"HOTT with Warhammer figures - larger basing" Topic

Has anyone tried Warhammer figures to play HOTT? Did you upsize the elements? How did it work out?

I've just received HOTT 2.1 and will try out with Warhammer fantasy figures, which are individually based and go into movement trays. I've never played any DBA type game before.

Based on a quick scan through the rules, I'm thinking of the following:
– using the old small Warhammer movement trays as my basic element. These trays are 100x50mm, holding 10 regular infantry (20mm square), 8 irregular infantry (25mm square), 4 cavalry (25x50mm) or 2 Ogres (40mm square). There are also large movement trays which are 100x100mm.
- This means an element frontage of 100mm versus 60mm per the HOTT rules, and a depths of:
- 50mm for most units (2 ranks or 1 rank cavalry).
- 25mm for blades/spears (1 rank).
- 100mm for Behemoths (Ogre figures, monsters).
- 100mm for Dragons/Airboats.

The optional DBA 3.0 rule of 1 element width (100mm) equaling 100 paces seems attractive. Otherwise 2"/50mm = 100 paces seems right scaling.

For the play area I'll start with the recommended 900mm/36" inches but I wonder if we'll want maneuver room and expand to 48" or bigger?

Anyway, I appreciate any constructive thoughts on this.

When using modern 28mm figures for any DBx game where the 60mm base width was devised with the old school 25mm figures in mind, you generally have two options:

(1) Keep the 60mm base width but use fewer figures (that's the approach I took – advantage is that armies are even easier to field and you can fight opponents with older based armies, disadvantage is that fewer figures equals less visual impact); or

(2) Expand the base frontage, and adjust the movement distances (and battlefield dimensions) accordingly.

Both are valid approaches. If you're joining or hope to join an existing HotT player base then option (1) is probably the way you'll go, but if you think you'll end up providing all the armies for your battles then maybe (2) will give more visual appeal. Horses for courses…

I doubled the 15mm base sizes(so 80mmx30mm, 80mmx40mm, 80mmx 60mm, etc.). Fits on a 4'x4' table. Oh – and of course double all move distances and ranges.

We play 15mm DBA on 25mm-scale bases (60mm frontage) using double the number of figures per base. We play 25mm as per the rules. We use 48" x 48" mats for both.

I have wondered about sizing up 25mm bases sizes as you have described so that I could use my individually-based Warhammer figures as well (instead, I have two sets of armies). I rather like the idea of using Warhammer "unit" sizes as the basis for HoTT basing, with the qualifier of needing to keep frontages consistent. If I went with 100mm frontages, I would upsize to a 6' x 4' mat—you don't need the extra depth but you definitely need the extra width,

Thanks for the responses.

Eumelus
(1) Keep the 60mm base width but use fewer figures …
(2) Expand the base frontage, and adjust the movement distances (and battlefield dimensions) accordingly.

… If you're joining or hope to join an existing HotT player base then option (1) is probably the way you'll go, but if you think you'll end up providing all the armies for your battles then maybe (2) will give more visual appeal.

Yes I'm definitely with #2. I have multiple Warhammer armies, and would be engaging with other owners of Warhammer armies. I've never heard of HOTT or DBA around here (Los Angeles, CA) but in the future if I encounter a HOTT player group, in the short term I can make smaller movement trays and use fewer figures, then in the long term build up some dedicated HOTT armies. It's clearly an easier time investment than a Warhammer army.

YogiBearMinis
If I went with 100mm frontages, I would upsize to a 6' x 4' mat.

Very helpful. I'm going to play a few trial games with 4x4' but I expect it will feel cramped and will broaden. Warhammer players are used to 6x4' so that's a nice fit.

Dave Gamer 20 May 2022 8:06 a.m. PST
I doubled the 15mm base sizes(so 80mmx30mm, 80mmx40mm, 80mmx 60mm, etc.). Fits on a 4'x4' table.

I thought of this initially because using 20mm square bases (regular infantry) an 80mm frontage is 4 models, or 8 in 2 ranks, and 25mm square bases (Orcs, Saurus, Chaos Warriors irregular infantry) is 3 or 6 in 2 ranks, and 2 40mm bases fit (Ogres, Kroxigors, small monsters). This figure count is good map to the HOTT rules so I may try it, although the truth is many Warhammer players already have a small pile of the 100x50mm movement trays which argues for this size.

15mm … Oh – and of course double all move distances and ranges.

So in other words 50mm/2" = 100 paces.

I quite like how these rules pick a measurement increment and convert it to paces, then give all the ranges in paces.

There is a Hott variant based on the new DBA 3.0.It uses Band width to measure, so there is no need to calculate anything new.

link

Decebalus, thank you for suggesting the D3H2 rules. I read through them and although I haven't read DBA3 yet, I think I followed well enough. I especially like all the additional troop types, although it seems several of the knight types are omitted (the charts show Kn and 6Kn but the rules also mention other numbered Kns.)

