Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Dave Smith]

I know the standard WRG conventions. Would a 60mm x 40mm base with 7
figures (instead of cause any problems with Warrior. I realize
this would prohibit single base depth formations, but other than
that, any difficulties?

Dave

[Kelly Wilkinson]

What would Terry Say?


Kelly

--- David Smith <davidsmith@...> wrote:
> I know the standard WRG conventions. Would a 60mm x
> 40mm base with 7
> figures (instead of cause any problems with
> Warrior. I realize
> this would prohibit single base depth formations,
> but other than
> that, any difficulties?
>
> Dave
>
>


__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/

I have some of my roman figures double based, it restricts slightly what
formations I can place my MI in but the convenience in additional stability
for the elements is well worth it. What figures were you thinking of double
basing? Pikemen and roman legionaires usually do well double based.

Jamie White

-----Original Message-----
From: kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Basing


>What would Terry Say?
>
>
> Kelly
>
>--- David Smith <davidsmith@...> wrote:
>> I know the standard WRG conventions. Would a 60mm x
>> 40mm base with 7
>> figures (instead of cause any problems with
>> Warrior. I realize
>> this would prohibit single base depth formations,
>> but other than
>> that, any difficulties?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
>Donate cash, emergency relief information
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Seven figures would mean you'd pick up CPFs (an fatigue) at a
slightly faster rate. You'd need some understanding with your
opponent about how to handle such things.

Probably make tournament play complicated, but not impossible.

I assume you are talking 25mm with the 60mm frontage.

Double depth bases are perfectly okay. Aren't they specifically
endorsed in the rules for some troop types?

John


--- In WarriorRules@y..., "David Smith" <davidsmith@k...> wrote:
> I know the standard WRG conventions. Would a 60mm x 40mm base with
7
> figures (instead of cause any problems with Warrior. I realize
> this would prohibit single base depth formations, but other than
> that, any difficulties?
>
> Dave

kelly wilkinson wrote:

What would Terry Say?

***As you know, Terry endorses this basing scheme to fit the larger
25mm. 7 figures representing 8, with additional 'single' stands for
casualty removal. But, Terry's rules are AW/MW/RW, and I was
wondering works for Warrior, hence my posting to this list...you big
dummy.

D

"James White" wrote:

What figures were you thinking of double basing? Pikemen and roman
legionaires usually do well double based.

***Jamie;

I have a 25/28mm Foundry Early German army that is currently single
based for WAB, and some that are on double bases for Ancient Warfare
(but only 7 as opposed to 8 figures). So, these are MI.

Dave

johnfmeunier@a... wrote:

Seven figures would mean you'd pick up CPFs (an fatigue) at a
slightly faster rate. You'd need some understanding with your
opponent about how to handle such things. Probably make tournament
play complicated, but not impossible.

I assume you are talking 25mm with the 60mm frontage. Double depth
bases are perfectly okay. Aren't they specifically endorsed in the
rules for some troop types?


***John;

Yes, the second generation 25mm (actually 28-30mm) figures are a real
challenge to squeeze into basing conventions used 25 years ago.
Terry Gore suggests using double bases ( 60 x 40 ) and placing 7
figures on the double base which actually represents 2 stands of 4
each. Most opponents don't even realize you only have 7 and not 8
figures on the bases.

Dave

[joncleaves]

Ok with FHE if you base 7 for 8 and just count it as 8. Or any otger
alternative basing method where:

-both sides use the same frontage/depths
-the figure equivalents of an element and those behind it stay the same as
the standard and are counted as such in combat

Jon

[joncleaves]

FHE does not endorse using less figs per frontage/depth AND counting them
that way for combat. Game is not balanced for that.

I have just fallen upon this group and realised I must have been in
a cave for the last year or so. I had convinced myself that WRG 7th
edition was dead, and had started immersing myself in WAB, when all
of a sudden I discover not only it is not dead but it is updated
improved and most of all alive and kicking in the US!

