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.

 Crimson wrote:

Chikout wrote:
Personally I wish they gone the song of Ice and fire route. I like the look of their movement trays.
It preserves the rank and flank feel of the game with fewer minis. If they offered trays with either square or round holes, then people could use whichever bases they preferred.

Yeah, that would be ideal.

I'd say it's debatable if such trays actually preserve a rank n' file feel.

I've seen countless people proposing using unit trays with holes as a easy solution of using round based models in a square besed game. But in actual practice, it really do not work very well. The problem is that round bases in general are larger. A model that was based on 20mm squares in WHFB are now supplied with 25mm rounds. (it's true that GW models produced around the 8th edition era, and some earlier then that, started to outgrow their bases and really needed bigger bases than were supplied, but that's a tale for a different time).

So in the unit footprint which accommodated 20 goblins on 20mm square bases, you can fit about 9-10 on round 25mm, depending on how tight the holes are placed together. So either you end up with units of satisfying number of models but a ginormous footprint. Or you get units that take up a reasonable amount of space, but consist of a pitiful number of troops.

The one scenario I think it looks good is when you have models designed for 25mm bases, put on 25mm rounds and then slotted into trays of extremely tightly cut holes. As these
It's a good way to make use of Chaos Deamons in both 40k and WHFB for example.

Put a group of goblins like these:

on 25mm rounds and plonk them into a movement tray like this:

and it'll look less than a rank and file units of messed ranks and more like a scirmish screen of sorts.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Luke82 wrote:
I still think it is a dicey prospect trying to accommodate the new round base sizes into the game, unless the fundamentals change massively. I can only imagine the main target audience are those still playing WHFB and not spending their doll hairs on new rule books and official models… saying to these people they need to rebase their armies so the AoS boys can play too is gonna be a risky opening gambit.

Those people are 40+. They will laugh at such a notion and turn their backs on this project the instant such a silly proposal is being made. I am honestly baffled that GW wants to revisit R&F now. It´s not going to be cheaper and the community has less disposable income than during WHFB´s golden years. It´s going to be a Dreadfleet disaster.

GW is an order of magnitude better run and another order of magnitude better at marketing it's products than it was when they killed WHFB. Hell one of Rountree's first jobs was trying to salvage something from the mess that was AOS 1e. I wouldn't be worried about this being a success. The only question is what large this project is going to be be.

it really depends what GW is going to do

if they manage to have the same issue with the core box as with Cursed City, it won't do well

at the same time, half of the people will be disappointed no matter what
as there are those that want the same game it once was, were something like fixed/maximum unit sizes or multi-bases are a no-go

while the other half want an update with more modern mechanics gameplay and all the stuff removed that they thought make it a bad game

 Eldarsif wrote:


My hot take is that they could still go the ASOIAF route and in a way keep the current round based miniatures relevant.

The best thing about ASOIAF is that the miniatures have round bases but the movement trays are square. They could easily do the same for Old World which means people could use the new Chaos Warriors and whatnot. Because personally I have a hard time imagining GW printing the old Chaos Warrior line while they have the new Chaos Warrior line. I can just imagine for a new player going into the store to buy Chaos Warrior and buying the wrong unit. At least with the HH marines they are practically firstborns in 40k and much more interchangeable..

They did that for War of the Ring, which was a Rank and File game using their Middle-Earth figures. Since the existing line used round bases, and they weren't discontinuing the SBG, they had to provide movement trays with round slots for players to put their figures into. So they're certainly aware of the idea.

Eumerin wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:


My hot take is that they could still go the ASOIAF route and in a way keep the current round based miniatures relevant.

The best thing about ASOIAF is that the miniatures have round bases but the movement trays are square. They could easily do the same for Old World which means people could use the new Chaos Warriors and whatnot. Because personally I have a hard time imagining GW printing the old Chaos Warrior line while they have the new Chaos Warrior line. I can just imagine for a new player going into the store to buy Chaos Warrior and buying the wrong unit. At least with the HH marines they are practically firstborns in 40k and much more interchangeable..

