"80mm Wide: The Only Way to Go :-)" Topic

I recently resurrected my 28mm Medieval/Fantasy collection and previously posted here about the chaos that is basing for these periods. That chaos continues even with systems such as Kings of War which, on the surface should be fairly flexible, but when put it into practice can be really quite rigid. (e.g. 60mm-wide DBX stands can't be used for KoW infantry troops and regiments as 2x such DBx bases are 120mm-wide…too wide to work for competitive KoW play as far as I can tell.)

So far the most flexible approach seems to be Hail Caesar which has implemented "unit frontage increments" friendly to both DBx collections (60mm multi-figure bases) and WHFB/WHH collections (20mm individual infantry and 25mm individual cavalry).

After some initial experiments, at first I thought I'd just stick with 60mm bases and use fewer figures per base. A very good friend does that for some figures in his extensive DBx gaming (in fact we played just this past weekend.)

But then I started working on troops such as the WHFB Steam Tank and Orc troops including chariots. That's when I realized that 60mm is truly a non-starter.

The problem isn't merely the individual base sizes. You can fit 2x 50mm-wide bases on a 60mm-wide base. The problem is that many infantry figures don't rank up well while still looking nice even with such a margin for error.

Troops such as WH Orcs look like members of an NFL football team trying to cram into tiny elevator at an early 20th century Italian pensione when trying to rank them up on their official bases. It's ridiculous.

And for some troops 60mm is simply impossible. Orc chariots come with 50mm-wide bases. But the wheel hubs/spikes and some crew weapons extend well past the base edge. Even a 60mm-wide base is insufficient!!! It took an 80mm-wide base to fully protect the model and even then the spiky bits and weapons went right to the edge of the base.

Cavalry is another problem. You can get 2x 25mm-wide cav bases on a 60mm-wide DBx base. Close order cav can look a little to spread out while light cav look too close together. Bow-armed light cav can't be turned just enough to make them look like they're shooting at the enemy while breaking contact. It's just too cramped and 1x light cav figure looks like a skirmish game and waaay too lonely.

So today I reexamined 80mm bases (I toyed with them previously).

Verdict: they work best.

On an 80mm-wide base you can fit 4x heavy infantry, 3x medium infantry, 2x light infantry, 3x heavy cavalry, 2x light cavalry, or a chariot or warmachine and they all look PERFECT.

Each troop type looks properly spaced: not too loose, not too close. Large models are well protected, even when ranked up with their own kind (e.g. 2x chariots placed side-by-side).

You also have enough room to apply scenics to the bases.

So, back to the figure painting table. I'm basing everything 80mm wide and 40mm+ deep (heavy and medium infantry will be 2x ranks deep…more stable on uneven terrain and they look better).

Please note that I deliberately did NOT post to the DBx forum specifically because I know that DBx calls for 60mm-wide bases. I've read online that some groups use 80mm-wide bases for their DBx gaming but that won't work with 60mm collections. That is one down-side of this approach. But if you want ALL troop types to look properly space and to protect large models such as chariots and warmachines 60mm simple isn't an option. I suspect that as other games such as KoW and Hail Caesar become more popular this 70s/80s basing artefact will fade away, but only VERY slowly as younger gamers raised on WH supplant those who came up through WRG/DBx.

Yep, I am moving to 80mm bases for quite a lot of stuff that I use on hexes. It works well with all scales for the 100mm Kallistra Hexes that I like.

Also, Sword & Spear rules suggest 80mm frontages for 4' X 3' table. The thing I like about Sword & Spear basing is that you go 40mm deep for two ranks, but 60mm deep when you want to show a large formation (some war and say). Now in most rules, you go wider to show a large formation, which for 'small table' people is not helpful.

Also you can get more heavy cavalry on an 80mm x 80mm.

Where it does not work is Pike and shot – these are probably better represented by 3 x 50mm bases, with one base as pike and the other two as shot.

I don't understand. How many figures are you trying to put on the 60mm base? How deep is it?

I base most of my figures with three foot on a 60x20 base. Then I make a bunch of singles on a 20x20 and some doubles 40x20. That way I can play most 60/120mm frontage games, and still play individual casualty games like Warhammer.

