"It's the figures, stupid!" Topic
24 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Workbench ArticleLearning how to set up a new game system for use with Army Builder, the army design software from Lone Wolf.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
(Phil Dutre) | 21 Jan 2015 6:51 a.m. PST |
This past weekend I spent some time cleaning up and repairing an old army of mine. The army in question are Oldhammer Orcs & Goblins, but this particular detail is irrelevant for this post. I almost never repaint miniatures – except visible damage – but I do rework the bases. More than the paint-job of the figure itself, it is often the base that provides a common look-and-feel of all the figures in an army. If all the bases are visually similar, it provides a much larger visual cohesion on the battlefield. The bases for the models in this particular army were in a dire state. Initially, figures were based individually (most are Citadel slottabase figures, but not all), and the bases were painted black. Then, grey flock was added. Later on, figures were based in groups of 4 on 6cm by 6cm bases to adjust to a particular ruleset that we were using at the time. Since I thought this was the best ruleset ever, the bases were superglued to cardboard and given another layer of paint. When that ruleset fell out of favour (duh!), I removed the figures again, but now leaving glue marks on the slottabases, and some of the flock came loose in the process. So, I redid the bases this weekend, all figures were left individually based. The bases were again covered in grey flock (not what I would today, but no choice given the history of these figures), and adorned by rocks, tufts of grass, etc. At last these figures are "showable" again on the tabletop. What I realized (once again) is that if you are a long-time wargamer, rules do not really matter, but figures do. As a starting wargamer, it is quite natural that you acquire figures that go with your ruleset of choice. Your budget might be limited, and you don't always know where to start. Hence, following the recommendations made by the ruleset, or buying the figures that are sold specifically for the ruleset, is the best course of action. But of course, rulesets lose their popularity due to a myriad of reasons. Some of these are external: the ruleset is no longer "supported". As a wargamer, one develops different preferences over the years. Rules that seemed so clever and fun, might feel like a pure random engine several years later. Social reasons might also play a part. There's no use in clinging to a ruleset if all your friends hate it. And lastly, there is also innovation in the design of wargames themselves. Rulesets do become better over the years (but not always! :). The turnover frequency of rulesets is often not matched by the turnover frequency of figures. It is quite easy to change rulesets; it is much harder to buy and paint a completely new set of figures. Hence, the figures in a collection often outlive the use of any particular ruleset, and it makes no sense to adapt the basing of figures to a particular ruleset. I have been wargaming for over 30 years, and I have come to realize that the constant factor during all these gaming years is a good and solid collection of figures, not any particular ruleset. 10 years from now, I might use rules that don't even exist yet. But very likely, I will use figures of which a large fraction are already in my collection today. |
Martin Rapier | 21 Jan 2015 8:13 a.m. PST |
Quite right, rules come and go but figures last forever! |
Intrepide | 21 Jan 2015 8:28 a.m. PST |
Among the many reasons skirmish gamers have few regrets. I prefer mass battles, but the rebasing issue is always the wolf outside the door. |
PatrickWR | 21 Jan 2015 8:57 a.m. PST |
+1 to the skirmish gaming philosophy! I started painting minis for use in tabletop RPGs and so most of my figures got 25mm round bases. They're usable for everything from Song of Blades & Heroes to In the Emperor's Name and everything in between! |
OSchmidt | 21 Jan 2015 8:59 a.m. PST |
Dear Phil Very good article Phil-- Very Good. I would maintain that behind your observations are two factors that come into play. The first is that Miniatures and Armies are a very large capital investment in simple cash, but they also are a very large investment in time and expense and sweat to paint, maintain and base, which is obvious from your article on the work of re-basing. As a person who has reconditioned six or seven armies in my life, some of them three times, I can empathize and sympathize. The importance of rules in this is ephemeral and trivial. Even the largest of the 100/100 rules sets (100 pages, 100 bucks) have a minimal capital investment and no work or time investment whatsoever. They will