AoS How would you feel if you had to re-base your Lizardmen army for 9th edition?

I can't see myself rebasing to be honest at this point in time... too much time and effort for no discernible reward.

Even if squares and rounds did have different rules, they'd still be 'ranked up' (for want of a better phrase) differently.

For most gamers I can't imagine it being an issue staying on squares (especially for RnF, Monsters may be a different story).

 

I'm totally with you 110%.

My thought process has always been "how do you attract new customers if the old customers are constantly bad mouthing you? if the old customers are "new" customers to another product and are actively trying to pull you away from warhammer?"

Everytime i go into the hobby store there is a gaggle of people who try to pull me off 40k and onto whatever new odd hobby they've latched onto, because of their jaded anecdotal opinion of GW. I never see anyone say those things to war machine players, x wing players, malifaux players, etc etc etc.

I mean i literally had to tell the malifaux "henchman" or whatever they are called to stop bothering me. That i was never going to buy malifaux, that it looked it's skirmish game that still took 2 and a half hours to play, and the models seriously suck.

I understand that GW has a narrow goal, but they aren't stupid. They are also pretty damn conservative when it comes down to it.

I just don't see them making such a huge change, when theres no obvious benefit and you're guaranteed to piss off a huge swath of your existing customers.

If it was something where you could see there being a big chance at future success maybe i could see it. But a basing difference? What's the advantage? Why would GW risk alienating a huge percentage of their population for literally no reason?

you can have a skirmish game with square bases. you can have a mixed, floaty unit (like 40k) with square bases.

I just don't see the logic behind it. It doesnt seem like anybody does. And if no one can sit here and even think how it could POSSIBLY be a smart choice, why on earth would a multi million dollar company take that kind of risk?

I'd also like to think that the GW of a decade+ ago is slightly different than the GW of today. The miniature landscape is much different now than it was then.

 

So why did they re-base those Lizardmen models? What is the logic behind that? The way I see it, either there is a branch off game using fantasy models on rounds or 9th has rounds. What else could it be?

 

Aesthetics. For the same reason why sometimes the models are without bases. Or on more elaborate bases. We all know GW views themselves as first and foremost a modeling company.

I don't really understand why you would look at those images and believe its indicative of round bases anymore than the baseless models are indicative of a baseless game. Or the elaborately based models are indicative of included resin bases.

And there is also square based models in the image. Are we to believe that skinks will remain on squares but saurus will be on rounds? that skinks, the most recognizable skirmish core in the game, will stay on square "rank them up" bases, while saurus of all things will be freeformed on round?

I think its very possible war machines end up on oval bases. But i don't think there is a chance in hell that your standard infantry ends up on round bases. Period.

The logical leap thats being made here is outrageous. If you can tell me why there would be rounds in 9th, or why they would leave half the characters still on squares that makes sense from a rules perspective (because afterall, we are making rules assumptions from these characters) i'll consider the fact that rounds will be in 9th.

But that has yet to happen. We're ignoring every part of the narrative that doesn't line up with our own fearmongering.

 

I think it's easy to launch into analytics and involved speculation given the transient nature of WFB, however the reason could be something highly mundane.
For example, GW has chosen to start basing display models on round bases purely for aesthetic reasons and anything beyond that is coincidence. People see patterns and people like answers, however people often seen patterns where there are none. This could be nothing*.

Analyse the appearance of round bases as much as you want, just keep it objective to avoid the sky-is-falling mentality that saturates Warseer.




*of course, it could also be....something

 

Go damn it @Putzfrau you just stole my thunder!

 

oops! hehe.

 

So your claim is that GW paid its staff to go back and re-base it's pre-existing models purely for aesthetic reasons?

There is a track record of baseless diorama type creations in the past. In over 25 years there is no precedence of GW going back and re-basing a properly based model onto a round.

There are many possible reasons for this and only GW would know the answer the answer for sure. Possible explanations could be that they didn't need those models for photographic purposes or that they haven't gotten around to them yet.

The logical leap is nowhere near as outrageous as you might believe. Warhammer has not been doing well for GW for quite sometime. What we are seeing here is a last ditch effort to shake things up and possibly save the game. Why would they have killed off their 25+ year fluff timeline via end times? Same reason. As to why they haven't re-based all the models, please see above.

The best (funny) reason I have read over at Warseer goes something like this (I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the exact quote in front of me)...
GW's thought process:

• "40K is on rounds, Fantasy is on squares"
• "40K is sells far better than Fantasy"
• "That means rounds sell far better than squares"
• "If we put Fantasy on rounds they will sell far better"

In all seriousness I can sum it up like this...

• Does the appearance of round bases mean that 9th will feature rounds?... possibly
• Does the appearance of round bases mean there could be an offshoot skirmish game using Fantasy models on rounds?... possibly
• Were the models re-based purely for aesthetics?... NOT A CHANCE

 

Mixed round and square bases:

• In Warmaster the command stands are on rounds to distinguish them from combat units which are on rectangles.

• I think Field of Glory, a historic armies game, does something similar.

• Dwarf, High Elf and Orc/Gobbo players have been sticking cannon and other war machines on round bases for years. (At least in gaming venues near me...also pretty sure I have seen examples of such in White Dwarf a time or two.)

Mixed rounds and squares are a thing already. If it is more of a thing in 9th edition Nottinghammer it would be something they could call new! ...not to mention Fantastic and Brilliant! ( henceforward F&B).

 

Just as a quick note @NIGHTBRINGER these models haven't been rebased, they are completely new.