The challenge for my project is D3H2 requires 60mm element width. This works out fine for regular Warhammer infantry on 20mm square bases because three figures fills out the element completely and fits the figure count. Where it falls short are the Warhammer large or irregular infantry on 25mm square, the cavalry on 25x50mm rectangular, both fitting only 2 wide, and monstrous infantry on 40mm square, fitting only a single figure. This results in minimum or below minimum figure counts, and bear in mind, we're drawing from armies that have multiples of these painted figures, so using such minimal figure amounts is not a preferred result.

If my experiment with HOTT using 100 mm Warhammer movement trays has positive results, I may return to D3H2 adapting for the larger elements, as I quite like the idea of compatibility with the latest DBA, and love the additional troop types.

Decebalus, I just realized what you probably meant. D3H2 does say base (element) size is 60mm and shouldn't be changed, but if you ignore the measurement part of it, every other distance is given in BW (base widths), so it should easily adapt to any desired element width, as long as that is consistent for all elements.

Just finished my first solo game of HoTT using generic goblin and generic elves list. I'd say it was a success as the units felt like they were supposed to.

As discussed I used Warhammer figures and 100mm/4" width for my elements. I used 48x48" play area and 2"=100 paces. It didn't seemed cramped, especially once I realized I had to group elements to conserve PIPs. I had everybody recoil 2" no matter what.

It took me a while to get used to the concept that 1:1 combats mostly ended in recoil and it took bringing in overlap or flanking units to break that deadlock.

The PIP concept is the big difference, I think. I had one wing fight by itself until it stalemated and then the other parts of the table started moving. I guess historical battles were like that too though?

I've ordered DBA3 so I can have a better reference for what D3H2 is doing.

If you play more games you will see the elegance of the DBx system. Recoils in groups having the effect, that you need more PIPs IMO is a brilliant concept.

Yes I have no problem with PIPs as a mechanism once I processed that they pair with groups, and adjusted my element positioning accordingly.

Certainly players will have a learning curve who come from IgoYougo systems and expect to move all their units every turn, but that's the whole point.

For HOTT, one factor is that Magicians require PIPs (usually 2 or more) to do their stuff, which can mean the general has to choose between Magician or rest of the army. I assume the general has the same dilemma only more pronounced when summoning Gods (6 PIPs), Dragons (6 PIPs) and Lurkers (only on specific turns, 1 PIP first time, 2 PIPs second etc).

And I read the introduction so I get why the system has recoils – a real general would not know detailed state of those far off units as to wounds, morale whatever – he would see them engage, the enemy fight them off, his unit withdraw maintaining cohesion, and be ready to re-engage or otherwise act. And the general should be thinking about how to get another unit over to support, or what might happen if he has to send them back in without support.

Revisiting this topic – I hosted a successful HOTT game this weekend of generic medieval versus generic reptilian using Warhammer figures. I refereed and the players all learned the rules at the same time.

I've settled on a 48x48" board with element width of 4.25" / 106mm which is the old Warhammer movement trays, with 3 element depths: small (25mm depth), medium (50mm depth), and large (100mm depth). I'm using 100 paces = 50mm / 2", and I've continued using 2" recoil for all units.

This game was staged as narrative from a D&D campaign, with 2 D&D players taking the medieval army and a Warhammer Lizardman army owner running the reptilians.

The one rule I/we all missed was we allowed flanked units who lost combat to recoil, not realizing they are destroyed.

At the one-hour mark the former WFB player said, "What turn are we on? 4? We're already doing like 3 hours better than a WFB game."

As a play aid I created cards for each unit type so the players would have them for reference, for movement and combat factors. These seemed very helpful and I'll add more detail to them for future games. Also I made about a dozen small movement trays the day before the game (styrene sheet with rails and sheet metal magnetic inserts) and painted about 18 trays or so, so there was enough for 2 armies.

To reflect the D&D narrative, I added some special rules – the human players used D4 for PIPs but had 3 cards that could be played for +1 PIP for certain unit types reflecting their D&D characters. The reptilian player used D6 for PIPs but counted river as bad going and swamp as good going, reflecting aquatic nature. The board was Xed by a river and a road. Also there was a dragon sitting on the reptillian stronghold that secretly was not part of the army; at about turn 6 it flew off the table which enacted a special rule whereby the reptilian player could gain defeated army point equivalents by exiting elements off one table edge. In the D&D campaign the reptilians were trying to run away.

The human army won by capturing the reptilians stronghold, which fit the D&D campaign narrative. (Next D&D game the characters will explore the abandoned reptile cave complex.)

All the players seemed satisfied with the game mechanics and the WFB player wants to do future games with our figures and these rules.