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.

Voss wrote:


Even the treekin got bumped to 50mm, which makes using the AoS sorta-equivalents quite viable.

I can tell you from experience that the plastic AOS Treekin fit perfectly fine on 40x40. They were already viable.

Out of curiousity, which models did you use? I'm out of the loop on AOS stuff so not 100% sure. Was it the revenants?

 nathan2004 wrote:
Out of curiousity, which models did you use? I'm out of the loop on AOS stuff so not 100% sure. Was it the revenants?

Kurnoth Hunters, I assume.

I remember when GW used to have guides in their rulebooks how to convert and make uniqe models and units. Usually you could se some uniqe models on display in armybooks to inspire diversity to their range.

Really sad how that creative part of the hobby has been supressed. I used to love rumaging in the bits box for every character and building weapons from stuff you found at home.
I used to laugh at the suggestion to buy expencive terrain when you could easily build stuff yourself. These days I would most likely not play with converted models at all and love expencive GW terrain .

 Fayric wrote:
I remember when GW used to have guides in their rulebooks how to convert and make uniqe models and units. Usually you could se some uniqe models on display in armybooks to inspire diversity to their range.

Really sad how that creative part of the hobby has been supressed. I used to love rumaging in the bits box for every character and building weapons from stuff you found at home.
I used to laugh at the suggestion to buy expencive terrain when you could easily build stuff yourself. These days I would most likely not play with converted models at all and love expencive GW terrain .

Uhm... what? WD is full of conversions and there're articles on WarCom with conversions. Sure, they use their own terrain, but also with conversions. For LotR they had a guide to build your own terrain though.

Yeah the whole "conversions are suppressed" seems like a really strange one to bring out these days. GW do conversion articles in WD all the time, sometimes on their website too. Plus their big events like Golden Demon feature a LOT of converted stuff.

Sure its using GW parts these days instead of deodorant cans, but at the same time the internet is FULL of conversion articles and guides. Youtube even has vast amounts of video guides.

Between them, 3rd party proxy armies, 3D printing and more there's a VAST wealth of conversion and "do your own thing" armies and such out there now. Way more than there ever was in the past.


Perhaps there isn't as much in the codex (honestly it was often a page or less on them); but its ripe all over the place unless your only information source is quite literally the codex and nothing else.

They even just endorsed creative unit fillers.

Which was honestly a step I never thought I'd see GW take.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
I remember when GW used to have guides in their rulebooks how to convert and make uniqe models and units. Usually you could se some uniqe models on display in armybooks to inspire diversity to their range.

Really sad how that creative part of the hobby has been supressed. I used to love rumaging in the bits box for every character and building weapons from stuff you found at home.
I used to laugh at the suggestion to buy expencive terrain when you could easily build stuff yourself. These days I would most likely not play with converted models at all and love expencive GW terrain .

Uhm... what? WD is full of conversions and there're articles on WarCom with conversions. Sure, they use their own terrain, but also with conversions. For LotR they had a guide to build your own terrain though.

Well, in that case i stand corrected. Just I dont come across those things, and have for many years found their rulebooks, codices and armybooks really unispiring for anything out of the box. And now that you mention it, its true the 40k rules even allow for some variations of generic weapons like "accursed weapons" that actually let you use converions in game to some degree.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
I remember when GW used to have guides in their rulebooks how to convert and make uniqe models and units. Usually you could se some uniqe models on display in armybooks to inspire diversity to their range.

Really sad how that creative part of the hobby has been supressed. I used to love rumaging in the bits box for every character and building weapons from stuff you found at home.
I used to laugh at the suggestion to buy expencive terrain when you could easily build stuff yourself. These days I would most likely not play with converted models at all and love expencive GW terrain .

Uhm... what? WD is full of conversions and there're articles on WarCom with conversions. Sure, they use their own terrain, but also with conversions. For LotR they had a guide to build your own terrain though.

It feels especially weird after the 'unit filler' article.