vanish, as you observe with frightening regularity to the point where after a while one begins to say "Why bother" For me, I make up my own and they are exactly what I want. But I maintain there is another dimension to this, which is the "personal involvement" even "romantic involvement" with an army which was the subject of a post I recently put on the Imagi-Nations Board, and which I reprent below. I maintain that historical or Imagi-Nation, what I am speaking about below IS the major investment in an army, whatever it is, and will cause it to remain with us, the bases be redone, and the figures be repainted and loving repaired for years and years, and I maintain, that within the bounds of what I say below is the REAL "realtiy" of the army, which makes it, to us, as real as-- well-- ourselves! Here is the post. "We know that Imagi-Nations do not exist in our day to day world and are simply the creations of our own thoughts. But they are more than mere creations, they are "create-ures" that we have made and of perforce endowed with personalities with which we take an interest in and load with sentiments and value, such that the courses of their little lead lives, which we determine, become important and dear to us. Further these emotions and sentiments we feel are as real at times, as those of real persons and things which are in our day to day world, and therefore if the intensity is equal or nearly so, can the reality be said to be equal or nearly so? I do not mean here the popular clap-trap of parallel dimensions or anything like that, but rather a "reality" conjured up by ourselves (where it is and what it is is unimportant for this discussion) which imposes on ourselves a limitation. This limitation can be engendered by our "create-ures " who though we have given them existence, may engender a real existence of their own as we carry though their personality and development , and this relationship becomes not unilateral but symbiotic. So the question then becomes if this "Imagi-Nation-Reality" we have is not more than it seems and may actually BE real in every sense, as it is REAL in some senses in our own mind. We see parallel instances of novelists who agonize about what their "characters" will do, or who will get killed off, and who often admit that it is not they who write the story of their characters, but the character themselves. Indeed that can be said for many gamers etc., who jealously guard and manage their "little lead creatues." It makes one wonder just what kind of God we are, and do our "create-ures" like us." Otto |
OSchmidt | 21 Jan 2015 9:00 a.m. PST |
Dear Phil Please contact me at sigurd@eclipse.net. I was very impressed by your post. Would you consider elaborating on it a bit more and writing a cooperative article for Saxe N' Violets? Otto |
John Treadaway | 21 Jan 2015 9:45 a.m. PST |
Agreed with many comments here: a good, thought provoking piece, Phil. Well done. John T |
Great War Ace | 21 Jan 2015 9:50 a.m. PST |
Back when, our rules were designed from the ground up as a monumental skirmish system to play out massed battles. All figures are individually based on "standard" frontages, utilizing them all. 15mm through 40mm wide, and 20mm to 50mm deep, depending on the troop type and the army list requirements (allowances). We've never rebased our figures. And virtually any based figures from any other system can be used with our rules. That was part of the deliberate design, so that other gamers could try out our game without having to rebase anything…. |
Frederick | 21 Jan 2015 10:09 a.m. PST |
Absolutely – I have some figs that I still game with that are 30 years old |
dampfpanzerwagon | 21 Jan 2015 10:55 a.m. PST |
I also believe that if you stick to one consistent basing style whatever the figure scale (within reason) and/or manufacturer you can usually display a cohesive army. My 40mm Flash Gordon collection for example has figures from dozens of manufacturers (and different scales) but as the bases are all the same the collection works. Check for your self at this link; link Regards and great article. Tony |
dbander123 | 21 Jan 2015 11:28 a.m. PST |
Right on Phil! Totally agree with you. My rebasing efforts sometimes have become absurd. |
waaslandwarrior | 21 Jan 2015 12:58 p.m. PST |
Indeed, excellent article Phil, totaly agree with it! We can talk more about it when you come over to my place in the near future. I will answer your email this evening. Wim |
GarrisonMiniatures | 21 Jan 2015 1:14 p.m. PST |
One thing worth remembering with rules is that unit sizes can change in the lists for different sets. If you can afford it, it's worth buying and painting a few extra figures to allow for this – figures and paints go out of production, painting styles change, later on it may be too late to adjust a unit size upwards. |
