Playerone | 28 Feb 2007 5:11 p.m. PST |
I placed an order for 1" square infantry bases to Litko last week and 1"x2" bases for mounted because I simply gave up trying to figure out how to conform to this WRG standard rules writters blindly swear will fit my figures for "official tournament armies". I simply can not fit most 28mm ranges which now have a wide variety of poses on a 15mm x 20mm or even 20mm x 20mm infantry bases without shaving off metal and feet, and having figures chaffing the paint off each other from tipping issues and lack of stability. That scale may have worked way back in the day when 1/72 plastic was common and Jack Scruby's was selling his figs for 15 cents each but not any more. |
The Nigerian Lead Minister | 28 Feb 2007 5:24 p.m. PST |
I concur. I base on 1" square for individual figures for the same reason. |
(Blank Name) | 28 Feb 2007 5:34 p.m. PST |
Choir
Father Saltarello. Father Saltarello
the Choir
|
John the OFM | 28 Feb 2007 5:36 p.m. PST |
"Warrior", which has taken up the toprch for WRG 7th edition, is the closest to "WRG" games now. It has an ammendmen on the 4 Horsemen website for "30mm" figure frontages. It is now an 80mm base frontage. I have tried it, and 4 Redoubt Mycenaean pikemen can fit on it easily, even with the huge shields. Unfortunately, I have seen no tournaments using this frontage, but it IS "official". With DB(X), the dirty little secret is that the number of figures on the base is actually irrelevant. Sure, they say in the rules how many figures should be on the "element", but you can play it very well with a lesser number. As long as you (and your understanding opponent) know that the base is supposed to be Kn(X), you do NOT need to base 4 figures on it. Frankly, THAT was often impossible even with "true 25mm" figures. Hinchliffe Nikephorean Byzantines, anyone? |
Condottiere | 28 Feb 2007 5:36 p.m. PST |
I always thought that the so-called "WRG bases" should increase to twice that of 15mm for 28mm figures, or 80mm wide instead of 60mm. If you weren't all that interested in tournaments, etc., then you could simply base them that way and use the 15mm scale rules doubled. Well, an idea anyway. |
John the OFM | 28 Feb 2007 5:37 p.m. PST |
|
XRaysVision | 28 Feb 2007 6:00 p.m. PST |
The ONLY reason for the number of figures per base is to identify the troop types. The base size given need only be used if you plan to play against someone else in a pick-up game or tournament. Otherwise base as you wish as long as opponents are based the same you will have no problems. All measurements are provided in "paces" which you can make any length your playing space can tolerate. To change the "official" base size would cause hundreds, if not thousands, of DBx players the world 'round to rebase their existing armies! That is simply impractical. The problem is the mammoth size of figures. Every manufacturer wants the coolest, most detailed, most imposing figures on the market. The consequence is scale creep and figures that can't fit into games. One of the worst offenders is GW. Orks will NOT fit together into a movement stand without endless fiddling about figuring out which pose needs to be put next to which so the bases can placed next to each other. It's stupid! The super-large 28mm "heroic" scale figures are NOT required to have detailed figures. Just take a look at Thunderbolt Mountain's Arthurian Range (true 25's). |
elrond hubbard 3 | 28 Feb 2007 6:22 p.m. PST |
While "my" group mounted 25/28mm figures for DBA on standard 60mm wide bases, we dropped one from the recommended figure total (e.g., 3 figures for Pk, Sp or Bd, 2 for Ax and Cv, 1 for LH and Psi, etc.). They look good while retaining the standard frontage convention. |
Bardolph | 28 Feb 2007 7:07 p.m. PST |
I ran into this problem just this week as I decided to finally put the box of old Warhammer figs back to work as HOTT armies after a 15 year hiatus. GW figs just dont fit 60mm frontages. Yes, I can put less figs on, but a base of 2 orcs looks like psiloi, not blades or warband. I've heard the thousands of players would have to rebase argument. Well, I for one would gladly rebase for such an improvement (of course I tend to rebase my armies more often than most, I suffer from basing indecision). It's not that big a deal, and I imagine most folks out there have had to rebase their figs before. Besides, if Phil says so, it is LAW
Locally, we are going 80mm frontage for HOTT. Everyone thats interested and all our likely converts have GW figs or Reaper if they have any fantasy at all. |
aecurtis | 28 Feb 2007 7:37 p.m. PST |
