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

250+ (Night) Goblins
80 squigs and handlers
75+ Savage orcs
60+ Black orcs
ca. 200+ common orcs
ca. 80 wolf riders
ca. 20 spider riders
ca. 40 boar riders (including savage boars)
ca. 20 trolls
ca. 8 chariots

 

OUCH!!!

 

I've trawled through most forums etc on this round base topic over the last couple days. Tbh i'm a bit embarrassed that most of the warhammer fantasy community has reacted to images (such as the ones below) in such a pessimistic, childish-stroppy manner of 'I will quit if rounds come to fantasy' and such.

https://scontent-mxp.xx.fbcdn.net/hp...3b&oe=5609C2A3
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...b55c6167f93553
http://tozudosadieces.blogspot.com.es/2015/05/warhammer-world-llegan-las-peanas.html

These images are of models that the Eavy Metal team have modelled and painted, and include models with round bases, yes. However, notice how the focus of each picture are the round-base models... we're ignoring that, in most images, the majority of the models are still on square bases. People have posted these images titled as 'LEAKED IMAGES OF ROUND BASES' or 'ROUND BASES CONFIRMED FOR FANTASY', and such. They are not leaked- they are pictures of display cabinets... these models are not for playing warhammer fantasy games with; they are entirely for display. They are also not confirmation of round bases.

Other information on the amazingly omniscient internet has people saying that employees of GW have said that 'round bases are purely for aesthetics NOT for gaming'.
Do you really think that GW forced the Eavy Metal team to base on circular bases, what is essentially random groupings of showcase fantasy models, but not all? Do you really think they told all their staff to outright lie to anyone questioning this?

Despite this, it seems that ~80% of the internet's warhammer players think that round bases are a certain thing for fantasy. A part of this is probably because of a very early rumour of round bases, due to the image below (notice the other models on square bases). This probably makes people automatically put 2+2 together with the latest images, and rally behind the idea of round bases being a certain thing in the future... because y'know, rumours made by anonymous people on the internet are 100% accurate, especially despite all other explanations...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/at2/2015/1/10/f479289a9cf79ae7926335b44a1e5981_5046.jpg

One thing i've read multiple times is 'GW is moving all bases to circle so that they save on production costs, ie they don't have to make round and square'. '40k is more popular, so of course GW will want to streamline their products'... I would like someone with real in depth knowledge of the financial costs for producing square and round bases for GW to have some input into this, not just random whingers on the internet. What qualifies these people to know so much about the industry? It seems to me that this part of the production line is probably the cheapest and simplest, aside from the boxes themselves- should my opinion not have equal weighting in this argument, assuming that these people have no actual first-hand knowledge of this process? Also, the oval bases are not exactly widespread throughout 40k right now (as i understand it, only the new broodlord model is on an oval base?); these oval bases' production would have to be ramped up, which would seem counter-productive to a large extent.

Games Workshop is still a professional company at the end of the day, and they are not going to outright lie to their entire warhammer fantasy customer base about something of this magnitude. Despite this mantra of 'I wouldn't put it past GW if they did X...' that the community is throwing around on every forum, remember GW is not dumb in business; they have not been staying afloat for so many years out of sheer luck. You may describe them as cold-hearted in many ways, but this is not synonymous with 'self destructive business model'.

Another thing being said is that 'the old guard are not a source of income for GW... therefore, they don't care about the old guard at all.' This is untrue. Plenty of older warhammer fantasy players are still pumping money into the Games Workshop business in one form or another (a very easy example is the End times releases), albeit probably less than a very new player joining the hobby. Alienating all mid-long term fantasy players by telling them to 'play by new 9th rules by converting all models to circular/oval bases, or quit the hobby' is a very extreme move to pull. Do you honestly think this is the case?

Others have said that a combination of rounds and squares is possible in the new rules set- this is entirely speculation of course, but currently holds as much water as any other theory. I doubt this will be the case, since GW don't do this mixing of model bases in their games, and it would probably look bad on the tabletop. But it would quell this issue of converting entire collections to round bases.

...I guess from the image below (of a showcase) that we will just have to conclude that warhammer fantasy models don't even have bases anymore, and our whole collections are all going to be glued onto one massive piece of terrain? Impeccable logic.

https://www.facebook.com/warhammerw...3968311969098/959114237454503/?type=3&theater

I agree that GW should release statements on issues such as this, and that for a company to not have a general customer service resource in the year 2015 is atrocious. But their silence is not lending credence to this conspiracy: that they are trying to suddenly transition to round bases in fantasy, know that most current players won't want to, so are keeping it secret until 9th's release, when they can suddenly spring it out on their customers, then ???, then profit...

