|
Post by bastardfromhell on Apr 16, 2023 12:43:54 GMT
Some old models are coming back,... that is just great. Not sure if that means we will see some metal / resin kits coming back. I highly doubt that. The Bretonnian Trebuchet is clearly visible in some of the army shots on that article, which makes me think it, and other metal and resin models, will be returning until they can make plastic versions. How could I not see this Ok, this creates some hope for those minis to return.
|
|
|
Post by johngg on Apr 16, 2023 17:44:23 GMT
Well this is the best news I've seen all day. All I have to do is paint a bigger base or piece of metal the same colour as my bases and magnetise my already magnetised units to it. Bam; cross edition army. Yes! Seee guys, this chap gets it!
|
|
|
Post by johngg on Apr 16, 2023 17:46:12 GMT
My enthusiasm for WH:TOW just decreased 20%. W:TOW corrected that for you
|
|
|
Post by johngg on Apr 16, 2023 22:20:07 GMT
It all sounds like a commercial decision to me, someone mentioned above, its so the AoS / TOW models can be used interchangeably. After all, its easy to make a move tray for 25mm rounds so they appear 'ranked up'
|
|
|
Post by Darnok on Apr 17, 2023 0:05:13 GMT
I think the cross-game compatibility comes into play only if the newer AoS models can actually rank up - which is (almost) impossible with older base sizes.
Yes, you can get the new Warriors and Chosen and Knights for WoC ranked on 25mm and 25x50 bases, but it is a challenging puzzle that is asking for quite some frustration tolerance. Put them on larger bases and it suddenly becomes much easier. I see the same coming for the new Lizardmen models. Another example are the new skeletons and zombies: they should easily rank on 25mm squares, while you are hard pressed to get them "in line" on 20mm ones.
That "put round bases on movement tray" idea is only an option for casual games in my opinion. In a tournament setting details matter, and how opposing models/units line up is not so clear without exact square/rectangle bases. To me this falls into the same category as "older smaller bases on trays" idea: nothing wrong with it in a casual setting, but nothing you want to see in a competetive environment.
|
|
|
Post by chronicallychaotic66 on Apr 17, 2023 9:42:52 GMT
I’ve been speculating about what this might mean for unit sizes and the rules. Having played chaos (25mm default) so much I’m aware how much room those bigger unit frontages and footprints take up on the table. Everybody is moving up to at least that size and chaos likely getting even bigger. This means less room for manoeuvre unless units are smaller (in model count) or fewer.
There is also the point that was laboured about one of the reasons for the discontinuation of 8th being the high bar to entry of needing loads of models to play, to field hordes especially.
I notice the Bret knights in the article are in 6s and the men at arms in 18s (6x3). Are those going to be typical unit sizes?
Not especially enthused by this if so. One of the reasons I like 8th is epic size units. Not a dealbreaker though as long as: - they don’t backslide from 5 wide for rank bonus to 4 wide (5 wide was only introduced in 7th) - those MAA are 6 wide so no indication of this - they don’t remove supporting attacks (introduced in 8th)
I may be reading too much into a few photos here. The archer unit is 32 models I think (8x4). And the MAA file you can just see to their left are 4 deep looks like.
|
|
|
Post by rustynumber on Apr 17, 2023 10:06:16 GMT
Ehhhhh it's only recently (after looking at other wargames, historical and fictional) that I've come to the conclusion of "having small units is fine, they're just representations of formations"
Having masses of expensive minis that are time consuming to paint on the board can look cool, but of course the idea of 60 models representing 60 soldiers marching in ranks and fighting like that is just absurd. I'd be okay with units sizes coming down, my headcannon is that a 20mm base represents 20 soldiers, 25mm 10 etc etc
As long as the mechanics are satisfying and somewhat make sensible analogues to real-world weapons and soldiers then it's cool. Though I only ever started in 8th, so have no idea what unit/game sizes were like in earlier editions
|
|
|
Post by sedge on Apr 17, 2023 10:11:51 GMT
I just built a unit of the new plastic Blood Knights yesterday, and can see why they'd change base sizes. There's no way they can realistically fit on 50x25mm cavalry bases without comical overhangs and elevation variations. I guess the main motivator then was to avoid restricting AoS model design while also ensuring the many kits that are equally valid for AoS/WFB can be used in The Old World as well.
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Apr 17, 2023 11:04:41 GMT
Ehhhhh it's only recently (after looking at other wargames, historical and fictional) that I've come to the conclusion of "having small units is fine, they're just representations of formations" Having masses of expensive minis that are time consuming to paint on the board can look cool, but of course the idea of 60 models representing 60 soldiers marching in ranks and fighting like that is just absurd. I'd be okay with units sizes coming down, my headcannon is that a 20mm base represents 20 soldiers, 25mm 10 etc etc I cannot disagree more. For me the entire reason to play the game is to see a glorious display of fully painted units on the table top. Part of that is, one model represents one guy. I also enjoy games where a piece on the board represents a squad or an entire battalion, etc. But those games don't have the hobby aspect of Warhammer.