The "30mm basing" scheme for Warrior works fine. A copy can be viewed at: link There's also a copy on the Warrior Yahoo group. If you can't see the one on my site, it's because I am just about to migrate servers--it might take place as soon as tonight, so view quickly! Allen |
baca442 | 28 Feb 2007 9:01 p.m. PST |
Aecurtis you are right the 30mm baseing works fine with the new larger figs. but does anyone at the HMGS cons. play with the 30mm baseing? |
BigRedBat | 01 Mar 2007 2:04 a.m. PST |
Hi, I've a number of 28mm armies (Caesarians, Spartans, Vikings and Picts are a selection; perhaps 1200 minis), and I've managed to base them all to WRG, despite having a penchant for overblown 28's, like the Foundry Vikings. The one major concession I've needed to make, is to increase base DEPTHS on all cavalry bases, to 60mm. I've also increased depth on some foot units from 20 to 30mm; especially irregulars. The deeper bases permit more aesthetic posing, plus clumps of grass and the odd casualty mini. I prefer to buy foot figures in standing poses, sometimes with vertical spears (always vertical pikes!), to make ranking & storage easier. Increased base depths used to be OK with WRG, I wonder whether that's still the case? If so I'd recommend this solution. Simon |
Martin Rapier | 01 Mar 2007 12:35 p.m. PST |
1/72nd scale plastic figures (ie 'proper' 25mm figs) fit fine on the 25mm recommended DBA bases sizes. Unfortunately they won't fit on the 15mm bases as I'd originally hoped! (well, some will). |
Aloysius the Gaul | 01 Mar 2007 2:09 p.m. PST |
1/72nd isn't "proper" 25mm tho!! :) |
Playerone | 01 Mar 2007 8:54 p.m. PST |
1/72nd is closer to 20mm and yes it works with standard DBx base sizes. However chunky 28mm does not. TMP link I am not into tournament play usually. Once maybe every three or five years if I make it up to Lancaster PA I might enter one just to play, not for the sake of competition. Winning or loosing makes no difference and people collecting and playing 28mm Ancients and Medieval armies are very rare where I live. I like to keep my figures individually based and prefer to remove casualties in whole figures rather than littering nice looking terrain with casualty rings, pipe cleaners, etc. Seriously though I believe it is time for rules system designers to wake up and adopt a new basing standard to accommodate recent ranges. Miniature ranges have evolved and so should the rules. 25mm square is 1 inch square and works for infantry. 25mm x 50mm is 1 inch by 2 inches and works for most cavalry. Those is metric based societies complain about playing games based in inches. Those in the states complain about metric based games. If both sides used the 25mm and 1 inch units for basing and measurements all problems with disparity among rules systems would be solved. |
BigRedBat | 02 Mar 2007 1:27 a.m. PST |
>25mm square is 1 inch square and works for infantry. Personally I feel 25mm per man frontage is too wide, especially for close order troops such as pike and spearmen. I find 15mm per man more aesthetically pleasing. In scale, this equates to roughly 3' real-world frontage per man, which feels right to me. 25mm per man gives 5' frontage, which just seems too wide. Besides, a 25mm square base occupies more than twice as much table/storage space, as my 15x20s; and space is at a premium for me. I'd say that the 80mm-frontage element idea has merits; but again it would lead to table size and storage issues. Also, personally, I've far too much effort invested in 60mm to ever consider rebasing. Re 60mm; some manufacturers minis/ranges rank up easily on a 15mm frontage; others don't. Most Foundry work OK (not all the Vikings, though!). Black Tree, for example, often don't, because they stand oddly, and sometimes hold their shields far away from their bodies. I go with the ranges that work! Simon |
stenicplus | 02 Mar 2007 3:21 a.m. PST |
The other cosideration of going 80mm width for HOTT in 25s/28s is that youd have to effectively double the 15mm scale board size and all movement & range distances to retain the same relative distances. Otherwise wheeling your nice column of blades could take a while :) Buy figure that fit better, manufacturers will soon work it out. Steve P |
BigRedBat | 02 Mar 2007 3:45 a.m. PST |
Hi Steve! I don't want to have to rebase my HoTT stuff, either. :-) Simon |
(Change Name) | 04 Mar 2007 10:52 p.m. PST |
The answer is simple: you simply do not play rules which do not work for your figures. If DBx does not work with your figures, don't play DBx. |
BigRedBat | 05 Mar 2007 1:26 a.m. PST |
Strangely in view of the topic of this thread, WRG Rules don't work for me*; but WRG basing does. I really like the elements, which can become very pretty dioramas, and the appearance of which I prefer to single figure basing. They are very practical for storage, too. Simon *except I do retain great affection for HOTT and DBA, even though I don't often play them |