And the Bretonnian Exiles army list has several units with 'How to represent this unit in game' sidebars. (Yeomen guard, Brigands and Bombard). The immediate suggestions are men at arms with other kits (empire militia particularly), but there is an implicit 'go nuts' feel to the army.

Voss wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
I remember when GW used to have guides in their rulebooks how to convert and make uniqe models and units. Usually you could se some uniqe models on display in armybooks to inspire diversity to their range.

Really sad how that creative part of the hobby has been supressed. I used to love rumaging in the bits box for every character and building weapons from stuff you found at home.
I used to laugh at the suggestion to buy expencive terrain when you could easily build stuff yourself. These days I would most likely not play with converted models at all and love expencive GW terrain .

Uhm... what? WD is full of conversions and there're articles on WarCom with conversions. Sure, they use their own terrain, but also with conversions. For LotR they had a guide to build your own terrain though.

It feels especially weird after the 'unit filler' article.

And the Bretonnian Exiles army list has several units with 'How to represent this unit in game' sidebars. (Yeomen guard, Brigands and Bombard). The immediate suggestions are men at arms with other kits (empire militia particularly), but there is an implicit 'go nuts' feel to the army.

This only makes their decision to behave like AoS equivalents of certian models don't exist for the sake of ToW all the more infuriating, to be honest.

Not to burst a bubble or anything but is that actually happening?
Has there been any concrete evidence to suggest that certain models that existed at the tail end of fantasy won't be usable in TOW?
To kind of highlight my point, who is stopping you from using those models?

 Dreamchild wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
I remember when GW used to have guides in their rulebooks how to convert and make uniqe models and units. Usually you could se some uniqe models on display in armybooks to inspire diversity to their range.

Really sad how that creative part of the hobby has been supressed. I used to love rumaging in the bits box for every character and building weapons from stuff you found at home.
I used to laugh at the suggestion to buy expencive terrain when you could easily build stuff yourself. These days I would most likely not play with converted models at all and love expencive GW terrain .

Uhm... what? WD is full of conversions and there're articles on WarCom with conversions. Sure, they use their own terrain, but also with conversions. For LotR they had a guide to build your own terrain though.

It feels especially weird after the 'unit filler' article.

And the Bretonnian Exiles army list has several units with 'How to represent this unit in game' sidebars. (Yeomen guard, Brigands and Bombard). The immediate suggestions are men at arms with other kits (empire militia particularly), but there is an implicit 'go nuts' feel to the army.

This only makes their decision to behave like AoS equivalents of certian models don't exist for the sake of ToW all the more infuriating, to be honest.

... what? where? when? Non-GW people online have been spouting various theories about.... stuff, but I'm not sure what imagined roadblock prevents you from buying the 'Vanguard: Slaves to Darkness' box and popping them on square bases and moving on with your day. Every single one of those units exist and they're exactly those models (though you'll need a bit of work to give the warriors additional hand weapons, but thats where conversions wander back into the picture).

Voss wrote:

 Dreamchild wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
I remember when GW used to have guides in their rulebooks how to convert and make uniqe models and units. Usually you could se some uniqe models on display in armybooks to inspire diversity to their range.

Really sad how that creative part of the hobby has been supressed. I used to love rumaging in the bits box for every character and building weapons from stuff you found at home.
I used to laugh at the suggestion to buy expencive terrain when you could easily build stuff yourself. These days I would most likely not play with converted models at all and love expencive GW terrain .

Uhm... what? WD is full of conversions and there're articles on WarCom with conversions. Sure, they use their own terrain, but also with conversions. For LotR they had a guide to build your own terrain though.

It feels especially weird after the 'unit filler' article.

And the Bretonnian Exiles army list has several units with 'How to represent this unit in game' sidebars. (Yeomen guard, Brigands and Bombard). The immediate suggestions are men at arms with other kits (empire militia particularly), but there is an implicit 'go nuts' feel to the army.