Another point to make is that if this transition to rounds were true, then a radically different rule set will have to be prepared, one which will look very different from fantasy 8th edition (this is very conflicting with plenty of rumours i've read online recently btw). This would be very risky in terms of getting it right, since they can't copy+paste 40k rules, and they can't slightly edit 8th fantasy rules- neither of these would work.

I suppose my conclusion or TL;DR is that the evidence backing up this round bases rumour is wholly and entirely based upon random internet rumours, and showcase models at GW central which are never going to be used in a real warhammer fantasy game. It is possible that round bases will be coming to fantasy, but I highly doubt that based on what little evidence we have right now. Also, I guess people love to whinge, and the nature of the internet is such that people can feel emotionally detached enough to faceroll-on-keyboard any dribble they want, which just makes other internet users worry more, in a positive feedback loop. As always, chill, and wait to see what 9th brings to the hobby.

...
Anyway, I voted 'Excited!... round bases look better than squares!' because i'm assuming that if this rumour were somehow true, then GW will have people familiar with fantasy write the rules for 9th edition which work for round bases. I guarantee they will not make a new ruleset that includes round bases yet does not work; it is in their best interest to make a rule set that people will want to play. If it is aweful, they will lose customers and hence lose out on their precious moneys. Of course, they could always make mistakes and screw it up to some degree, but we won't know that until 9th drops.
I also think these models look great on round bases- the temple guard and the monsters look really fantastic.

 

I don't think it is embarrassing at all. People have a lot of invested time and money on the line. It makes complete sense that there will be a few issues that are "deal breakers" for people. After all, it is an expensive hobby, why put in all that time, $$$ and effort into something that no longer suits your taste, when there are other options out there...

• continue with 8th
• shift to another game

Are round bases 100% confirmed?... of course not, nothing is at the moment. Is there a very strong indication that rounds will play at least some sort of role in 9th edition?... YES. These pictures line up very well with the rumours provided by some of the most reliable rumour mongers. The likelihood of rounds in 9th is getting stronger and stronger.

Yes... GW would most definitely tell the Eavy Metal team to base on circular bases. The Eavy Metal team works for GW, and they do what GW tells them to... like any other business in the world. The Eavy Metal team's job is to paint models that suit GW's business needs, so if GW need models on rounds, then that is what the Eavy Metal team will produce.

As for the majority employees being told to lie... probably not... only because they very unlikely to be privy to such information. For any employees that might have access to details of 9th... yes they would have been given instructions not to release certain pieces of information until a certain pre-approved time.

GW is going to release information according to their own timeline and strategy. They will do what is necessary to protect that strategy.

That is debatable. There is no doubt that they have been on a very steady decline for quite some time now. How much of that is through fault of their own is a complex issue and difficult to decipher. I personally feel that they have made some extremely boneheaded decisions in the last decade, and this has cost them a significant portion of their market share.

Whether or not you believe GW is following an intelligent business model or not is entirely up to you; but I leave you with this little bit of information. Make of it what you will...

"We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants" ~Tom Kirby~ (former GW CEO)

Source: http://investor.games-workshop.com/...4/07/2013-14-Press-statement-final-website.pdf

I agree that a mix of base types would look pretty bad on the table top. I really hope they don't do a combination of the two.

 

@FRYtheEGGofQUANGO

Thank you for calling me childish

Nightbringer allready commented on some of your points, but i will add a few.

Well, i beg to differ. A number of official statements from GW, including ones where they pride themselves on not doing any market research, cast serious doubts on their profesionalism. Also statements about the necesity to reduce stock levels in order to reduce costs (which in it self is off course correct) while at the same time expanding (at a rediculous rate) a rediculously expensive sales channel do not help to come across as very profesional. Furthermore the utter disrespect the have shown to (certain) customers (groups), certain resellers and LGS's is also not fitting a professional company.

And they sudenly figure this out after 25 years of business? I just do not recall seeing a single round base ever before (on ranked units).

Now it is my turn to call you a tad childish....as this comparison is just that! The thing is that the nurgle display is clearly a display, like we have seen hundreds of times in the last 25 years. While the lizardmen pictures are a warhammer army which is partly on round bases for no apparent reason (the aestethic reason just does not compute, but that could be because old farts like me cant handle change that well).