I am a UK based wargamer (and figure manufacturer) who's main
interest is 25mm Ancients (yes - I still play 7th Ed in 25mm, and if
there is anyone in Somerset on the list...)

My problem is this, and I think John the OFM brought it up a few days
ago. Basing.

Problem 1. I like for example the 25x50 cavalry bases in WAB, a
complete mounted unit has the right look about it, it is quite a
squash with 40x20 given the size of 25mm figures is no longer 25mm,
if you follow my drift. 3 infantry fits nice on a 60mm frontage, but
now you have two different element sizes - 3 infantry on 60mm and two
cavalry on 50mm

Problem 2. 3 MI on a 60mm frontage looks like Irregular LMI. I cant
use a unit of 18 MI and say they are really 24, that doesnt sit well
with me.

The problem with 7th ed is the base sizes are too small for todays
figures

The problem with WAB is they have "copped out" of making a decision
to standardise base sizes.

Does anyone play both and have a good way of resolving the issue?

Barry Lee
www.whitexgames.co.uk

PS I am now off to Caliver Books to order my copy.

[joncleaves]

Steve Schifani has his dark age troops based on magnetic disks. When he
plays WAB, they get stuck on individual bases (20x20, 25x50, etc) when he
plays Warrior (or any of the other dozen games that blissfully use the same
basing system as Warrior, unlike the rogue WAB) he sticks them on metal
Warrior-sized bases in the correct ratio of figs to base.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

This whole basing thing is perplexing to me. I don't get it. I am in
the process of basing some cataphracts and have based hundreds of close order
romans. My figures are all Old Glory or Foundry and I use the beveled
Renaissance Ink bases, which means a little less basing space on top. Some,
SOME work has been required, but minimal. File down a rider's foot that is
sticking out too much in the interior of some cathaphracts. Adjust the angle
the figures are facing on the base, minimally. Use wire cutters to clip the
base of the figure to size. If the figure has a particularly wide stance,
clip out the middle of the base and draw the two ends together or at least
towards each other. Paint the figures before they are mounted and then adjust
them until they fit the base. I am still quite new at the 25mm thing with
only 500 or so figures thus far, so obviously cannot speak from vast
experiences. I am, however, concerned about the "liberalization" of our
rules as we try to accomodate.

The game is about the bases. The figures provide intelligence about the
unit's statistics etc, but the game which is measured in millimeters is all
about the bases. Thus far we have not allowed the increase in element
frontage, but have allowed the deepening, with the caveat that such cannot be
allowed to benefit the offending (used just for syntax not in an accusatory
manner) player. Still we hear about the difficulty of basing. The base
depth provides a player planning something to himself information he may not
want to draw his opponent's attention to. In 25mm, for example, a 30mm deep
base says loose order and thus a more juicey cav target. An entire classical
army based as loose order LTS will be confusing. Which are peltast types or
perhaps hypastists? Which are the close order? We are not so dogmatic as
our brothers across the pond that figures must look exactly like the troops
they represnt, so it is not uncommon to see jls armed troops proclaimed to
have longer weapons or visa versa. So the base tells us things. Now maybe
not.

Here in DFW we are all relatively new to 25mm. We use a wide, if not the
entire, spectrum of manufacturers. We have cataphracts, elephants, lots of
loose order cav and probably somewhere close to 1000 close order foot armed
with all assortments of weapons. We have not experienced the difficulties
proclaimed and have worked to stay within the rules. So I just don't get the
source of consternation and difficulty. Long wind just warning against the
slippery slope I see on every hill I encounter.
Chris

[scott holder]

25mm *is* still 25mm, well, at least in most cases it is.

Basing depth is obviously something we have tried to make allowances for
in the B&W spaces of the rules. Now whether or not that works
effectively in a real-world tourney environment is another issue.