This only makes their decision to behave like AoS equivalents of certian models don't exist for the sake of ToW all the more infuriating, to be honest.

... what? where? when? Non-GW people online have been spouting various theories about.... stuff, but I'm not sure what imagined roadblock prevents you from buying the 'Vanguard: Slaves to Darkness' box and popping them on square bases and moving on with your day. Every single one of those units exist and they're exactly those models (though you'll need a bit of work to give the warriors additional hand weapons, but thats where conversions wander back into the picture).

Nothing but that may be a poor example. They're a good chunk bigger iirc so might have issues getting on the base, they're not really designed to rank up at all, have sigmar bling on them all over. That and I imagine a 20 box of old chaos warriors won't be far off the price of 10 modern ones.

But your point is correct, people are as beholden to models and base sizes as they choose to be.

The newer Warriors don't have "Sigmar bling" all over them. They're bigger but that's it.

The difficulty in ranking would be with the more outstretched arms but then with bigger bases factored in that isn't necessarily an issue. That or use them as Chosen/unit Champions.

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Out of curiousity, which models did you use? I'm out of the loop on AOS stuff so not 100% sure. Was it the revenants?

Kurnoth Hunters, I assume.

Yes, those.

 Gert wrote:
The newer Warriors don't have "Sigmar bling" all over them. They're bigger but that's it.

Spoiler:

The difficulty in ranking would be with the more outstretched arms but then with bigger bases factored in that isn't necessarily an issue. That or use them as Chosen/unit Champions.

Huh, I could have sworn they had more tokens/trophies and the like.

 Gert wrote:
Not to burst a bubble or anything but is that actually happening?
Has there been any concrete evidence to suggest that certain models that existed at the tail end of fantasy won't be usable in TOW?
To kind of highlight my point, who is stopping you from using those models?

There’s a small handful of things that haven’t got rules:
E.g. the two WoC units on daemonic mounts or the wizard wagons (though those don’t fit the timeframe).

But there does not appear to be anything stopping you using whatever models you want for the things that do have rules. Though some things could maybe be a bit constrained by the base size.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if they changed base sizes in part so you could rank up the newer models easier lol.

 nathan2004 wrote:
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if they changed base sizes in part so you could rank up the newer models easier lol.

My initial impression to them bumping up the base size was "good, maybe now I can finally rank up <insert 50% of all WHFB models here>".

But then when I discovered a few seconds later they were also increasing the base size for models that ranked up perfectly fine (night goblins for example) I got more deflated and less interested in the game.

Bumping up bases to improve ranking up = noble cause.

Bumping up base sizes arbitrarily regardless of ranking up = annoying.

It might also be that GW know/hope they will sculpt more new models for the model line and thus the base size increase is future proofing those factions.

There also might have been a general decision to boost all bases rather than just select ones so that some people don't feel that armies are getting unfair bonuses simply because of their sculpting style or model age. Eg old armies on smaller bases, new ones on bigger.

There's also likely an element of GW keeping costs down and picking/packing easier by reducing the number of bases. So instead of almost two systems of bases for smaller and bigger models; just compress it to one that leans on the larger size.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19KmYEa0r7tr-6fuHJRVfUQayMa7nl_h6/view?usp=sharing

Rebasing guide I created in case you need it...no one has pinned it to the original post so I just keep reposting every few pages to make sure people have it haha

 Overread wrote:
It might also be that GW know/hope they will sculpt more new models for the model line and thus the base size increase is future proofing those factions..

They could always try just not making new models bigger...

Dudeface wrote:

 Gert wrote:
The newer Warriors don't have "Sigmar bling" all over them. They're bigger but that's it.

Spoiler:

The difficulty in ranking would be with the more outstretched arms but then with bigger bases factored in that isn't necessarily an issue. That or use them as Chosen/unit Champions.

Huh, I could have sworn they had more tokens/trophies and the like.

