"Is standardized basing needed in any scale or period?" Topic

Now that the dust has settled…

Back in the previous century, I was a dedicated WRG Ancients tournament player. One thing I noticed is that almost every "new" rules set that came out utilized the "standard" WRG basing.
Of course, WRG itself had its own quirks. I think that the 3rd or 4th edition gave you the "option" to base your pikemen on a frontage anywhere from 10mm to 15mm per 25mm man. Well, "That which is not forbidden is compulsory". so, I would clip the corners on Hinchliffe successor pikemen to jam as many in as I could.
Of course, by the time I got the units finished the next edition came out, and wiser heads prevailed. I had to rebase, and all the figures were ruined. serves me right…

BUT, with the weird exception of Hoplite warfare with a few bizarre chariot bases, WRG basing was "standard".
WAB changed that. Now, I admit that there were a few outliers, but WAB broke the lock.
Now, just about every new set has its own basing system.

I was originally against that, but it seems to me NOW that forcing your concept on a "standard" base is not what rules design should be about.

My current specialty is AWI. I do have a "standard" basing system, which is based on protecting figures and getting economical cuts from standard basswood sheets.
I find that I can play most new rules out there, even if they are very different from mine, since I supply both sides and all the troops.

In WW2, I am late to the period. I have 100% Flames of War basing, as fo my friends. Can we play IABSM? I would hope so, even if they are "different", because we are all "standard". Can we play Command Decision? Maybe.

SHOULD there be a "Universal" basing scheme for each period?
I used to think so, but have changed my mind.
Now I just check how they are based, and if my method will screw up play too much. If not, I will check them out. If theirs are double ranked for AWI, I can just double up my bases.
Would my friends be eager to check out an alternate WW2 set? Probably not, but then neither am I.

The nice thing about gladiators or skirmish figures is that is not an issue.

The old WRG 'standard' was certainly convenient, but generally a modicum of imagination and/or sabot bases are all that is required to play rule set X with basing style Y.

There are of course exceptions with very, very specific basing schemes, but one would hope these days that they are unusual.

I never understood the need for basing requirements. Even less so when number of figures per base were prescribed. As if that matters, except for identification purposes. But I understand where it was coming from: a ground scale + representation of figure (1:33 e.g.) scale leads to some sort of "so many figures per base" requirement. Rules that were then completely ignored or "adjusted" when artillery came in the picture, or when the "depth" of a unit needed to be defined.

I always wondered why rules would not define measurements in terms of unit width or base width. In some sense, DBx did/does that ("paces") but very few others do. However, the practice seems to become more widespread.

I rebased one of my armies once. That was enough to vow to never ever rebase anything again. When I don't use houserules, I only use rules that are flexible enough to work around the basing requirements (spread out stands, multiply all distances by 0.8 or 1.4 or whatevever, …). Rules that are critical on how figures are based – or even the shape of bases – are avoided.

Of course, being long enough in wargaming such that I have multiple armies for each period also helps. In my gaming group, we rarely mix miniature collections. Host/Plumpire provides everything.

The only reason I can see for "standardized basing" is if you regularly use the figures to multiple rule sets.

Even then it is usually very simple maths to work out how many figures/bases should be in contact if you are using different basing to what the rules recomend.

I have certain "standard" basing that I use depending on figure scale and period. These work across the rules that I use for a given period and scale. They are not always an exact match to the "regulation" size, but that is not a significant problem.

For armies that will see play against others in the local club I base to whatever basing standard the club is using. Most often these armies are the start of a new project, new period, etc for me so it is no more or less difficult to base them to match. For my own armies I usually provide both sides anyway so I just base them to match and to a standard I like.

I'm with Phil and Dave. Why anyone would "rebase" was always a complete mystery to me. Just adjust the chart or use a roster or a movement tray.

Collect both sides, and lots of 'em, and base how you choose. I don't let my soldiers play with other peoples soldiers – who knows what dirty little habits they might pick up.

I'm not sure WRG still isn't the standard basing scheme for ancients. Look at Impetus/BI. 15mm bases are 8cm wide and 28mm bases are 120cm wide. That equates to 2-4 WRG bases depending on if you want a second rank or not.

WAB plays just fine with WRG basing. Mabe even a little quicker since you are moving trays of 2-4 figures instead of singles. The relationships between man and horse are similar so no real need to rebase.

May other games do the same for WRG standard. Even HC could use 15mm WRG basing without any modification to the rules!

So, like it or not, it would seem we can really get away from WRG as the defacto standard.

I try to base my figures in a way that allows one or more stands to be used in a variety of games. For skirmish games, I go with single figures of course but for massed combat games, I prefer stands of multiple figures. Often times it is 15 or 10mm figures for H&M and often I will play the game at half scale.

Dear John

Use my set "Oh God! Anything but a six!" You can use any basing size you want AND fight radically different basing systems against each other, from 4" by 9" with all the figures on one big stand, to multiple stands of smaller size.

Works great, used it at several conventions with people brining units with them and it worked well.

I rebased my AWI armies twice.
I based them first for 1776 rules, where even Hinchliffe figures were severely crowded.
I bought Compleat Brigadier which had DEEPER bases, Funny that that did not solve the problem!

The final straw was that the new figures coming out simply could not fit on the base at all.
So, I bit the bullet and rebased everything on 2" x 1" bases.
Now everybody fits, and is compatible.

It was not really differing rules that lead me to rebase, but the dreaded scale creep.

"Is standardized basing needed in any scale or period?"

No. Wanted possibly by some but certainly not needed.

Not a bad idea but one can adapt

Most of my 28mm troops are on 20X20 bases, either individually or on unit stands of 40 X 40 – not universal, but very common

Yes. In fact I was all et to join HMGS when I learned they do not, in fact, have any Standardized Basing Enforcement Shock Troops. Hardly worth the bother otherwise.

My experience has been that most recently published rulesets bend over backwards to accommodate any base sizing and make it very clear that 'no rebasing is necessary'…I think its almost becoming, dare I say it, 'the standard'…

You can indeed play IABSM. I have always attempted to allow any basing style to be used with our rules.

The exception tends to occur when you are trying to represent very specific unit frontages according to drill manuals; the Napoleonic period springs to mind. However, any rule writer should be aware that in certain periods a particular style of basic many be dominant, and so reflect that in the way his units are based.

Rich

My ancients figures are all based in the WRG style, my WWII is all based in FoW style.

Would I consider other games? Yes
Does another game have to use these base sizes? Not entirely
Would I rebase them all to play another game? Unlikely

Yes…we need to have a standardized basing system, therefore it then gives us the material to argue about "is it the proper standard size?"…

Think about this John….