Excellent question mgdavey!

The issue is one of "elemental basing" in which all troop types (e.g. HI, LC, chariots, etc.) are all represented by elements having a common base width. Elemental basing can be used to greatly simplify game mechanics. Suddenly concerns about relative unit frontage and combat strength can be abstracted a bit without also worrying about how many of Unit X can fit on Unit Y's frontage and the impact on game mechanics. I hate worrying if my infantry should be 20mm per figure or 25mm per figure or whatever.

Just give me a common base frontage for all elements, let me create little dioramas on the bases, and don't make me worry about how many troops are on the base as long as they look good and are protected and stable.

DBx achieves that with 60mm bases.

3x HI figures on 20mm bases work great with DBx basing.

2x HC figures on 25mm bases work pretty well too, though some might appear a little too space out on 60mm (e.g. Perry Twin plastics).

Beyond that, things get weird or impossible. IF you're putting 2x HC on a 60mm base, Light Cav either looks too dense with 2x figures or too lonely with 1x. Modern chariot models are simply too wide to be fully protected by a 60mm-wide base. Many warmachines are also too wide for a 60mm-wide base.

So 80mm is simply the next logical and convenient increment that readily accommodates 20mm-wide infantry and 25mm-wide cavalry while using varying number of figures to represent different troop types AND while protecting larger models.

4x HI on an 80mm-wide elemental base look right compared to 3x HC or 2x LC mounted on an 80mm base. And that 80mm base will also protect a chariot, warmachine, or large winged beast in most cases.

>>>> KEY POINT: 60mm-wide bases simply can't do that in light of today's large/bulky 28mm "heroic" figures. <<<<<

Citadel and Warhammer are the driving forces behind that trend. Even the Perry Twins package their troops using 20mm-wide individual bases for infantry and 25mm bases for cavalry. 4x Perry Twin HI or 3x HC or 2x LC look great on an 80mm-wide base. (Which makes senses given the Perry Twin WH-pedigree.)

L'art de la Guerre also suggest an 80mm frontage for 28mm figures.

I have been moving that way for my Napoleonic 28mm armies as well since I use a DBx variant – DBN

link

I have standardised on 80mm for 28mm Ancient and Medieval. Works for ADLG, Hail Caesar, DBA3, Soldiers of God and many others. I go 40 or 50mm deep for foot (50 for the more animated types) and have 6-8 MI/HI in 2 ranks and 3-4 LI. Mounted are on 80X50.

Two elephants on 80X80 look a bit cramped so going for singles. Chariots look good in twos.

Well, I'm glad I'm not alone.

getback, fully agree about the two rank HI/MI. Feels weighty and it's more stable on bumpy terrain and hills.

Well elephants didn't operate long alone so put a few Light foot types on the base too. Might look less sparse that way.

Personally I like the 15mm per man frontage. Pikemen on a 20mm frontage look too dispersed to my eye. It does all depend on the minis though.

That said, to me, what looks better than either 60 or 80mm elements is big bases like 120mm Impetus or larger, where the minis are placed because they look good without fretting about frontage.

130mm

180mm

I prefer 120mm frontage for my units. In fact, except for a couple armies I am keeping single-based for Warhammer Ancients, all of my ancient and medieval stuff is 120mm frontage.

The only reasonable way to do anything else like, say, 80mm frontage is to either base on 40mm width and use 2 bases, OR, and more reasonably, base individual and use movement stands.

But for me, I prefer 120mm frontage with 1-base equals 1 unit, ala Impetus.

I had previously considered 120mm bases but another TMP'er talked me out of it. Too wide for some terrain such as roads and bridges. 80mm is sort of pushing the limit as it is at just over 3".

And I had considered 40mm but it "violates" the principle of elemental basing not being consistent with 25mm-wide cav bases. AT 80mm everything plays nice together from 20mm infantry to 25mm cav to chariots.

A few years ago while heavily playing Fantasy Rules! we made the decision to switch from the official 60mm frontage to 80mm. The points you make are the same issues we faced.

The 80mm bases worked perfect. I still have loads of figures on them even thought Fantasy Rules! died of a horrible self inflicted wound.

The 60mm WRG standard had been used for decades while figures got larger and larger.