A couple of the chosen and knight minis have sigmarine helmet trophies strapped to their gear, but not the baseline warriors.

 insaniak wrote:

 Overread wrote:
It might also be that GW know/hope they will sculpt more new models for the model line and thus the base size increase is future proofing those factions..

They could always try just not making new models bigger...

To be fair sometimes its not even bigger, just going for more dynamic poses increases size.

Some stuff like cavalry also had some really tiny mounts in the past so boosting them up could easily make them too big for some bases, even if they aren't super-sized nor increasing the size of the rider. And like it or not more dynamic poses do attract attention and sell.

Some older model stuff is very stiff in pose.

If everything is a minimum of 25mm without exceptions it makes it a bit easier to plan and balance. Perhaps night goblins are weak enough that it wouldn't be overpowered but maybe they would miss a unit here or there where the extra supporting attacks from back rank or increased mobility from smaller frontage made a unit better at a task than intended.

If it were main studio that did it I would just call them lazy and bad at their job for doing so but since the specialist games people have way less resources I can understand the decision from this point alone.

I for one like the increase in base size for most models. If TOW will be popular and I like it more than any of the older editions I will put in the effort to fully re base my empire army. Right now I just have the standard sand + static grass basing from 2 decades ago and if I redo it I will do the basing to a slightly higher quality and probably spend 5 min a model on some highlights and touch ups on the actual models while at it. Small effort per model to do a glow up on the entire army that fits more to my current painting skills.

If no model has a 20mm base, then it's an item GW doesn't have to manufacture and doesn't have to stock for people to purchase. That's enough of a reason for them to remove them from the game.

The Black Adder wrote:
If no model has a 20mm base, then it's an item GW doesn't have to manufacture and doesn't have to stock for people to purchase. That's enough of a reason for them to remove them from the game.

This would make more sense if they didn't suddenly introduce 30mm bases.

You dont have to rebase them if you play only local or you can use base extenders or spaced movement trays.
The last, i will use because i have to many army's to rebase or use base extenders.
And i have the option to print them myself.

 insaniak wrote:

 Overread wrote:
It might also be that GW know/hope they will sculpt more new models for the model line and thus the base size increase is future proofing those factions..

They could always try just not making new models bigger...

Sacrilege! Blasphemy! Heresy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Overread wrote:
It might also be that GW know/hope they will sculpt more new models for the model line and thus the base size increase is future proofing those factions..

They could always try just not making new models bigger...

To be fair sometimes its not even bigger, just going for more dynamic poses increases size.

Some stuff like cavalry also had some really tiny mounts in the past so boosting them up could easily make them too big for some bases, even if they aren't super-sized nor increasing the size of the rider. And like it or not more dynamic poses do attract attention and sell.

Some older model stuff is very stiff in pose.

I know it's a contentious point.... but IMO rank and flank models SHOULD be in a stiff pose 90% of the time (with exceptions for skirmishers or berserker type units).

One review I saw mentioned that a lot of older models have a stronger silhouette, and I kind of agree. It's the silhouette that you see when they're all ranked up together.

Some models did just genuinely need bigger bases because the models themselves were too big regardless of poses, as you mentioned, cavalry, from the late 90's they probably should have added another 10 or 15mm to the length and 5mm to the width of the base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skeleton wrote:
You dont have to rebase them if you play only local or you can use base extenders or spaced movement trays.
The last, i will use because i have to many army's to rebase or use base extenders.
And i have the option to print them myself.

I find base extenders and spaced movement trays aesthetically unpleasing

It might be because it's the first game that got me into warhammer, but the aesthetic of each model individually based and hard up against the model next to it is something I've always liked.

 Gert wrote:
The newer Warriors don't have "Sigmar bling" all over them. They're bigger but that's it.

Spoiler:

The difficulty in ranking would be with the more outstretched arms but then with bigger bases factored in that isn't necessarily an issue. That or use them as Chosen/unit Champions.

I was planning on doing the same thing for the 8th Ed group I was going to join! Now they'll just be in TOW.