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Apr 17, 2023 11:15:24 GMT
I’ve been speculating about what this might mean for unit sizes and the rules. Having played chaos (25mm default) so much I’m aware how much room those bigger unit frontages and footprints take up on the table. Everybody is moving up to at least that size and chaos likely getting even bigger. This means less room for manoeuvre unless units are smaller (in model count) or fewer. There is also the point that was laboured about one of the reasons for the discontinuation of 8th being the high bar to entry of needing loads of models to play, to field hordes especially. I notice the Bret knights in the article are in 6s and the men at arms in 18s (6x3). Are those going to be typical unit sizes? Not especially enthused by this if so. One of the reasons I like 8th is epic size units. Not a dealbreaker though as long as: - they don’t backslide from 5 wide for rank bonus to 4 wide (5 wide was only introduced in 7th) - those MAA are 6 wide so no indication of this - they don’t remove supporting attacks (introduced in 8th) I may be reading too much into a few photos here. The archer unit is 32 models I think (8x4). And the MAA file you can just see to their left are 4 deep looks like. Agreed. With the current base sizes and unit footprints, maneuvering on the battlefield is already tricky. Heck some armies have trouble just fitting everything into their deployment zone. Units on 25mm bases (Chaos warriors, Orcs, etc.) are less maneuverable compared to units on 20mm bases (humans, elves, dwarfs, etc.). Larger bases for everybody means larger unit footprints for everybody and more difficulty maneuvering for everybody. If they drop the model count per unit to compensate, the game will not be as appealing (though I could accept horde formation going away).
|
|
|
Post by rustynumber on Apr 17, 2023 12:12:53 GMT
I can't tell you how to enjoy a thing, but the idea that 3 x 2 Ogres or 5 x 4 Halberdiers are marching around in lock formation maintaining facings and such in tiny little groups is very silly. [THIS BOARDS QUOTE SYSTEM IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER IT SEEMS]
|
|
|
Post by luke82 on Apr 17, 2023 12:18:18 GMT
More or less silly than one man actually being 200? Is that fence 200 fences as well?
All a matter of taste really.
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Apr 17, 2023 13:38:13 GMT
I've always used this designer note...
|
|
Mallo
Full Member
Posts: 244
|
Post by Mallo on Apr 17, 2023 13:52:36 GMT
I'm not fussed at all about the base size change. I suspected they would do this for the majority of their models anyway, just so they can continue release huge sculpts of things like chaos warriors. I am surprised they are removing 20mm completely, as things like night goblins and skinks still fit them nicely. But having based a lot of models recently for oathmark, I actually really like basing 25mm bases. I'm less interested in what ever arbitrary size they come up with for the current 25mm square and calvary change up they plan. I don't care for the 40k '28mm & 32mm' bases as they just seem like they pull random numbers out, but its a minor grievance. An easy fix for me is to keep using the basing I do now, and swap the new bases with people wrapped up in 'chasing meta' for more of the bases I'm missing now. I've never once played in any sort of 'competitive' environment and I highly doubt I'd ever play outside my own home, so I'll just keep basing as I see fit. I'd be very tempted to enter armies on parade with my night goblins on nothing but 20mm bases just to stir some folk up
The more they reveal about the old world, the more I'm convinced I'll stick with 8th (and possibly 6th), and just use they releases as an excuse to pick up kits I'm missing.
|
|
|
Post by johngg on Apr 17, 2023 14:56:44 GMT
I think the cross-game compatibility comes into play only if the newer AoS models can actually rank up - which is (almost) impossible with older base sizes.
Yes, you can get the new Warriors and Chosen and Knights for WoC ranked on 25mm and 25x50 bases, but it is a challenging puzzle that is asking for quite some frustration tolerance. Put them on larger bases and it suddenly becomes much easier. I see the same coming for the new Lizardmen models. Another example are the new skeletons and zombies: they should easily rank on 25mm squares, while you are hard pressed to get them "in line" on 20mm ones.
That "put round bases on movement tray" idea is only an option for casual games in my opinion. In a tournament setting details matter, and how opposing models/units line up is not so clear without exact square/rectangle bases. To me this falls into the same category as "older smaller bases on trays" idea: nothing wrong with it in a casual setting, but nothing you want to see in a competetive environment.
Yeeaaah... I'm afriad I disagree here. I've managed to base A LOT of the new AoS models on to their relating 8th square, with little to no problem. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and was able to put the square brick in the square hole as a toddler shouldn't have a problem. BUT STILL, moving to larger bases to allow more dynamic models is cool in my eyes. Also means for our older models you can now position the 20mm base anywhere inside the 25mm space, which in my eyes is great for ramschakle horde armies of Rats and Gobbo's. Also see no problem with rounds on a move-tray in any situation. Lets be honest, if you can't work out what model would be in b2b with another, you're an idiot.
|
|