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.

 vipoid wrote:

There are still more steps than I am prepared to spend on ~200 infantry models (I remembered my Grave Guard as well). Especially when my only reward is to invalidate all my existing movement trays.

people worldwide are happily rebasing their collections for months now to be able to play TOW the moment it is released, like there are no other option than rebasing or not playing at all

and I am not going to re-base anything just because one company is coming up with new "optional" stuff that people follow like laws even if they are never going to play with their collection

but, for the sake of the argument, removing the models from the old base to change it is not necessary and changing the base size not a problem (like doing this to make scenery bases to double in unit size without buying new models is a thing and you don't need to remove models from bases to do it)

 Da Boss wrote:
If they insist on rebasing I'm just skipping the whole thing. No worries.

Lmao nobody is "insisting" on you rebasing your models.

Christ's sake even the WarCom articles said this was optional and would only be required for sponsored or GW-run events.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Isn't your reward being able to play TOW?

Not defending GW here, I think it's a bonehead move, but rebasing miniatures has always been a fact of life. We rebased for AoS, for Kings of War, for SAGA, etc. It is what it is.

Not really. I've played AoS with my square based miniatures and the only issue I've ever come across is a couple of numpties on facebook groups crying about it. I game at home and see absolutely no good reason to play in a gw store, so I'm sure I can get away with playing TOW without any rebasing.

artu87 wrote:
Isn't it much easier to get something like this?



You also have the plus that you can go back playing whatever version of oldhammer you want in case you don't like TOW.

Or I can save my money and play TOW anyway. These are a good solution, but the problem shouldn't exist in the first place.

Now if you only intend to play at a GW sanctioned capacity, then rebasing is the cost of doing so.

The upsized bases is welcome news. The old miniatures were terribly designed when it came to being ranked up, so larger bases are needed in order to allow them to actually fit. I magnetised mine and the clashing models meant that several of them would never quite sit flush with the movement tray, which rendered the magnets pointless.

If I still had an old fantasy army I'd probably just use the base converters, but having said that, re-basing is weirdly one of my favourite things to do (don't know why, it's just so satisfying) so I'd be tempted to do that.

 Gert wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
If they insist on rebasing I'm just skipping the whole thing. No worries.

Lmao nobody is "insisting" on you rebasing your models.

Christ's sake even the WarCom articles said this was optional and would only be required for sponsored or GW-run events.

There are some practical considerations to keeping models on smaller base sizes. Unit footprint, and thus ability to block LOS and movement, become a target and maneuver through tight spaces are impacted. Combat may be impacted due to how models outside base contact have a limit on their attacks.

You have to consider that by putting the base size on the unit entry, GW very much expects you to use it the same as any other stat in the game. You don't strictly have to rebase. You can fiddle around with regimental bases or calculate the intended frontage/footprint where necessary. It can become impractical and isn't ideal as a long term solution.

Old World is a system in which base size is supposed to matter, and with that comes pressure to rebase or buy a whole new army specifically for the game. That's just the way it is.

Most people will be running legacy bases at the outset and I therefore doubt it will matter.

Flash forward 10 years to TOW 3rd edition or something, and rather more players will be using new models on new bases, and you may see growing hostility to older stuff. Just like some feel using ancient versions of models can start to move towards modelling for advantage.

But its equally possible TOW is dead on arrival and no one is playing it by 2026, so I wouldn't stress about it.

Given the days of having to number the undersides of my bases so they would fit (damn black orcs) I'm in favor of larger bases. It also allows for more of some of the dynamic builds from when models weren't nearly monopose to be used. Some models HAD to be built a specific way instead of thru many of the other options simply because of base size.

 Gert wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
If they insist on rebasing I'm just skipping the whole thing. No worries.

Lmao nobody is "insisting" on you rebasing your models.

Christ's sake even the WarCom articles said this was optional and would only be required for sponsored or GW-run events.

What is required for GW run events often becomes the standard in the general community. I had people say similar things to me when AoS first dropped about how it was gonna be fine to play with 20mm squares.

Well, it mostly isn't now.

But fine, they are saying it's optional while not making it optional at their own events. I mean, okay? It's always optional to do what GW says at non-GW events. Nice of them to say so I suppose.

I hate the scale creep and base size creep in GW games, and I really detest being told it's not really happening or it's no big deal.