ordinarybass | 21 Jan 2015 2:43 p.m. PST |
I definitely agree. While I wouldn't quite agree that rules don't matter, I take your point that they certainly come and go while the figures stick around. I've got figures that have been used with 8 or more rulesets in the past 4 years alone. It's also what keeps me focused mostly on individually-based 28mm miniatures. They work for the widest possible variety of rules and if I really like a certain game with other basing conventions I can easily build a set of custom movement trays. "It's the figures" is the thing that players of many of the big-name sci-fe and fantasy games miss. They're trapped by one set of rules so when their army get's weakened by a new edition or overshadowed by a new army, they ditch the figures and have to buy a whole new set. GarrisonMiniatures, I agree also. I like to make my forces bigger than I think they need to be and with more options to maximize their flexibility in whatever game I choose. My figures may be with me for a few decades, but there's no guarantee they will be easily obtainable anywhere near that long. |
Weasel | 21 Jan 2015 4:10 p.m. PST |
This is one reason I tend to sit in the 15mm skirmish environment so much. I can reuse terrain, figures etc. from game to game without any worries. Stargrunt? Beamstrike? One of my own games? Check out Grunts? Download Slammer again? Yes to all of those. |
Sevastopol | 21 Jan 2015 6:19 p.m. PST |
Where is the ImagiNations Board? |
Gecoren | 22 Jan 2015 4:11 a.m. PST |
Damn! Otto beat me to it! Phil it was indeed an excellent post and I was considering it for one of our 'Irregulars' for Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy. However Otto got their first. If you fancy writing a second piece (and assuming Otto has no objection – respect to you sir!) then please drop us a line at editor@wssmagazine.com Thanks, Guy |
Decebalus | 22 Jan 2015 11:15 a.m. PST |
"it makes no sense to adapt the basing of figures to a particular ruleset." Absolutely agreed. But this has nothing to do with single bases. I have played every napoleonic ruleset, i could get, with my 4*4cm based 28mm army without any problems. (Even Grande Armee) |
OSchmidt | 23 Jan 2015 5:55 a.m. PST |
Dear Guy Oh goodness no! I think Phil and I will write a joint article for dinky old Saxe N'Violets! Phil deserves the glory and commendation for publication in Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy! You have a much wider circulation and Phil is a really solid, thoughtful, educated, and powerful thinker on the hobby. By the Way Guy, what you SHOULD publish is his article on his convention game where random people came by and ordered the troops about. I have it, and it's great stuff! There's genius in there, and I'm still analyzing it. It's the first REALLY new and innovative idea in gaming I've seen in twenty years! Otto |
Bowman | 25 Jan 2015 8:57 a.m. PST |
Among the many reasons skirmish gamers have few regrets. I prefer mass battles, but the rebasing issue is always the wolf outside the door.
I enjoy both. The movement try is your friend. No wolf for me. |
Bowman | 25 Jan 2015 1:03 p.m. PST |
Oh dear, that obviously should read "tray". |
(Phil Dutre) | 26 Jan 2015 5:55 a.m. PST |
By the Way Guy, what you SHOULD publish is his article on his convention game where random people came by and ordered the troops about. I have it, and it's great stuff! There's genius in there, and I'm still analyzing it. That was published in issue #380 of Miniature Wargames w Battlegames. ;-) And thank you for the nice comments! |
Bowman | 26 Jan 2015 6:52 a.m. PST |
Phil, I also agree 100% with you. I didn't join the chorus of " food for thought" and "well done!" because, quite frankly, I thought everyone thought like this already. I especially concur with your comment that in the future, today's figures will be playing rules not even yet written. My only qualm about using my oldest figures (in my case Imperial Romans and Normans) is the beginner paint jobs. Oh they are table worthy, and it's probably just me that grits his teeth looking at them. With my troops predominantly single based (some 4 men on 40x40 mm bases) and with movement trays or sabots, the same figures can take part in Saga, big battle games like Hail Caesar, and even big battle games with figure removal like WAB, COE, WAC, etc. It's always been about the figures. I just assumed everybody thought that way. Good thread, my friends. |
basileus66 | 27 Jan 2015 12:04 a.m. PST |
Sometimes I have thought about rebasing some of my miniatures. Never did, though. To be honest, it is a matter of pure lazyness on my part. I have so much unpainted metal -and plastic!- in storage that the idea of wasting time rebasing what I have already painted has become anathema to me. |
|