Would be interesting to know how big the latest "small" Numidian ponies from Victrix are. Certainly the ADLG ruleset in 15mm looks nice with the infantry on 40 x 40 bases. ADLG 80 would look good too with everything on 80 x 80 base sizes with room to place markers on the bases instead of "littering" the table.

Having moved to Hail Caesar from WAB and WRG it is attractive to base formed infantry in 2 ranks on a 40mm square base. Formed cavalry are 3 to a 75/80 x 50mm base. With movement trays you can then have various options – such as ADLG which I am trying out for the 1st time tonight.

Misses out on the attractive diorama style BRB does so well (those Gauls above are something else) but you can go to town on larger bases for skirmishers both horse and foot as well as command,elephants and chariots.

Tarantella's idea of placing markers on larger bases is a great idea.

Ultimately it's what you and your group prefer.

And available table size may be the ultimate determining factor.

@Tarantella – the Victrix Numidians fit comfortably on 20mm by 50mm. How well they stack up side by side depends on the poses used for their arms.

@VIS – I've been struggling with exactly the same questions as you as I assemble a Punic Wars army for Hail Caesar. I like the Impetus 120mm basing for its diorama options (though no one plays it where I am), but multiples of 80mm fit the system and the smallest units I'm using.

I can't see myself going below 8 models in a 4x2 small unit for Republican Romans. Anything smaller would look odd. That sets my small base at 80mm wide – at least – with a depth of 50mm or more.

It's still fairly crowded with Victrix infantry. Not much room for any diorama shenanigans unless I play more with depth. Anyone seen any artistic basing on an 80mm standard?

120mm basing was attractive because the Victrix plastics I'm using mostly come in multiples of 12, but I feel a Standard size unit of 12 doesn't look big enough compared to a Small unit of 8.

@normsmith – Seems that either you tailor your number of units (of whatever width) to the table or vice versa.

Most of my new basing tends to be on a new 190mm frontage- this looks especially effective with light troops. These new Numidian units are 190mm wide by 135mm deep, on two part bases. They aren't yet flocked but you can see where I'm coming from.

Until Photocrinch mentioned that L'Art de la Guerre officially provides an 80mm option I had totally missed that!

I had bought the rules a few weeks ago and had just glanced over the basing section which looked like standard DBx. And for 15mm and 20mm/25mm it is DBx.

But the authors very cleverly added a third designation: 28mm. That makes total sense!

So L'Art de la Guerre officially provides three basing options:

15mm figures: 40mm wide
20-25mm figures: 60mm wide
28-32mm: 80mm wide

They should really promote that more.

Feels good to know that what I thought had been a heretical A/M/F basing scheme is actually official now! Perhaps the Ancient-Medieval community has finally broken the bonds of 70s/80s basing and embraced the realities of larger 28/32mm figures.

BTW…L'Art De La Guerre is a fine set of rules. For those of us who played DBA and found it lacking in certain ways, it's a huge advance.

The two biggest improvements over DBA: no more unending bumper cars since units take damage as they fight (in DBA two sword elements fighting one-on-one will literally fight FOREVER). I get the abstraction and the need for flankers and such, but that's just absurd. It also doesn't make sense that one element can fight a dozen combats with no long term effect on its fighting power.

And in ADG light troops are not able to serve as blockers against heavies and they actually shoot at a distance. DBA allows lights to serious stop the advance of heavy troops instead of giving way as the heavies advance and they're not allowed to shoot. In theory their shooting is abstracted into the combat roll, and that leads to the absurdity of lights effectively being walls against heavies. The combat resolution might result in the lights falling back, but the fact remains they can stop a heavy's move and then return to engage in close combat as if nothing happened.

I base on 60mm wide, 50mm deep for infantry, 80mm deep for cavalry. You can play DBA/DBx using the official measurements, you can put two bases together to get an Impetus Base. But you still have a mass look. No 4 single ranked greeks beeing a phalanx.

The difficulty for switching to 80mm for tournament sets is that a lot of people already have armies based on 60mm frontage. I don't know how you get those folks all to rebase that. So tournaments end up being played with 60mm frontages.