They did that for War of the Ring, which was a Rank and File game using their Middle-Earth figures. Since the existing line used round bases, and they weren't discontinuing the SBG, they had to provide movement trays with round slots for players to put their figures into. So they're certainly aware of the idea.

It’s a lot of effort to go to for there first issue to be the same one as when they killed off The old world Fantasy the first time.

It may be better for GW thinking players who like one game won’t want to play the other and keeping the lines more seperate, than trying to work it out for both.

Unless they plan on retracting a previous statement, they've publicly committed to using square bases.

They can however two two things:

Design a new square base movement tray that spaces the models out more (like the ASOIAF trays) so that you don't have to buy quite as many to have a full regiment.


And rerelease the war of the rings movement trays for people using round bases so they can be incorporated into the game as well.

Will they do either? Don't know. Probably not.

Tyel wrote:
I guess that raises the question of whether there should be degrading profiles. Because there's a clear gap between cannons killing characters & monsters, and just tickling them pointlessly.

I'd say 8th made it too easy to hit with cannons, but my friend played dwarfs in the early 2000s and he seemed able to hit stuff up across tables near perfectly.

No surprise. With all the tricks with hand(known length), known board sizes, deployment distances, known terrain size and basic trigonomy "guess" range weapons were just noob traps.

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess that raises the question of whether there should be degrading profiles. Because there's a clear gap between cannons killing characters & monsters, and just tickling them pointlessly.

I'd say 8th made it too easy to hit with cannons, but my friend played dwarfs in the early 2000s and he seemed able to hit stuff up across tables near perfectly.

No surprise. With all the tricks with hand(known length), known board sizes, deployment distances, known terrain size and basic trigonomy "guess" range weapons were just noob traps.

I really didn’t see people use any of those methods all that much with success, the people who could do distance I think is just a skill you pick up or don’t.
Plenty of new players new and old would just know, others would struggle even trying all the tricks.

It’s the same with Warmachine distance and measurements, it just wasn’t a issue for most of our players and even with the change. No one really ever bothered with pre measurements without issue.

40k was similar, the changed didn’t really make much effect.

I think it’s fine if they just let players place the first spot, and roll a dice for how far off the unit was, and then how far the cannon bounce.
Since I think it’s cool mechanic, that serves the game more than guessing ever did.
Two chance for it to be a dud shot would go a long way for cannons and similar units being rather random for there damage output.

I honestly doubt even half of boxes GW sells see their models assembled, not to mention painted or fielded. I would hazard a guess most of them are bought because they are expertly marketed, not because they are really desired/needed. They just end up on the pile of shame, alongside the sixth 40k starter box and 10th Kill Team team.

As such it is mostly irrelevant how the game plays. For GW it only matters how cool the new models will look and if they will make their customers go "Oooh! I need to buy this immediately whike the stocks last!".

 Strg Alt wrote:

Luke82 wrote:
I still think it is a dicey prospect trying to accommodate the new round base sizes into the game, unless the fundamentals change massively. I can only imagine the main target audience are those still playing WHFB and not spending their doll hairs on new rule books and official models… saying to these people they need to rebase their armies so the AoS boys can play too is gonna be a risky opening gambit.

Those people are 40+. They will laugh at such a notion and turn their backs on this project the instant such a silly proposal is being made. I am honestly baffled that GW wants to revisit R&F now. It´s not going to be cheaper and the community has less disposable income than during WHFB´s golden years. It´s going to be a Dreadfleet disaster.

Those same people repurchase their 40K armies on the regular simply because New Official Release, so I think they'd do the same for WFB.

Or, you know, use the opportunity to start a second/third/fourth army. I know I'm not the only lunatic in the hobby that intends to eventually own 1 of each race/faction in WFB and 40K.

