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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Which has been a thing for decades. That's part and parcel to playing the game.

Still fecking annoying and a point many people hate, lol. When I started WHFB all my armies ranked up reasonably well (maybe not everything did across the range, I dunno, but my armies did).

You haven't played Chaos and built chaos knights if you can state this with a straight face.... same with barbarians for that matter.


Sincerly someone that recently built 10 chaos knights and an lord and banner bearer based upon chaos knight kit.



Ironically the blood warriors fit perfectly on bases for reasons i only can assume as them being initially planed for squares.

Personally i wouldn't be mad if GW would give us a bit bigger base sizes for cav.

Well, I started back in 5th edition, I have no idea if Chaos knights ranked up in 5th edition, I seem to recall they were so expensive that people wouldn't usually take more than 1 rank of them anyway

But yeah, I didn't collect Chaos, the armies I did collect back then ranked up fine.

So that thing yesterday turned out to be nothing?

What thing? I’ve missed something, haven’t I?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:What thing? I’ve missed something, haven’t I?

Eiríkr wrote:
This went up briefly before being removed.

Eirikr's post a couple of pages back in this thread..

EDIT : gah, ninja'd by Tim the Biovore

Maybe its for next wednesday

It's the exact same image and text that was used for the initial announcement in 2019.

I think it was a mischeduled post that they quickly removed because it wasn't supposed to be posted.

I also think it was mistake. As in the last round of news they told us not to expect anything more until the new year.

 Rihgu wrote:
It's the exact same image and text that was used for the initial announcement in 2019.

I think it was a mischeduled post that they quickly removed because it wasn't supposed to be posted.

The date of the original announcement was the 15th November 2019 though, which was a Friday, not a Wednesday.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
It's the exact same image and text that was used for the initial announcement in 2019.

I think it was a mischeduled post that they quickly removed because it wasn't supposed to be posted.

The date of the original announcement was the 15th November 2019 though, which was a Friday, not a Wednesday.

You're right, looking at the initial announcement the text is identical except for the parenthetical.

It could have still been a mischeduled post. If they initially set it to post on the 15th of November (2022) without noticing it was 2022, they'd see that the next day was Wednesday. If they then realized, oh, that was scheduled for the wrong year, never cancelled the original post, and made a new one for the correct year (2019) they would change it to the Friday as the calendar would show that to be the next day.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Shifted and amended all to round bases and AoS, not going back to squares ever again!

At this point this would be trolling x2.

Been a bit cold with the old world news I just moved away from all that years ago with the implosion. Bit cheeky to even suggest its back.

The funny thing is that you didn't need to, AOS can be played on Square bases with no problems

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
GW want you to buy their models twice. Why would they make things easier for you?

Because people more or less won't. They'll pick AoS or TOW and stick with one system. The same people who would play both if their minis could be used in both--something that expands the community for both games, and community sells miniatures. The minority of people who are willing to buy full armies for both systems? They will do it either way.

If you want to go out and make a movement tray to fit round bases into a square formation, I'm sure they'd happy for you to try.

I'd rather buy one of the wide range of products that have been available for years to do exactly that, personally.

And don't discount those who would somehow make their bases modular.

You can just play AOS and leave WHFB players alone

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
*GW advertising the return to square bases with a promo shot indicating as much*

Dakkadakka: "Let's debate how they're going to release this new game on round bases in movement trays because..."

Regardless of what GW does there will be some 3rd party trays suitable for rounds because there's lots of folks who converted theirs or want to use AoS figures.

NinthMusketeer wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
GW want you to buy their models twice. Why would they make things easier for you?

Because people more or less won't. They'll pick AoS or TOW and stick with one system. The same people who would play both if their minis could be used in both--something that expands the community for both games, and community sells miniatures. The minority of people who are willing to buy full armies for both systems? They will do it either way.

If you want to go out and make a movement tray to fit round bases into a square formation, I'm sure they'd happy for you to try.

I'd rather buy one of the wide range of products that have been available for years to do exactly that, personally.

Just like all those people who didn't start playing 40K when it was introduced.


Oh, wait...




Maybe, JUST maybe, people will potentially play both. And those that won't wouldn't have played those games anyway, so what's lost? NOW people who wanted M:TG x 40K with bows get it, and those that want brick on brick action will get what they want. Why is it so important for some to gak on the other?


Rhetorical question, one I answered earlier...

Goose LeChance wrote:You can just play AOS and leave WHFB players alone

Absolutely fething exalted.

ok, what is the chance that GW is still having nothing to show off but just re-posting the same picture once in a while by "accident" to keep people talking and waiting (aka the hypetrain going)?

are we going to see anything real in 2023 at all or just some random stuff in the blog with writing "soon" and nothing else for the next 3 years?

 Just Tony wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Shifted and amended all to round bases and AoS, not going back to squares ever again!

At this point this would be trolling x2.

Been a bit cold with the old world news I just moved away from all that years ago with the implosion. Bit cheeky to even suggest its back.

The funny thing is that you didn't need to, AOS can be played on Square bases with no problems

The OCD in me could not have a mix of squares and round bases on the table.
It's too late for me I guess.
The good thing about infantry blocks is that you could actually model some mini dioramas inside the blocks and the army actually looked more like a proper army rather than a large skirmish/group of independent minis as AOS does.