stenicplus | 05 Mar 2007 2:02 p.m. PST |
Hi Simon :) Hope you've booked Berkeley weekend for this year !! Bring the family (well, game playing ones anyway). Steve |
(Change Name) | 06 Mar 2007 2:26 a.m. PST |
[I really like the elements, which can become very pretty dioramas, and the appearance of which I prefer to single figure basing. They are very practical for storage, too.] All true, but for the existence of the idiot game designers, all of whom demand different basing systems. The reason for mounting individually is that it creats a "lowest common denominator" Sabots can be created to meeth the requirements of the game of the moment and the basing system demanded by the idiot game designer of the moment. Individually mounted figures can be placed in those sabots to play THAT game. When another idiot game designer comes along with another game of the moment with a different basing scheme, new sabots can be developed, eliminating the need to rebase thousands of figures. |
BigRedBat | 06 Mar 2007 3:43 a.m. PST |
" idiot game designers, all of whom demand different basing systems" Well, outside of WAB, WRG is probably the nearest to a convention, in that many other systems conform to it (more or less); that's why I use it. If they change the base sizes, I won't change mine; I've too much effort and magnabase invested in basing my minis. But happily, Phil Barker is pretty conservative. :-) I don't much like sabots, or GW pedestal-style bases, because I aesthetically prefer thin bases that keep the figures as near as possible to the table surface. All of mine are around 2mm thick, and I'd go thinner, if it was practical. Cheers Simon |
Bardolph | 07 Mar 2007 1:57 p.m. PST |
Doubling 15mm measurements gives you a 4x4 foot board, standard size, easily available at yer local giant hardware place. Besides, didn't DBA until fairly recently use 4x4 boards for 25/28mm? And DBM still uses 4x6, or does it? I don't play DBM lol. Also means simply doubling the move rates, not terribly hard to do. Buy figure that fit better, manufacturers will soon work it out. The thing is, as far as HOTT goes, who do you think has sold the largest number of fantasy figs to the gaming population at large? There are a heck of a lot of people who have Warhammer stuff, if you make it difficult to use those figs you're cutting off a huge potential player base. Heck, even I have a bunch of WH figs, and I detested the game. |
(Change Name) | 07 Mar 2007 11:56 p.m. PST |
[Well, outside of WAB, WRG is probably the nearest to a convention, in that many other systems conform to it (more or less)] As has been noted in another thread, the problem with the WRG system is that it does not work very well for the newer 28mm-30mm figures. Only an idiot game designer would insist on a basing system which is too small to accomodate the figures out there, and persist in demanding that gamers use that system, when it is obvious that it is too small. |
BigRedBat | 08 Mar 2007 2:27 a.m. PST |
Well, Zarquon, all I can say is that it works fine for me!* Simon *Although it's worth noting that I do increase some base depths. |
Pyruse | 08 Mar 2007 9:31 a.m. PST |
It works for me, too. Even the big Vendel figures fit. Sabots seem like a good idea until you pick one up by a figure by accident and all the figures fall off
.. I find it easier to play games requiring single based figures with multi-based figures than the other way round. |
BigRedBat | 09 Mar 2007 1:54 a.m. PST |
and sabot-based minis can take a long time to set up; I also reckon that they are also more liable to damage in transit. Simon |
(Change Name) | 10 Mar 2007 1:42 a.m. PST |
[I find it easier to play games requiring single based figures with multi-based figures than the other way round.] I actually played around with multi-basing for a number of years, and have finally abandoned it. It's fine if you stay with one game system and don't plan on playing any other rules. It is also find if one is only playing one variant of one army; but it is problematic for armies like Vikings which can have 3 or 4 figures per base; it may also limit the ability to morph figures. And every idiot game designer wants his own basing scheme. Then there is the WRG scheme, which was workable for 25mm figures 20 years ago, but is completely impractical given the size of the figuers being produced. Yes, I guess one can buy a pack of figures, and discard half of them because they don't fit. The guys who complain about rebasing are generally using armies that they purchased years ago. And multi-basing does not work well for skirmish and siege games, which is probably one of the reasons we don't see that many of either for this period. All in all, I prefer the flexibility. |