Also, you didn't really answer why they strictly wouldn't create something for aesthetic reasons only.

You seem quite confident of that fact, but it's just as much a guess as anything.

 

Not a fan of those oval bases, something about them just looks wrong.
The 40k Biker bases would be a better fit.

 

This is where you are mistaken. Those models are indeed re-based. Compare the the pictures in the cabinets to the ones in our current army book. They are the exact same ones. The Troglodon, the blue Stegadon, the Terradons and the Bastiladon are the exact same models as found in our book.

The best give away is the Bastiladon: not only are the colours exactly the same, but the markings on the shell are precisely identical. The snakes are painted in the exact same colours in the exact same sequence. Please take a very close look at it, page 71 of our army book. There are only two possible explanations for this...

1. They gave the artists the original models and instructed them to paint new ones that are 100% identical down to the smallest details and then provided them with the instruction to base them on rounds.
2. The artists were instructed to re-base the original models.

The odds of #1 being true are so remote that it is mind boggling. There would be absolutely no reason for GW to do this. They are a business, everything they get their artists to do is done with the intention of making money. Why would they re-base (or even worse replicate a former paint job) for no other reason than "aesthetics".

To answer your question directly, GW would not create something for purely aesthetic reasons because it makes no financial sense. It costs them money (paying their artists for their time) to do so and they stand to gain nothing. Trust me, GW had their artists re-base those models for a very specific reason. I guarantee you that those models will be used for photographic purposes to support GW's new project. Odds are that project is 9th edition (and this is where the personal estimation comes in) but I must concede that the possibility exists that it is instead an offshoot of some kind.

 

I'll have to go look through my book, or it might be the lighting but the bastilodon and stegadon did look different to me.


My follow up would be, then why haphazardly rebase some but not others?

There's just no logical consistency here. I think assuming there are round bases is as much of a fallacy as assuming it's only for aesthetic reasons.

 

I'd imagine that they would only re-base the models they needed for photographic purposes (or they are still in the process of re-basing them). If or when they need photographs of the rest they will re-base them.

The logical consistency is perfectly clear...

1. GW has some plan for fantasy models on rounds (9th edition or new skirmish game, etc.)
2. GW needs photographs of fantasy models on rounds
3. GW spends money to pay staff to re-base the models
4. GW takes photos of the newly re-based models and uses the pictures for the new books/promotions/etc
5. GW makes money selling the new product/system/edition

versus...

1. GW likes the aesthetics of round bases
2. GW pays staff to re-base the models
3. GW has no way to recoup the cost of re-basing the models

Furthermore, with all the rumours of round bases that have been swirling around since the beginning of this year (which GW has to be aware of), it would be a completely utterly imbecilic move on GW's part to re-base models on rounds for no good reason (or aesthetics) and add to the fear and negativity. GW is losing money over this, a percentage of the gaming community has put GW purchases on hold or spent their money with competitors. I don't always have the highest opinion of GW, but I give them more credit than perpetuating such negative fears for the sole reason that "they like the look of round bases".

Personally I find it all terribly transparent. From my personal view I don't see what the confusion is about, and I truly believe that time will prove me wise. The purpose of the re-base is either rounds in 9th and/or some sort of skirmish branch off game using fantasy models on rounds. Stay tuned in over the next few months to find out!

That said, you're entitled to whatever viewpoint you wish. We will all know for certain soon enough. I don't think there is any more purpose to debate in circles any further.

 

They really do appear to be the same models, or at least models which have been painted in an identical way (which is plausible that they simply followed the same template they previously set). But i'd probably say they are the same models.

If you read through the previous posts, you'll find that I was discussing this with Nightbringer+Borkbork in the last couple of days. Nobody is looking at the square bases, only the rounds...

OR the artists re-based the original models, without GWs instructions. Afterall, the GW staff did say that the artists put the models on round bases because the artists thought it was more aesthetically pleasing.
Also you can't tell if they are 100% identical, your eyes are not that good (assuming you are not using some kind of fancy technology to help make this claim...).

How much money does GW make (directly or indirectly) from these showcases anyway? Do they even need to have pictures of painted models in army books/ rule books? Or can't they just ask people to submit their own well-painted models for these pictures, instead of hiring+paying the Eavy Metal team to do this excellent work?
What about the huge set pieces (eg the nurgle fortress thingy)... That must have costed them plenty of man hours+resources; a hell of a lot more than what they paid for the relatively few lizardmen models to be re-based. And those set pieces are nice and all, but do they really generate more money than what GW paid the Eavy metal team to do it? Surely GW, if run like the stone-cold solid business that you people keep saying, could have avoided forking out moneys to have set pieces such as this done.
All this doesn't really add up imo.

Edit: Debates like these on LustriaOnline make me think of the Slann in the fluff arguing for thousands of years, just sat there in silence, mentally arguing over the meaning of a shape on a plaque, and doing so thousands of miles away from each other xD.

 

My Lizardmen army is so WIP that none of them are actually glued to bases, so I'm fine. What the heck I'm going to do with three hundred odd square bases though, who knows?

 

The bigger problem is having to buy 300 round ones!

 

True enough. We've each made our points.. might as well wait it out now and see what's what in a couple of months time.

 

Slann had access to the internet, which is why their contemplation take decades and when they speak it's only in single syllable grunts and short sentences. They're too busy arguing on forums, reading clickbait trash articles, watching frog "documentaries" and answering questionnaires to find out which Game of Thrones character they're most like.