Maybe the most reasonable approach on how this will turn out is asking us: how would Homer Simpson release WHtoW if he was in charge?

 Overread wrote:
GW always says earlier models can be used. And with movement trays it doesn't always matter how big your base is, so long as the movement tray itself is the right dimensions and can track health of the unit well. In the end with movement tray games the models are purely there as an ID And health marker. The game doesn't rely on real line of sight (in the same way skirmish games do) and the movement is as a single block.

The only debate is on how many models you can or cannot rank up for the visual aspect and for the ease of tracking wounds

FB isn't movement tray game though. Number of models matters on footprint.

XXXX
XXXX
-XX-

Has different impact on play than.

XXXX
XXXX
XXXX

You can fail or male charge based on is there model in corner or not.

Then of course the unit could go from

XXXX
XXXX
XXXX

To:

XX
XX
XX
XX
..You get the point.

So simply having movement tray and fitting as many models as you can isn't doable. Unless you can remove parts of movement base away as need be. Sort of magnetic movement tray where there's 20/25/32/40/whatever squares you can attach and reattach on the fly.

 kodos wrote:
ok, what is the chance that GW is still having nothing to show off but just re-posting the same picture once in a while by "accident" to keep people talking and waiting (aka the hypetrain going)?

are we going to see anything real in 2023 at all or just some random stuff in the blog with writing "soon" and nothing else for the next 3 years?

Fingers crossed for another map!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Garfield666 wrote:
Maybe the most reasonable approach on how this will turn out is asking us: how would Homer Simpson release WHtoW if he was in charge?

The reason we keep coming back to this is that GW already has too many games, too much product for even their own stores to stock.

And this is not Mordheim, or Necromunda (which their own stores do not have room to stock) this is a huge product line.

So yeah, this is exactly how Homer Jay Simpson would do it.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

And this is not Mordheim, or Necromunda (which their own stores do not have room to stock) this is a huge product line.

.

Maybe direct only or something like LOTR product rotation cycles?
Yes WFB had more lines than any specialist games.

My GW stocks all the big specialist games?
Necromunda was the worst one to reference. I’ve never not seen that or Blood Bowl in a GW around my travels.

Here is hoping they will do at least 18 different orc clans by resin upgrade heads unique for each clan.
And also a big armoured troll for each clan.

 Fayric wrote:
Here is hoping they will do at least 18 different orc clans by resin upgrade heads unique for each clan.
And also a big armoured troll for each clan.

Each with unique clan traits and stratagems!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Which has been a thing for decades. That's part and parcel to playing the game.

Still fecking annoying and a point many people hate, lol. When I started WHFB all my armies ranked up reasonably well (maybe not everything did across the range, I dunno, but my armies did).

You haven't played Chaos and built chaos knights if you can state this with a straight face.... same with barbarians for that matter.


Sincerly someone that recently built 10 chaos knights and an lord and banner bearer based upon chaos knight kit.



Ironically the blood warriors fit perfectly on bases for reasons i only can assume as them being initially planed for squares.

Personally i wouldn't be mad if GW would give us a bit bigger base sizes for cav.

Well, I started back in 5th edition, I have no idea if Chaos knights ranked up in 5th edition, I seem to recall they were so expensive that people wouldn't usually take more than 1 rank of them anyway

But yeah, I didn't collect Chaos, the armies I did collect back then ranked up fine.

Tbf Chaos knights either were the quintessential doomrocket unit, deathstack unit or outclassed overpriced garbage... So use varied highly, atleast if i remember correctly. And often small units because pts wise they eat the allocation.

Overall though if you want 2 ranks prepare to amputate tails in the front row, and barding in the back row. There is no way around that, then there is the standard bearer which is horrific , the horses and warriors being very closely sized compared to the bases makes a singular mistake punishing to the nth degree for the whole rank....

Yeah annoying, suffering incarnate.

Personally, in several aspects of design (in particular movement and basing) I'm hoping for something similar to cool mini or not's a song of Ice and fire. It has the feel of a ranked game with none of the fiddly nonsense associated with whfb. The game is essentially base agnostic but model numbers are relevant to the fighting capability of a unit.

I think that it would be better however if the units had miniatures placed closer together to give units an appearance more similar to the ranked formations of whfb.

The Black Adder wrote:
Personally, in several aspects of design (in particular movement and basing) I'm hoping for something similar to cool mini or not's a song of Ice and fire. It has the feel of a ranked game with none of the fiddly nonsense associated with whfb. The game is essentially base agnostic but model numbers are relevant to the fighting capability of a unit.

I think that it would be better however if the units had miniatures placed closer together to give units an appearance more similar to the ranked formations of whfb.

GW has said rules are based on older editions...so nope not happening. It will be with individual models as before ranked up.

The Black Adder wrote:
Personally, in several aspects of design (in particular movement and basing) I'm hoping for something similar to cool mini or not's a song of Ice and fire. It has the feel of a ranked game with none of the fiddly nonsense associated with whfb. The game is essentially base agnostic but model numbers are relevant to the fighting capability of a unit.

I think that it would be better however if the units had miniatures placed closer together to give units an appearance more similar to the ranked formations of whfb.

I dunno, there's things I like about ASOIF, but the units don't feel like solid slabs of infantry like they do in WHFB.

And ASOIAF models are 32mm with more realistic proportions compared to GW's 32mm heroic as feth scale. Look how much space they need on the trays.