Most of my stuff looks fine on 60mm frontages but things like active troops (legionaries throwing pila or billmen wielding their bills) only get 3 figures per stand frontage. Given that, I'm not very much inclined to rebase.

The difficulty for switching to 80mm for tournament sets is that a lot of people already have armies based on 60mm frontage.

Totally agree and that's why I didn't bother posting in DBX. The DBX tournament players are fully committed to 60mm for better or worse. And that makes sense given the "installed user base" of folks with existing 60mm-based collections.

But games such as "Hail Caesar" and "L'Art de la Guerre" demonstrate that you can either adopt a more flexible system to accommodate a variety of bases (Hail Caesar) or recognize the realities of today's larger troops and introduce a new category of basing (L'Art de la Guerre).

Now that L'Art de la Guerre has included an official 80mm category perhaps DBA will include such a category in the future.

Most importantly, this isn't about tourney play, at least for me. This is about friendly games with family and friends. I turned 50 this summer (yikes!) and I don't play tourneys. My focus is on convenience, aesthetics, and fun. 80mm-bases support those objectives. 60mm bases fail when it comes to aesthetics and ease of play to some degree.

It's a matter of ease of play in that 60mm-bases can no longer support one of DBA's central advantages: the ability to tell troop type by simply looking at the base.

With today's larger figures 2 cav figures might be heavy, medium, OR light. And 3 infantry figures could mean heavy or medium. Clinging to 60mm bases while using 28-32mm figures disrupts that convenient visual clue. 80mm bases reestablishes that visual convention making things easier on players once again.

Viva 80mm! :-)

This also makes Mantic's decision to take a hardline position on its unit frontages all the more puzzling. "Kings of War" requires 100mm-wide heavy infantry and 125mm-wide cavalry. This requirement stems from Warhammer's 5-wide rank bonus requirement. The number of figures in the unit can vary, but the unit frontages as measured in millimeters are truly hard and fast.

The problem is that not all Warhammer players have collections with 5-wide units. Some are 4 wide (especially older WHFB collections), others are 6 (often 2x 3-wide bases placed side by side). I suppose they're taking that approach to lock players into their system.

And now Mantic is launching Historical Kings of War with a basing system locked into…Warhammer Fantasy Battle 5-wide units! They've deliberately excluded DBA and Warhammer Historical collections from being compatible with their system. Seems like a huge step backwards compared to take such a rigid position when competing against flexible games such as Hail Caesar. But it's even weird to take such a rigid, inflexible approach and the 9th Age.

The Ancient/Medieval/Fantasy game system I am playing now uses movement scaled to the base width. A lot of the rule sytems seem to be adapting this style.

So using larger bases is easily done and makes perfect sense going from 15mm on 40mm wide bases to 28mm on 80mm wide bases….

You are effectively doubling the figure size so double the base size.

I too have a lot of figures on the older 60mm wide bases, but since I am often presenting games using all my own figures, the tournament issue doesn't really come into play much. In the future any fantasy stuff I do in 28mm will likely be on 80mm wide bases.

The Ancient/medieval/Fantasy system I play uses movement scaled to the base width. A lot of the modern rules seem to be adating this style.

We're even taking a similar approach with our upcoming release "Rush of Battle" (WWII to Near Future).

All game measurements are in bounds and the length of the bound changes with the size of your figures/collection basing. You get to use any figures (based any way) with the rules.

Nope – I use 75mm bases. These 3 inch bases do a better job of matching the gw cavalry and loose infantry bases, and making the heavy infantry a little tighter doesn't hurt either.

Dan,

How did you handle the 20mm-wide bases that so many figures come with these days?

I tried an experiment much like yours doing 50mm-wide stands with 2x GW cav bases or 3 HI figures. To get figures on 20mm-bases to fit the 50mm base I had to trim the plastic edges. It was a mess! :-)

I too liked the effect of "closer order" HI, but the effort was just too great in the end. Much easier to leave a tiny more space between 3x 25mm-wide GW cavalry bases on an 80mm-wide base than trimming 20mm bases down to fit a more narrow base. I just don't have the "disposable time" available to engage in such things.

I also tried cutting the tab off some GW figures and gluing the feet directly to the base. The area of contact was too small to be durable and, more importantly, some poses were a HUGE PITA to keep upright while they set.