Anyway, over the years i have seen enough silly moves and changes from GW, that things like these make me a tad worried about things to come.

 

Very well put. But the way people respond to a given negative situation is indicative of their maturity. I'm not meaning to insult everyone complaining about this potential transition; this was aimed more at 10% of the most complainy posts i've seen. Especially with the insults thrown at GW.

Is this very strong indication that ~1/3 of the models in these images of the display cabinets (NB. not 30% of all the fantasy models in the display cabinets, since we cant see them all) have round bases? These models are not confined to the square+rectangular bases, and there is a statement that they are purely for aesthetic purposes.
True, i'll give you that they line up quite well with the previous rumours, but one could also argue that these rumours originated from seeing these display case models on round bases months ago, and misunderstood what was happening. Or its a (un)lucky guess?
The likelihood of rounds for 9th is as strong/weak as it has always been (see the points i've mentioned here). The only thing that has changed recently is GW showing off some models on rounds in display cabinets, along with what seems to be the majority on squares/rectangles still (which, crucially, everyone seems to be ignoring, btw).

You are speaking as if the entire of the fantasy section were on rounds... this is not the case. Yes i understand that the Eavy Metal team works for GW, but again, why would GW instruct them to put most models on squares/rectangles? Hell, look at the high elf/dark elf battle scene- most (all?) of these are on squares/rectangles!
Good second point.

Again, they are springing this hugely game-changing information, out of the blue, onto their entire fantasy customer base? When they are trying to rescue fantasy? I do find this highly doubtful, and so should you.

Yes, i'm sure people putting GW down don't have the complete picture / knowledge of all the complexities involved, so I think that detracts from the power of statements such as 'GW make boneheaded decisions'. Don't get me wrong- perhaps they are idiots, but we don't know that for sure. And since the business is quite old, I suspect they are smarter than people give them credit for.
Yes this quote is important, but not a complete picture. They don't need to do focus group/market research to realise how big of a mistake it would be to force all warhammer fantasy players (who keep play with current rule editions) to rebase all models. This is an extremely obvious piece of information/common sense any model collector would be privy to, nevermind a model company such as GW! Perhaps if the transition turns out to be true, you can quote+shame me here, and i'll bow down.

I actually had the posters on Warseer, BOLS etc on my mind, but if you have also adopted this attitude... then with all due respect, but i stand by my point!

I'm confused at your point... are you agreeing that rounds are not going to happen? If so, I don't understand why you would be worried about it happening?? Help pls?

You've got me there, my apologies haha.

My point is that there is no difference between that nurgle display and the models in the cabinets. These well painted models don't get played with, so I feel that the aesthetic reason for giving them round bases is entirely understandable.

The fact remains that there is, as it seems, no hard evidence for round bases being the new hotness (as mentioned above, I feel that the display cabinet models on round bases has literally zero implications on the new 9th rule set).

 

haha. What i was trying to say, that it is quite a weird move to suddenly after 25 years of having square bases (as far as i am aware this really is the first time ever they used round bases in official communications or GW painted displays, other than some weird units like fanatics) decide that round/oval bases are more aestethic (for display purposes). Firstly this is a off course a matter of taste and secondly "aesthetics" are also determined by convention, tradition and people's expectations. This is such a break from all three that GW, as the "professional" organisation that they are, should have realized what a stirr such images could cause. And from a busines point of view uncertainty and delayed purchases are bad news, cause in general the money of those delayed purchases might go to the competition, or totally different products. The timing just does not make sense.
hope i make more sense now.
Now the aesthetic part is probably based on a model to base size ratio as for example cold one riders are indeed big for their bases (GW is really, really, really bad in managing scale creep, so bad even that many people think GW is using it as a strategic tool to hamper the competition), so they might have a point there for individual models. However, the better aesthetics of a ranked unit on rounds is beyond me. In the skaven case, most people totally accepted the aestetics explanation for the monster and the bell, and i think nobody would have reacted like this if there were like 5 temple guard or just 2 cold one cavalry. But a full unit on rounds, mixed with other units on squares????