How about:

 kodos wrote:
??
step 1: glue old base on larger new flat base

and just stop there.

 Geifer wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
If they insist on rebasing I'm just skipping the whole thing. No worries.

Lmao nobody is "insisting" on you rebasing your models.

Christ's sake even the WarCom articles said this was optional and would only be required for sponsored or GW-run events.

There are some practical considerations to keeping models on smaller base sizes. Unit footprint, and thus ability to block LOS and movement, become a target and maneuver through tight spaces are impacted. Combat may be impacted due to how models outside base contact have a limit on their attacks.

You have to consider that by putting the base size on the unit entry, GW very much expects you to use it the same as any other stat in the game. You don't strictly have to rebase. You can fiddle around with regimental bases or calculate the intended frontage/footprint where necessary. It can become impractical and isn't ideal as a long term solution.

Old World is a system in which base size is supposed to matter, and with that comes pressure to rebase or buy a whole new army specifically for the game. That's just the way it is.

Players might want to force rebase. Gw? Not so.

As always players are ones making additional rules and blame gw for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:


Well, it mostly isn't now.
.

For which we have players to thank for.

Base size requirements been player driven. As far as gw concerned your marines on 25mm are still legal as well. It's players that went "no".

Why do you think the players changed from the old base sizes?
It's not because GW changed the bases the miniatures came on and then made it so that the base size impacts gameplay significantly? Players just decided randomly themselves to rebase their minis and enforce it as a community standard?

If GW wanted to support older base sizes they could have a) never changed the base sizes in the first place b) made the game rules so that base size does not matter (like Warlords of Erehwon does, or Hail Caesar). But they wanted to look like nice guys while knowing that they would make older collections obsolete and encourage players with old collections to buy new stuff to update it. And yeah, of course, that's fine, GW is a business and wants to make money from everyone. No worries. I don't have to like it though.

Gimme a break.

 Da Boss wrote:
What is required for GW run events often becomes the standard in the general community. I had people say similar things to me when AoS first dropped about how it was gonna be fine to play with 20mm squares.

And it was fine. In fact, you can still use square bases now if you really wanted. GW isn't sending enforcers to every single club to make every player use the base sizes mandated by WHW rules. I have yet to have a game refused to myself or refused a game with another player for not using the most current bases on a kit, not have I ever seen it done by others.

But fine, they are saying it's optional while not making it optional at their own events. I mean, okay? It's always optional to do what GW says at non-GW events. Nice of them to say so I suppose.

That's because people like you make up false claims about GW forcing people to rebase models when that has never been the case. GW events have those rules because GW events are another form of marketing.
The rules exist for WHW for the same reasons as not bringing non-GW models.

and I really detest being told it's not really happening or it's no big deal.

Then you need to grow a thicker skin or stop complaining about it.

Any human sized miniature and up look so much better on a 25mm base, just a shame they didn't do it several editions ago.

Aren't most people going to be using movement trays anyways?

The base thing becomes moot then. Build the slots on the trays to accommodate the "correct" size and then have filler in between. Voila, problem's solved.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Aren't most people going to be using movement trays anyways?

The base thing becomes moot then. Build the slots on the trays to accommodate the "correct" size and then have filler in between. Voila, problem's solved.

Hell, companies are already offering movement trays with the slots for adapting to the new base sizes with old bases.

My plan is to use small trays for 4 (models 2 by 2), that convert 20mm by 20mm to the correct size.

Will make reforming easy as I can just move the individual trays from the back/sides to be in the needed formation.

Personally I have no intention of rebasing my armies and not sure why others would either. It seems rather pointless when things like this exist:



Besides I really wouldn't care all that much about how others base their models. I'm a veteran enough gamer that I can make it work.

Yep, I'm just gonna drop a bunch of money on those.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Yep, I'm just gonna drop a bunch of money on those.

Just give them a burst of goblin green and your good to go!

easiest solution if you don't like something is not playing it

no one is forced to play TOW, and no one needs to adjust his collection to be compatible with rules they do not use anyway

if you don't like and don't want to change your army to match the rules of that game, just don't bother and play something else

Challenge accepted - I shall play TOW with whatever base size I and my opponent agree on, and it's up to kodos to hunt me down and physically stop me >: )

The rebasing thing is like the expansion of the rank bonus eligibility from 4 to 5 models.