In the context of movement trays: TBH honest I always really liked the ideas of unit fillers. You could have mini dioramas within your units.

Ofc there are easy and cheap ones (--> here... this rock counts as 4 units)... and there are narrative and fun ones (--> brawling orcs).

I think it would be lovely to have get vignettes to bolster your units... make them distinguishable... and more fun. And the old catalogue already had so many fun items. If only they made these accessible again...

So... in conclusion: I preferred the old movement trays even more, because they gave me the freedom to include stories within my units and my army...

 Just Tony wrote:
I know I'm not the only lunatic in the hobby that intends to eventually own 1 of each race/faction in WFB and 40K.

Hey fellow Lunatic! Personally, I'm only short Chaos Dwarfs and Ogres for my Square Base armies...

Anyway, the Old World will be using square bases so movement trays will be made for square bases.

GW already knows how to make movement trays for round bases. We saw what was that looking like with War of the Ring. We know for sure the Old World won't be that (mainly because War of the Ring was closer to Warmaster in terms of rule design).

Not Online!!! wrote:
why sigh, the new warriors look not nearly as iconic as the old ones, especially the shields.

I'm not sure I agree, but my mind's eye is placed in the cinematic for that video game ( forget it atm ) where the Empire / Warrior Priest were beset on all sides by Chaos Warriors and I feel like the AoS ones capture that more readily.

I get the appeal of the static poses though.

I think there's lots of things GW could do - but if they are essentially going for "9th edition that never was" and "here's stuff that we stopped printing a decade ago now shut up", they are rather more limited.

I mean the point about rank and file units with round bases taking up a bigger movement tray footprint... could be a good thing. You wouldn't need as many models to feel you are taking up space on the battlefield. I realise you leave gaps - look at any ASIOAF models - but I think it can work. It might look a bit silly with say goblins - but its arguably preferable to "yes, my Black Orcs can rank up, but only as long as every model takes its designated spot in the axe jigsaw".

Its much harder though if you are running the same models as in 8th edition.

Apple fox wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:


My hot take is that they could still go the ASOIAF route and in a way keep the current round based miniatures relevant.

The best thing about ASOIAF is that the miniatures have round bases but the movement trays are square. They could easily do the same for Old World which means people could use the new Chaos Warriors and whatnot. Because personally I have a hard time imagining GW printing the old Chaos Warrior line while they have the new Chaos Warrior line. I can just imagine for a new player going into the store to buy Chaos Warrior and buying the wrong unit. At least with the HH marines they are practically firstborns in 40k and much more interchangeable..

They did that for War of the Ring, which was a Rank and File game using their Middle-Earth figures. Since the existing line used round bases, and they weren't discontinuing the SBG, they had to provide movement trays with round slots for players to put their figures into. So they're certainly aware of the idea.

It’s a lot of effort to go to for there first issue to be the same one as when they killed off The old world Fantasy the first time.

It may be better for GW thinking players who like one game won’t want to play the other and keeping the lines more seperate, than trying to work it out for both.

Which means that quite a few boxes will have double the SKUs. Chaos Warriors? Two skus. Witch Elves? Two SKUs.

I mean, DoK has 3 units that would have to be doubled SKU'd for Old World. Quite a few in the Seraphon line. Ton of Chaos stuff. Almost all of FEC and Soulblight Gravelords. I guess they'll bring the expensive resin Blood Knights back. Then ton of kits in Gitz, Ogors, and Orruk lines.

I must admit that unless they find a way for the two lines to coexist this entire thing will be a logistical nightmare. There is no way existing models from existing AoS lines will be removed except maybe for CoS.which is already in a leftover state. Then if one game updates an existing unit, like Chaos Marauders, that then the other game has to wait a decade until they get their updated version.

Probably the easiest way is just to sell the boxes with round and square bases in the box. However, with how some of the models are evolving I can't really imagine many of the models staying within the old square base sizes. So I think what can be assumed is that the square base sizes are not going to retain their old WHFB days sizes. That we will see a much more variance in overall base sizes for units.