I can't disagree with this And yeah, there will always be people slinging insults or even threats onto the internet (strangely these people usually turn out to be much older than you would expect). However, simply saying that such a change would be too much for you does not really say much about your maturity. It basically says that you dont want to invest the amount of time or money anymore or support a company who makes for you unfavorable business decisions. On the other hand, i personally really like to question the maturity (by lack of a better word) of the people who are ethousiastic about the prospect of rebasing (as i hate basing with a passion and just cant imagine anyone being happy about it).

 

I actually think there is too much focus on what GW would or would not do based on existing customers and their armies.

I think it's quite likely they don't care if veterans would be upset over being "forced" to re-base their models. Even in the nearly 12 years I worked for them, some 10 years or so ago now, the focus was ever on new customers.

It's why White Dwarf runs essentially the same content several times per year and why they will put out a new Marine Codex 4 times in 4 days (hyperbole alert).

What matters to GW is what they can sell the new customer today.

Add in the idea that they appear to have had junking Warhammer as a serious option on the table (thus losing ALL their veteran customers) , and it's clear to me that anything they are doing now is done with very little to no concern over how it might impact peoples' prior purchases.

 

I can't deny that those people exist. Some people do go overboard and handle it in an immature way. Warseer is particularly notorious for this and I'm happy that none of this has leaked its way into this forum.

However, I do feel that the vast majority of people have a genuine concern over the changes that loom on the horizon. I do not view them as immature (nor am I saying that you view them in this way either) because I feel they are completely justified with their concerns.

The models in the display cabinet at Warhammer World are the very same ones that they use in their photographs in the BRB, armybooks, etc. It makes complete sense that if 9th switches over to rounds, they will need pictures of models on round bases. Of course, they don't need photographs of every single model, so to reduce the time involved (and hence cost) only those models that they need pictures of would be put on rounds.

There is absolutely no way that the round base rumours which dropped months ago originated from someone seeing the round bases in the display cabinets. Recently (a few weeks ago) Warhammer World underwent renovations, and these models were only present after their re-opening. The cabinets are open to the public (I know, I've visited there), so if the rounds were already present months ago, the pictures would have leaked way back then.

Understand that GW would not waste money (time) getting their staff to put models on rounds for no good reason. That makes no business sense. As for the models you see on squares, those are the older models that you've already seen in your army book. So it's not like GW instructed their staff to put 1/3 of their range on rounds and 2/3 of their range on squares... instead they had their staff re-base the models they needed updated pictures of. I assume it is a re-base (as opposed to painting new models) because the bastiladon looks exactly the same as the one in our current army book.

So the fact that GW has plans for Fantasy models on round bases is 99.9999999% No company would waste resources for no good reason. The only question that remains to be answered is whether the rounds are for 9th edition or some sort of other branch off skirmish game.

The business is quite old, and has stood the test of time. However, it is mainly their recent actions (approximately the last decade) that have called their competence into question. Most, if not all of the people who ran the company during their glory years (when they owned virtually the entirety of the market share) have probably retired or moved on. I believe that people that are currently in charge are at least partially responsible for GW's continued decline over the past decade and the consequent rise of their competition.

I agree with this!!! Though it does not pertain to everyone, I'm sure there is a large percentage of their customer base that has put GW purchases on hold or spent their money elsewhere. I haven't bought a single thing from GW (outside of 4-5 paints I needed) since these rumours first dropped; so I think your statement is right on the money!

 

Its one of those things were I am reserving my judgement until the news really drops. Part of me is holding onto hope that this is not true. While I am fledgling player with only a small army and like no experience really playing playing I would still be irritated with the base change just with all the work I have already put into it.

Its kind of making me hold off on any purchases this summer (that and budget yay) so I don't buy all my square bases only to have to deal with my money being wasted!

I've been part of some of the stranger internet communities in my time so I am well aware of the childish responses people will sometimes give in response to news. Even the most mature of peoplewill suddenly do a 180 once their favorite things are threatened. Thankfully we all seem to be in accord here!

 

There is literally no way they would force anyone to rebase their models.

It simply will not happen.

Also, please don't call these rumors from "reliable sources".

Harry has had significantly more misses than success in his rumor forecasts.

If you've been around warhammer for several editions (2nd for 40k, 3rd for warhammer) you'd know this stuff pops up all the time. Theres always fear mongering. Theres always some crazy outlandish rumor.

It never happens. The game stays on, largely unchanged.

I hate the warhammer rumor mill. Its one of the more destructive and negative ones i've had the displeasure of experiencing. Every time. Every edition.