It was an obvious, transparent, overt marketing ploy designed to sell more models, but people rose up to defend it because reasons.

I'm not at all surprised that there are conversion movement trays, which is nice, but once again we're at the "cost of compliance" undercutting interest in "getting current."

I find this whole thing fascinating because it could be a slam-dunk for GW to bring a bunch of disaffected gamers "home" while rejuvenating a market segment they've ignored for a long time.

At the same time, altering base sizes is one of those things that seems needlessly obnoxious. Yep, GW sculpted models that were difficult to rank up, and now hey, bigger bases will solve that. We've got them on discount!

It just seems like yet another way GW uses planned obsolescence to make money. Is there anyone here who would trust that GW wouldn't change them again at some point in the future if they thought they could make a few extra pounds?

The original 20 and 25mm base sizes were established when Warhammer was played with 25mm scale solid-based miniatures. The scale creep since then has been tremendous. I think it was a good opportunity to increase base sizes with this new edition.

 kodos wrote:
leaving out the rebasing or not stuff, but why everyone thinks that to actually do rebasing you need to remove the miniature from the old base?

Even if one does not use the original hollow GW bases but solid ones, you would alway simply just glue the old base with the miniature on it, onto a new base or plastic sheet

like if you have solid bases, get the renedra 25mm flat and add Greenstuff/Milliput to fill up the edge
or if you have hallow ones, remove the edge of the old base and glue it on the new one

just google the different re-basing stuff for 40k as Marine players have done this several times over the years and removing the miniature from the base was never part of that

Yeah, no.
Not wasting the time/effort/$ doing any of that.

My existing WHFB stuff will work just fine as is.

^^ this, I have stuff thats based, and based using paints no longer available, and also based such that its perfectly usable in other games

not rebasing

anything

my Skaven are on square desert theme bases, my Brets have muddy earth, heck my 40k orks are on 25mm round desert bases and all are staying on them

if that excludes me from some formal events I can live with it (event organisers get to decide what goes and does not go after all)

 Da Boss wrote:
Why do you think the players changed from the old base sizes?
It's not because GW changed the bases the miniatures came on and then made it so that the base size impacts gameplay significantly? Players just decided randomly themselves to rebase their minis and enforce it as a community standard?

If GW wanted to support older base sizes they could have a) never changed the base sizes in the first place b) made the game rules so that base size does not matter (like Warlords of Erehwon does, or Hail Caesar). But they wanted to look like nice guys while knowing that they would make older collections obsolete and encourage players with old collections to buy new stuff to update it. And yeah, of course, that's fine, GW is a business and wants to make money from everyone. No worries. I don't have to like it though.

Gimme a break.

Gw changea yes but didn't require rebasing so blaming gw for player created issue just shows you aren't looking for honest arqument but want to blame gw for everythlng.

Gw hasn't required rebase.

Not happy about rebases? Blame the stupid players inventing new rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The rebasing thing is like the expansion of the rank bonus eligibility from 4 to 5 models.

It was an obvious, transparent, overt marketing ploy designed to sell more models, but people rose up to defend it because reasons.

Gw isn't forcing rebase so how does that make money?

Gw isn't counting you to rebase and indeed flat out says you can play your old models without rebase

You know, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that by up-sizing bases fewer models fit under templates.

Of course, I'm a little disappointed in myself for pointing it out...

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
You know, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that by up-sizing bases fewer models fit under templates.

Of course, I'm a little disappointed in myself for pointing it out...

Templates should not be in the game because they are a point of contention between players. Arguing who is under and who is not.

Something like D6+1 for each rank of 5 models hits for stone throwers/round template spells and D3+1 for each rank/row for breath template would be better imo.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
You know, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that by up-sizing bases fewer models fit under templates.

Of course, I'm a little disappointed in myself for pointing it out...

Templates should not be in the game because they are a point of contention between players. Arguing who is under and who is not.

Something like D6+1 for each rank of 5 models hits for stone throwers/round template spells and D3+1 for each rank/row for breath template would be better imo.

It is only if you play with children, I have never have that problem and if it was really a doubt we just throw a dice to decide.

USR article is up

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/12/11/old-world-almanack-living-saints-and-special-rules/

Interesting on Swiftstride not only adding +1d6 to your charge range, but increasing your "maximum charge range" by 3"

I don't think we've seen anything about maximum charge ranges before.