This would also mean that GW could scale unit sizes a bit back(larger infantry on larger square bases) and potentially avoid the old issue with WHFB where you had buy tons of boxes for 2 full units.

I am just really curious how GW aims to address all of these things.

Hah yea I remember numbering bases for the correct model order.

Whether they're on rounds or squares, I'm expecting they'll still have gaps between the bases ASOIAF/WotR style. GW loves it's dynamic, overly detailed, leaping and arms wide poses to go back to the days of tucked-in arms. Doubly so if they plan for any cross compatibility with AoS (although I doubt they will do much, if any, of this).

Wow, we are already back to rounds? What's next, Warmaster?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
why sigh, the new warriors look not nearly as iconic as the old ones, especially the shields.

I'm not sure I agree, but my mind's eye is placed in the cinematic for that video game ( forget it atm ) where the Empire / Warrior Priest were beset on all sides by Chaos Warriors and I feel like the AoS ones capture that more readily.

I get the appeal of the static poses though.

Mark of Chaos. I have an obsolete computer solely so I can play it every so often...

Mark of Chaos you can also download and play from gog.com for those interested. I think some of the older warhammer games are on there too like Shadow of the horned rat.

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess that raises the question of whether there should be degrading profiles. Because there's a clear gap between cannons killing characters & monsters, and just tickling them pointlessly.

I'd say 8th made it too easy to hit with cannons, but my friend played dwarfs in the early 2000s and he seemed able to hit stuff up across tables near perfectly.

No surprise. With all the tricks with hand(known length), known board sizes, deployment distances, known terrain size and basic trigonomy "guess" range weapons were just noob traps.

As an Empire player, I honed my cannon skills and didn't have to do any of that crap. I even played in an environment where they forced me to actually aim the damn thing and sight down the barrel (despite the rules and writers' commentary stating otherwise). Monsters were easy points, and I still managed to kill more than my share of vampires...

Cyel wrote:
I honestly doubt even half of boxes GW sells see their models assembled, not to mention painted or fielded. I would hazard a guess most of them are bought because they are expertly marketed, not because they are really desired/needed. They just end up on the pile of shame, alongside the sixth 40k starter box and 10th Kill Team team.

As such it is mostly irrelevant how the game plays. For GW it only matters how cool the new models will look and if they will make their customers go "Oooh! I need to buy this immediately whike the stocks last!".

Less than half of what GW sells gets assembled?
That is ludicrous.
If you’d said 20% or so? Maybe.
But you’re saying around 60% of everything GW makes and sells, just sits in a box?

Having seen that TK and Bret artwork, I hope that they plan or releasing/supporting these armies right from the start!

But that would mean at a minimum a few core troops set with new sculpts for both. No way they could get away with the old Skeletons for the TK. That kit was already outdated when TK was released as an army (if not before), and the Horsemen and Chariot were designed to kinda match them so those too would need to go. Personally I have no real gripe with the horsemen or chariots in general, but they would look super ancient if re-released today (seeing all the cool dynamic horses they do now), but they were still much more serviceable than the troops that's for sure!

As an owner of a vast TK army, I won't be the main target for those release (at least model-wise), but I'd love to see them supported proper still. Old core troops were a big problem for a lot of armies in 8th edition, so they need to get those out to draw people in.

TK had a good batch of new plastic from their 8th edition launch (Tomb Guards, Sphinxes and Stalkers/Necro Knights), but Bretonnia had no 8th edition release, no "recent" models, very few units in plastic, and no 8th edition "upgrade" that could have added some life and new units to the army. They would need a bit more love here compared to the rest.

Danny76 wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I honestly doubt even half of boxes GW sells see their models assembled, not to mention painted or fielded. I would hazard a guess most of them are bought because they are expertly marketed, not because they are really desired/needed. They just end up on the pile of shame, alongside the sixth 40k starter box and 10th Kill Team team.