 

All of that may be the case, Putzfrau, but my point is that GW just plain doesn't think about how their plans for their game will impact what they consider to be off-the-radar purchases (purchases that have already happened and are completed, in the past, done...never to be thought of again).

They've never been a company that says "Hmm. Let's stop and consider how our decisions may be received by those who have already purchased."

Instead, they say "Let's think about how our decisions may encourage new purchases."

I've been in the meetings, personally. I've been at the pub with folks making decisions at GW. I've seen, firsthand, the thinking in action. We had days-long sales conferences where it was literally (and yes, I mean "literally" since we were playing some sort of game with a ball and lots of tackling) beaten into us that "new customers are our life's blood." Sales managers often refered to veterans as the "beardies" who you can never make happy anyway, so don't try.

It's all about the cycle. All about making the product they are about to sell be what they think it needs to be.

Now, that doesn't mean we're going round bases. All it means is that there's no reason to think they would avoid round bases out of some sort of respect for existing (or, as they would think of them, "previous") customers if they thought that round bases would be the way to go for better future sales to new customers.

We have often been told that GW's customer is a 14 year old boy (and that the competition is not Warzone...err..War Machine), but rather, McDonalds). There are new 14 year old boys every single second of every single day. Once they sell to one 14 year old boy, it's job done and on to the next 14 year old boy.

Sure, there may be lip service or the odd reference to "classic" games enjoyed by many older gamers each time they release, for example, a new version of Space Hulk, but those references stand out because they are the exception. They don't expect to get much, if anything, out of people who own old versions of (again, as an example) Space Hulk. It's about selling it to a new gamer. New armies, new army books, new...everything - and most all of it recycled, redone, re-marketed from something old. Armies are split up. Armies merge. Troop types leave the game. Troops types come back. GW increases their technical ability and artistry all the time, but they are merely applying both as new coats of paint to old ideas over and over again....and they get away with it because they don't care if veterans see the rehashing. They believe - they know from experience - that to today's little Timmy, it's all new stuff. This Timmy, like 95% of his buying friends, don't know or don't care that the "new" thing they are buying is just a redo. To them it's new, and that's good enough.

So, whatever it takes to sell to the new customer is what is going to happen.

 

Ah ok, i understand now thanks
I could be wrong, but i'm sure i've seen some fantasy models on round bases before at warhammer world anyway (albeit only a few) when I was last there a few years back... Regardless, you're right it is a weird move.
I'm not sure how powerful those pull factors (convention, tradition and people's expectations) are, but yes it is odd to the point where the community has had a bad reaction to it. I think we can all agree that GW has had little worry about their customers' reactions due to their radio silence.

Thank you for explaining this point- this is the kind of evidence I was looking for you guys to produce- well done! I had not at all noticed that these models are indeed the same as the ones in the army book (and in the army book, they were infact on square bases...). After cross-referencing the bastiladon, the troglodon and a few other various models with the army book, i'd have to agree with you they are almost certainly the same models. Well spotted.

This is very suspicious, though I wouldn't go as far as 99.999999% confidence that round bases are in. Your reasoning for only a select few models being on round bases is that it saves on costs that GW is spending on the Eavy Metal team's work, but why ~50% of the lizardmen models? If the lizardmen are not going to recieve further support (ie, new army books), then we'd have to conclude it's for the 9th edition rulebook images... but that would then mean only these lizardmen on round/oval bases would be photographed for the rulebook.

Now i've only been playing fantasy since 7th edition, but 7th and 8th rulebooks have had pictures of entire armies in the relevant sections, much more than simply a few monsters, a few flyers, 24 skinks and 10 temple guard (which are the models on round bases in the display cabinets). Why have GW not gone the full mile and just had all of the displayed lizardmen put on round/oval bases? I'm sure they do care for their models being correctly based in photographs for rulebooks/ army books, since they have always been on the ball in that respect. I do think they would fork out the extra $ to pay for the job well done- or do you disagree?

I've already expressed how I think a mixture of round and square bases will likely be a bad idea, and just can't see it happening. So it seems that either ALL of fantasy will go round bases, or none of it will (rules-wise).

I actually meant the info about round bases may have come from somebody seeing these models on round/oval bases prior to them being added to the viewing cabinets at warhammer world.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts/reasoning for your views guys, I appreciate it. Guess i'll sit back and wait for 9th; i'm sure it won't be long until it swings by...

 

...Lord of the Rings Game.
...by Games Workshop. The mass battles version, Now you have seen everything @borkbork.