BigRedBat | 10 Mar 2007 2:13 a.m. PST |
I can only say that I'm staring at several tall stacks of clear plastic boxes full of finely painted minis, every man (and beast) based for WRG; and I'm yet to discard a mini on account of size. I do tend to avoid buying spear and pikemen with levelled weapons, but I'd do that, anyhow, if I was playing WAB. My biggest mini, despite having a 24 inch wide wingspan, is based on a 6 x 12cm WRG base! It'll be at Salute along with most of my other minis in April. Simon |
stenicplus | 13 Mar 2007 6:43 a.m. PST |
"My biggest mini, despite having a 24 inch wide wingspan" "mini" being some what of a misnomer :) If you haven't seen this mini do try to see if you get to Salute, well worth it. Of course I'd never be so rude as to suggest Simon was compensating
;) Steve P
|
BigRedBat | 13 Mar 2007 7:22 a.m. PST |
Steve, LOL! Will you be at Salute? Greg's coming over. Judging by the size of his terrain, he must REALLY be compensating! ;) Simon |
Pyruse | 13 Mar 2007 9:50 a.m. PST |
Zarquon wrote: actually played around with multi-basing for a number of years, and have finally abandoned it. It's fine if you stay with one game system and don't plan on playing any other rules. <snip> And every idiot game designer wants his own basing scheme. ---------------- That's clearly not true. If you base using the standard WRG scheme, you can use the figures for WRG, DBA, DBM, DBMM, Warmaster Ancients, Warhammer Ancients, Strategos, Armati, Conquerors and Kings, and Art of War. Even Vis Bellica with a small change. There are probably other rules, too. What rules is this basing system incompatible with? I've not seen any rules which depart form the 'standard' scheme apart from WAB, which is perfectly playable with element-based figures. Zarquon wrote: Then there is the WRG scheme, which was workable for 25mm figures 20 years ago, but is completely impractical given the size of the figuers being produced. -------------- I've found the WRG basing perfectly practical with large modern 28mm figures. |
(Change Name) | 14 Mar 2007 12:04 a.m. PST |
[If you base using the standard WRG scheme, you can use the figures for WRG, DBA, DBM, DBMM, Warmaster Ancients, Warhammer Ancients] What you are really saying is that if you base to the WRG scheme, they work with the WRG rules and a few other sets. WRG basing really does not work for Warhammer. In a pinch it is O.K. But I remember playing in a WAB tournament against an opponent who based using the WRG system, and it really did cause some problems. [I've found the WRG basing perfectly practical with large modern 28mm figures.] Particularly if you base on multiple levels! I gave up when I measured my Old Glory Byzanties and found that they were 23mm from one side to the other. I just could not figure how to get four of them (89mm across) on a 60mm frontage. I also could not figure out how to get the 50mm long horses onto a 40mm deep stand. The Norman infantry worked better as long as I kept a 10-20mm gap between the stands. I just think it is wasteful to throw away half a bag of Old Glory figures just to pick out the ones that fit. |
BigRedBat | 14 Mar 2007 1:48 a.m. PST |
>if you base to the WRG scheme, they work with the WRG rules and a few other sets. For the majority of rulesets other than WAB
Simon |
Pyruse | 14 Mar 2007 2:53 a.m. PST |
I wrote: If you base using the standard WRG scheme, you can use the figures for WRG, DBA, DBM, DBMM, Warmaster Ancients, Warhammer Ancients, Strategos, Armati, Conquerors and Kings, and Art of War. Even Vis Bellica with a small change. There are probably other rules, too. --------------- Zarquon said: [If you base using the standard WRG scheme, you can use the figures for WRG, DBA, DBM, DBMM, Warmaster Ancients, Warhammer Ancients] ------------ Well, that's a nice bit of selective quoting. I give a long list and you snip most of it and then claim it's only a few rules. Thanks a lot. It's *all* ancient rules, with the arguable exception of WAB (which I find plays fine with multi-based figures). WAB is the one with the odd basing, since no other rules require you to single base your figures. If all you want to play is WAB, by all means single base – but please don't try and maintain that only a few rules use element basing – pretty much all ancient rules apart from WAB do so, and they all use compatible basing schemes. If you want to be compatible with the maximum number of rules, base your figures as elements. |