As such it is mostly irrelevant how the game plays. For GW it only matters how cool the new models will look and if they will make their customers go "Oooh! I need to buy this immediately whike the stocks last!".

Less than half of what GW sells gets assembled?
That is ludicrous.
If you’d said 20% or so? Maybe.
But you’re saying around 60% of everything GW makes and sells, just sits in a box?

That would be pretty ridiculous. Clearly 60% of everything GW makes and sells is kept in bins or large bags full of small bags full of bits.

I usef to run a wargaming school club for GW target audience - boys in their early teens. They together* outpurchased any adult players I'd known in my 30y history of playing miniature wargames but a vast majority of them limited themselves to buying some boxes, being excited about buying them for a short period of time, assembling some, painting even less, pretending to play an actual game with them and then putting them at the bottom of their closet never to look at them again.

So yes, I think the majority of GW sold items rests at the bottom of teenage boys' closets, still in sprues


*- that's to say that for all the adult "whales" I knew over the years I had ten+ such boys in the club every year

With the pile of shame thing and boxes being unbuilt that actually doesn't surprise me at all.
I have read similar about plastic kit collectors, some of those guys have collections just sat in storage where they could open a model shop to sell them all if they wanted to. Its not always intentional I don't think, and they probably intend to build them, but there wouldn't be enough hours left in their lifetime to do them even if they wanted to.

Bretonnians are in desperate need of new models to fill out the range, updates to the existing range (which is very outdated) and moving metal models over to plastic.

Cyel wrote:
I usef to run a wargaming school club for GW target audience - boys in their early teens. They together* outpurchased any adult players I'd known in my 30y history of playing miniature wargames but a vast majority of them limited themselves to buying some boxes, being excited about buying them for a short period of time, assembling some, painting even less, pretending to play an actual game with them and then putting them at the bottom of their closet never to look at them again.

So yes, I think the majority of GW sold items rests at the bottom of teenage boys' closets, still in sprues


*- that's to say that for all the adult "whales" I knew over the years I had ten+ such boys in the club every year

Equally I know several stories to the opposite fact.

I mean sure, unpainted models, we must be looking at half or so.
But most projects at least get started (which is the built part).

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess that raises the question of whether there should be degrading profiles. Because there's a clear gap between cannons killing characters & monsters, and just tickling them pointlessly.

I'd say 8th made it too easy to hit with cannons, but my friend played dwarfs in the early 2000s and he seemed able to hit stuff up across tables near perfectly.

No surprise. With all the tricks with hand(known length), known board sizes, deployment distances, known terrain size and basic trigonomy "guess" range weapons were just noob traps.

As an Empire player, I honed my cannon skills and didn't have to do any of that crap. I even played in an environment where they forced me to actually aim the damn thing and sight down the barrel (despite the rules and writers' commentary stating otherwise). Monsters were easy points, and I still managed to kill more than my share of vampires...

After having played WHFB I never understood why Buffy wouldn´t hunt vampires with cannon balls.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess that raises the question of whether there should be degrading profiles. Because there's a clear gap between cannons killing characters & monsters, and just tickling them pointlessly.

I'd say 8th made it too easy to hit with cannons, but my friend played dwarfs in the early 2000s and he seemed able to hit stuff up across tables near perfectly.

No surprise. With all the tricks with hand(known length), known board sizes, deployment distances, known terrain size and basic trigonomy "guess" range weapons were just noob traps.

As an Empire player, I honed my cannon skills and didn't have to do any of that crap. I even played in an environment where they forced me to actually aim the damn thing and sight down the barrel (despite the rules and writers' commentary stating otherwise). Monsters were easy points, and I still managed to kill more than my share of vampires...

Ah yes. You are obviously such a big thing that you not doing something obviously means nobody does. You are the ultimate proof of how things were played by 100% of player base. Yep yep. Totally believable.