 

I agree in the sense that GW won't come out and outright say that you have to re-base your models. GW doesn't care all that much about the gaming side of the hobby. They have repeatedly said as much, stating that they are a miniature company and people are buying high end collectables. Even if 9th edition switches over to rounds (whether partially or fully) GW's official stance will be that players can choose to use whatever base they like. After all could you not play 40k with square bases?

The "reliable" guys have a pretty good track record. They know significantly more than random/logical guessing should allow for. They were pretty much spot on with the End Times. 9th edition rumours seem to be inline with how the End Times concluded and now we have some photographic evidence as well. I don't claim that we have a complete understanding of the big picture, only a few pieces here and there... but those pieces are beginning to come together.

Honestly, I can't really argue with this. When I first got into the hobby, at which time there was no Warseer or similar sites, things did seem much more positive. The internet perpetuates negative thoughts and emotions far more readily than positive ones. Unfortunately there is no going back now, but I honestly do agree with you.

Please note that I did not claim that I'm 99.99999% confident that rounds are confirmed for 9th edition. My exact wording was...

"So the fact that GW has plans for Fantasy models on round bases is 99.9999999% No company would waste resources for no good reason. The only question that remains to be answered is whether the rounds are for 9th edition or some sort of other branch off skirmish game."

GW will be doing something with round bases, but we can only speculate what their intentions are. It does provide support to the rumours that claim rounds in 9th but it is not conclusive. The rumours could still turn out to be false, and GW has different plans for those fantasy models (for example a skirmish branch off game). If I had to place bets, I'd bet on 9th getting rounds in some capacity or another... but this is just my personal opinion.

To be honest... I don't know. There is still way to much that we need to know in order to accurately gauge GW's modelling/photographic needs.

I hope they don't implement a mixture as well. What I feel is most likely (once again just my opinion) is that GW will go with rounds, but where we'll see the intermix is when players with existing armies use their old squares as well. I hope I am wrong though!

 

Many of their recent plastic kits have lots of optional pieces. (Such as the the razordon/terradon kit....lots of extra pieces after you choose which to build.) Given a willingness to create kits like that it would not be a great surprise if they started packing optional types of bases in kits.

Have any of these "new" round bases actually been a new shape?​

Between 40K and LotR I am thinking every "corner-free" base a fantasy model has appeared on is a base that is already in production for one of those two games.

As for new potential rules, I had a thought or two about how it could work:

• Dragon or Bastilodon on a corner-free base has no flank, or rear, and can see, shoot, turn and face at will, or charge 360°.
• Big monsters on bases with corners are pretty much as now, but can charge a bit further or something.
• Models on rounds or ovals are always skirmishers in every circumstance / can never form ranks or get a rank bonus.
• Models on squares can do ranks and have rank bonuses.
• Models on rounds (or Cav on ovals) have no flank, or rear, and can see, shoot, turn and face at will, or charge 360°.
• Almost every kind of model can be fielded on traditional rectangles or rounds.
• Choosing the type of base the model is assembled with decides whether it is trained to be a rank and file model or a skirmisher.
• Skirmishing becomes an option for nearly every kind of troop.
• A unit of Chaos Warriors could have a squad of skirmished CW protecting its rear or flank.

If this is not what comes down the pike in the next edition of Nottinghammer I say it is worth incorporating into Lizadhammer.

I don't understand the 'round-and-square-bases-look-bad-mixed' together / poor aesthetic notion. Not able to visualize the problem.

 

Aesthetics come down to personal opinion, it will be different for each of us. I think they would look horrible in conjunction with one another; I like the uniformity of one system or the other. Perhaps I have a little OCD. I'm sure some people will feel the same as I do, while others will feel the same way you do.

 

Lol....touche!

Ok, i might have seen a few

 

Existing GW corner-less bases other than the ubiquitous 25mm round bases

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-SE/Citadel-32mm-Round-Bases

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-SE/Citadel-40mm-Round-Bases

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-SE/Citadel-50mm-Round-Bases

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-SE/Citadel-60mm-Round-Bases

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-SE/Citadel-70x25mm-Oval-Bases

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-SE/Citadel-120x92mm-Oval-Base

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-SE/Citadel-170x105mm-Oval-Base

Would you guys estimate these ovals under the Coldone Cav:

....to be 30mm wide x 60mm long?? Not finding them in the store.