I too have a lot of figures on the older 60mm wide bases, but since I am often presenting games using all my own figures, the tournament issue doesn't really come into play much. In the future any fantasy stuff I do in 28mm will likely be on 80mm wide bases.

Nope – I use 75mm bases.

Interesting facet raised by these two comments: you can migrate a 60mm or 75mm-based collection to a larger 80mm sabot base if needed to fight an opponent with an 80mm-based collection. So, in some ways, there's really no risk to basing 80mm-wide as sabots for smaller units is always an option (or you can simply leave a little extra space between the smaller bases, eliminating the need for even a sabot.)

Our ACW armies are on 150mm by 50mm bases for a DBA-style system…works a treat, though we do have to have a gap of one unit depth for troops marching along roads.

DBA 3 uses base widths, so it would be fine to play with 80mm frontages – the board size goes from 3' to 4'

Sabots for 60mm bases would be needed and possibly some bigger scenery – DBA is finicky about exactly how bases line up. I would supply the sabots so your opponent can't complain about mismatches

I just got some (magnificent) 4 horse terracotta army chariots from Watchful I – they don't fit on 60mm frontage – not sure whether I will do surgery on the chariots or what ..

My latest idea is supplying 4" sabots (100mm for those living in the 21st Century) – very easy to translate from 40mm bases and uses 6' board. Any individually based figures can therefore be used (say from Warhammer), or the 60mm armies put on sabots. Also got for playing Hott games

I must admit, I have seen some outstanding wide bases, very tempting

The other issue with wide bases is that they don't go so will with hills/river scenary, depending on how the scenary is done

John

Loving your new basing BigRedBat …stunning stuff.
Personally I'm not basing anything under 120mm these days no matter what scale or game system. In fact just started a new 10mm project …they're going on 120 wide bases also

If you fancy sabotting individually based Ancient/Medieval/Fantasy figures, here are some sabots aimed at slotta based troops:

link

And some of them are 80mm wide:

Those Numidians look very attractive but could something similarly striking be achieved using groups of 4 80mm x 80mm bases for ADLG whilst maintaining an obvious direction of facing of the individual units?

Precision cut mdf basing/sabots is a good way to go if you don't fancy rebasing your collection with an optional dice slot for commanders though if starting fresh with 28mm plastics I'd go for fixed basing to achieve the 6,8 and 12 man bases indicator for mediums, heavies and pikes and to cut hand contact of plastics to virtually zero.

If you're happy handing the figures then removal of a single figure and replacement with a similarly based unit indicator element (wounded or dead soldier?) is an option here.

With slots (round or square) 6 man medium bases can have quite a bit of variety but I'd still be tempted to go for 8 man slot bases with a 3,2,3 or 2,3,2 positioning for indicating heavies with 3,3,3 reserved for pike though of course.

Laser cutting is quite versatile so don't be put off inquiring with fancy requests for 15mm circular slots for figure removal or recessing permanently attached plastic figures bases or similar or holes for placing indicator flags or crinkly base edges and suchlike.

Yup, 80mm frontage (minimum) for 28mm definitely seems the way to go. And for AdG, leaving a subtly disguised spot on the rear of the base for a little cohesion marker to sit is a great idea. Thanks for that one!

Cheers

Seen some well done 80mm bases with a small (disguised) box on one rear corner for either a small die or casualty markers.

Tried out BRB's silver coins as casualty markers the other day (ADLG) and they certainly stand out – sit quite well on the rear edge of my movement trays. No actual clutter on the table mat. Could build a small box out of card onto the corner of the movement tray??

I'm thinking of a small circular recession at the back on which a helmet with coloured plume will sit. ;)

(You could do the same thing with a shield. And instead of different colours, you could have 1-x arrows stuck in them to denote cohesion points lost…)

Cheers

I switched to 80mm frontages almost 20 years ago.

I was doing Redoubt Turks/Poles, and simply could not put three of those massive cavalry on a base. I figured that since I was doing both sides, I could go to 80mm.

It has been my standard ever since.

Cannot disagree. Any army ancient or modern can benefit from this kind of system. Check out some of the blogs and see for yourself.