Basing width we really can't do anything about. One of the benefits of
WRG hegemony (until perhaps the last 3 years) in ancient wargaming was
the standardization of basing and width, well, from a gaming standpoint,
that's so important, we can't just finagle it away.

I honestly think this is where figure manufacturers (sorry Barry) need
to take this into account when developing products. I put the onus on
manufacturers because the proverbial basing horse has already left the
barn. Waaay too many people (raising my hand) have something close to
10,000 25mm figures all nicely mounted for the "wrg standard" and it's
unrealistic for anyone to expect that to change.

Barry, thanks for joining. This gaming system is alive and well here
and we'd like it to be alive and well in the UK. Please spread the
word, don't forget to get the army list books, and of course visit us at
www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com.

Scott
List Ho

>>> emperorbaz1@... 4/12/02 2:29:00 AM >>>
I have just fallen upon this group and realised I must have been in
a cave for the last year or so. I had convinced myself that WRG 7th
edition was dead, and had started immersing myself in WAB, when all
of a sudden I discover not only it is not dead but it is updated
improved and most of all alive and kicking in the US!

I am a UK based wargamer (and figure manufacturer) who's main
interest is 25mm Ancients (yes - I still play 7th Ed in 25mm, and if
there is anyone in Somerset on the list...)

My problem is this, and I think John the OFM brought it up a few days
ago. Basing.

Problem 1. I like for example the 25x50 cavalry bases in WAB, a
complete mounted unit has the right look about it, it is quite a
squash with 40x20 given the size of 25mm figures is no longer 25mm,
if you follow my drift. 3 infantry fits nice on a 60mm frontage, but
now you have two different element sizes - 3 infantry on 60mm and two
cavalry on 50mm

Problem 2. 3 MI on a 60mm frontage looks like Irregular LMI. I cant
use a unit of 18 MI and say they are really 24, that doesnt sit well
with me.

The problem with 7th ed is the base sizes are too small for todays
figures

The problem with WAB is they have "copped out" of making a decision
to standardise base sizes.

Does anyone play both and have a good way of resolving the issue?

Barry Lee
www.whitexgames.co.uk

PS I am now off to Caliver Books to order my copy.







To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

So, Scott, if I were to take 4 Redoubt Mycenaean pikemen and base them as
Regular LMI, which is the only way I can fit those giants on 60mm frontage,
I would be OK? Phil actually took this step with DBR. EVERYBODY is LMI.
That may be fine with wide-elbows Mycenaeans or Foundry and OG hoplites
doing gymnastics, but what about SHC? Heck, even some HC have this problem.
I feel your pain about 10,000 figures based to 25mm "WRG standard." I don't
know if I am that bad, because I absolutely refuse to conduct a census. Let
my heirs sort it out.
The problem is that WRG basing is no longer the only game in town. WAB has
wider basing, and many, if not the majority, of WAB players come over from
the Warhammer universe where the figures come with pre-cast bases. All WFB
cavalry come with 25mm x 50mm bases in the blister. Modern figures are
sculpted to fit on these bases, and even then they sometimes do not fit
well.
Sculptors working in the fantasy field also do historical figures, and it is
un-realistic to expect them to hold to two standards.
At least many of the manufacturers advertise their newest models as 28mm.
This problem has been with us for a long time. I took a 10 year sabbatical
from wargaming in 1986, and even back then, it was impossible to base Essex
or Garrison SHC on correct WRG bases. The problem has only gotten worse.
Either the game has to give, or adapt, or the figures have to shrink. I am
not holding my breath on the latter.
The bottom line is that if I buy Redoubt Mycenaeans, I cannot base them
legally for Warrior. Someone just coming into Ancients gaming who makes
these figures his first choice will not even try to use Warrior, but will go
to WAB instead. The same goes for anyone starting out with Foundry Steve
Saleh Romans, latest hoplites, etc. Us old timers with our Minifigs,
Hinchliffe, RAFM and Ral Partha armies, we're still OK. But not if we want
to buy new armies.

