brand/source so you can differ them from other similar things and tell which is which - the Trademark for Bretonnians has absolutely nothing to do with the models themselves. The aesthetics of them doesn't matter regarding that at all and won't make any difference in terms of "defending" it, they just have to use the trademark to do that. It's copyright that can involve aspects of appearance, identity, portrayal etc but having lsomething ike the aesthetic style or theming of a miniature be protected under copyright is more difficult, as they can't really own the general idea underlying them.

It isn't a requirement for them to change the look and style of any of the old miniatures to "defend" them.

I was using "Trademark" as a catch all for trying to protect their games and IP by making visually unique models that aren't easily represented by Historical counterparts, oh, and let's not forget the stupid names too. I'd be really surprised if these "old Brets" end up looking like Medieval Tournament Knights with helm decorations and barding/trapping. If they keep the same look, I can go to a dozen other miniature providers and get similar looking miniatures for a fraction of the price.

I really don't get where this "Everything has to be entirely unique now so they can defend it" comes from, as while the latest factions of Age of Sigmar are quite varied and unique in comparison to something like the typical WHFB armies, there are still large sections of it that do not follow that idea and are something that has similar miniatures by other manufacturers. Part of the unique thematic side of those AoS armies also comes just from the setting in the first place, with the change from a gritty dark sword-and-sorcery/Tolkien style fantasy to a much more stylized and exaggerated Mythic/Epic fantasy. I'd be very suprised if new Bretonians don't have the Bretonian theme, because that's been a defining characteristic of them for years and is just what makes them what they are. I don't see where this supposed push for everything now having to be changed to being unique even at the cost of their previous iconic aspects is.

I cringe whenever I hear someone say these two words like its some deep and meaningful explanation for everything, but: Chapterhouse lawsuit.

Have to got a link to an actual explanation of the impact of that in this context? It's also a phrase that have seen repeated regarding this as if it's some sort of complete explanation, yet i've not actually found how that resulted in "Their stuff needs to be completely unique thematically so they can defend it". From what I've seen that wasn't part of the cases outcome, but rather the opposite, as part of the problem there was that that just isn't how copyright works in the first place - you can't copyright an idea or theme itself. A specific depiction of something as in overall look of an actual miniature itself is one thing, but the underlying concept and design ethos is something that won't be owned by GW no matter how "unique" it is. It makes no difference whether their Dwarfs are the typical fantasy style Dwarves of WHFB or the Sci-fi Steampunk AoS Dwarves for example - either way, they can't stop someone else making something along those lines. They can defend the way they've realized a thing in terms of the miniature sculpt itself and how similar another miniature might be in comparison, but not so much the thematic elements that make them up.

what GW did after the lawsuit and their conclusion on the case is not really based on what actual happened

GW took that route because it was their way of dealing with the result that everyone can sell 28mm plastic "Dwarfs" but only GW can sell Duradin and Fyreslayer

To add my own personal speculation/wish I would absolutely love it if they went for a mix of highly detailed and single pose kits.
If you take the Empire as an example. It would be great if they released a 10 miniature swordsman pack. It would be nicely detailed and have a command. It would be priced at around £30. They could also have a "wound counter" single-pose infantry box set similar to the 4th/5th edition sets, 10 for £10. This would be great because it would offer the ultimate in flexibility. If you wanted to have a large regiment of highly detailed figures and you didn't mind spending more you could go multiples of the £30 quid box, or a mix of the two or if you were on a super tight budget you could go for the single pose.

 kodos wrote:
what GW did after the lawsuit and their conclusion on the case is not really based on what actual happened

GW took that route because it was their way of dealing with the result that everyone can sell 28mm plastic "Dwarfs" but only GW can sell Duradin and Fyreslayer

The names are to do with the trademark side of things, the look of the actual miniatures is something that is protected in their actual depiction/realization of an idea, but the underlying ideas of them are not something they own. Other manufacturers can make Dwarfs with similar themes as long as they aren't too similar to the actual GW miniatures. Changing the themes of the WHFB miniatures with this project wouldn't matter, because that's not what the copyright protects.

Unique names are also likely because GW realised that if they are the only ones that make Fyreslayers then when you google it most of the results will be GW based models/links etc...