John the OFM



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 7:10 AM
> To: IPM Return requested (Receipt notification requested)
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Basing
>
>
> 25mm *is* still 25mm, well, at least in most cases it is.
>
> Basing depth is obviously something we have tried to make allowances for
> in the B&W spaces of the rules. Now whether or not that works
> effectively in a real-world tourney environment is another issue.
>
> Basing width we really can't do anything about. One of the benefits of
> WRG hegemony (until perhaps the last 3 years) in ancient wargaming was
> the standardization of basing and width, well, from a gaming standpoint,
> that's so important, we can't just finagle it away.
>
> I honestly think this is where figure manufacturers (sorry Barry) need
> to take this into account when developing products. I put the onus on
> manufacturers because the proverbial basing horse has already left the
> barn. Waaay too many people (raising my hand) have something close to
> 10,000 25mm figures all nicely mounted for the "wrg standard" and it's
> unrealistic for anyone to expect that to change.
>
> Barry, thanks for joining. This gaming system is alive and well here
> and we'd like it to be alive and well in the UK. Please spread the
> word, don't forget to get the army list books, and of course visit us at
> www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com.
>
> Scott
> List Ho
>
> >>> emperorbaz1@... 4/12/02 2:29:00 AM >>>
> I have just fallen upon this group and realised I must have been in
> a cave for the last year or so. I had convinced myself that WRG 7th
> edition was dead, and had started immersing myself in WAB, when all
> of a sudden I discover not only it is not dead but it is updated
> improved and most of all alive and kicking in the US!
>
> I am a UK based wargamer (and figure manufacturer) who's main
> interest is 25mm Ancients (yes - I still play 7th Ed in 25mm, and if
> there is anyone in Somerset on the list...)
>
> My problem is this, and I think John the OFM brought it up a few days
> ago. Basing.
>
> Problem 1. I like for example the 25x50 cavalry bases in WAB, a
> complete mounted unit has the right look about it, it is quite a
> squash with 40x20 given the size of 25mm figures is no longer 25mm,
> if you follow my drift. 3 infantry fits nice on a 60mm frontage, but
> now you have two different element sizes - 3 infantry on 60mm and two
> cavalry on 50mm
>
> Problem 2. 3 MI on a 60mm frontage looks like Irregular LMI. I cant
> use a unit of 18 MI and say they are really 24, that doesnt sit well
> with me.
>
> The problem with 7th ed is the base sizes are too small for todays
> figures
>
> The problem with WAB is they have "copped out" of making a decision
> to standardise base sizes.
>
> Does anyone play both and have a good way of resolving the issue?
>
> Barry Lee
> www.whitexgames.co.uk
>
> PS I am now off to Caliver Books to order my copy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

OFM

You may base your figures deeper to get them to fit, but you must play them as
the correct depth. Therefore, it is ok to base your 25mm pikemen deeper than
20mm, but they are still close order (HI/MI).

It is also ok, although far less preferable, to base your close order troops
three to an element but the correct base depth and inform your opponent. These
too must be played as whatever they are, in this case close order. And this
'privilege' should not be abused to deceive an opponent or make an army cheaper
to buy by purchasing less figures that really would have fit or could have been
based deeper.

I have yet to meet the figure that cannot be based correctly width-wise now that
we have relaxed the base depth requirement for 28+mm figs.

I would certainly hope no one felt forced to choose which rules set to play
solely based on not liking what has clearly become the hobby standard for
ancients basing. I'd rather we worked together than have someone feel it
necessary to accept a less than optimal rules solution just to get their figures
on a base.

It would also probably be better if we did not mix apples and oranges. WAB is a
game. Warrior is both a game and a simulation. WAB can be based anyway the
designers like - part of the joy of not having to worry about simulating
anything with precision. Warrior has to attend to issues of ground scale.

Jon