Is it too late?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**mdauben**

BeAfraid wrote:
I REALLY WISH that people would make 40mm or 54mm figures for Skirmish games.

I cut my mini-painting teeth on 54mm historicals. My dad was a big painter and collector (mainly Napoleonics) and he introduced me to the hobby. It would allow the potential for some beautiful looking games, but for me it would have to be really small scale skirming, like a dozen figures per side maximum. Not only due to the cost and painting effort required for the larger figures (if I was going to paint up 54mm figures, I would want to do an exceptional paint job on them) plus the larger the scale of the figures (and associated movement and shooting distances) the smaller a standard 4x6 game board becomes.

GW actually tried a larger scale miniatures game (Not sure if it was actually 54 mm but thereabouts) with their OOP Inquisitor game. It was an off shoot of their 40K game. They did make and sell some really beautiful miniatures but one of the complaints I head from people was that they weren't interested in collecting another set of figures in a scale not compatable with their 40K armies.

BeAfraid wrote:
As they were designing the Easterlings, and Jackson was uneasy about a portrayal of any group as being recognizably associated with any non-European Earth cultures, the "Haradrim" got coopted As Easterlings, and the concept art for the Easterlings was "disappeared."

I thought the same thing when I saw the movies. I know that the movies didn't really get the "fallen realms" right in terms of their historical inspirations from the books. Looking at the LOTR figures, I'm kind of assigning my own head-canon real life inspirations to them; Easterlings - middle eastern/Persians, Haradrim - arab/north african, Khand - mongol/asian and Mahud - subsaharan africa. I know this does not really match the books, but I think it matches the look of the movie/game figures.

BeAfraid wrote:
I played WHFB back in First Edition, and was the first to bring it to the USA in 1984 (GW was in the process of setting up their US shop when I brought it back), and ran it at a couple of conventions, and people LOVED it.

That predates my involvement with WFB. I think I first got involved during 4th ed, and played through 5th and 6th, then tapered off during 7th (more due to real life circumstances than any issues with the game). I finally dropped out all togther with the release of 8th ed.

BeAfraid wrote:
I had my armies multi-based, and players tended to balk at it, and eventually I gave up on trying to push for a shift toward multi-basing.

I seem to remember seeing photos of multi-based figures in some of the WAB books? Not whole units, but IIRC 3-4 figures on one base.

Azazelx wrote:
Also, I was looking on the GBG site for the plastic Jomsvikings you mentioned but couldn't find them. Do you have a link?

I'm not Be Afraid, but I found them here:

http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/SAGA_Jomsvikings--category--38.html

**Vermis**

Azazelx wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

Look at Kings of War. SUPPOSEDLY, it is combat unit-to-unit, with no casualty removal.
WHY THEN do they have the figures individually based???
Why do they not base them as units, like Impetus?

You're seriously asking this? With ALL CAPS-style outrage? Seriously?

Because being a supplier of WHF-friendly proxy figures is important to their business model.
They recognise that an incredibly-huge proportion of their playerbase are current of ex-WHFB players, and would prefer a seamless transition for them rather than running the risk of alienating them.
Movement trays are already a thing.
KoW-style bases are designed to be easily glued together as they have straight-not-slanted sides.
They do officially encourage multibasing.

This. Mantic was a provider of cheap alternatives for that skirmish-game-grown-too-large, Warhammer, before KoW came about. I've been wondering if KoW will eventually switch to 'official' unit basing, now that the world they were orbiting has blown up, but only Azazel here wants to talk to me about it.

Gripping Beast just released a set of Jomsvikings that are PERFECT for Easterlings

I'm not Be Afraid, but I found them here:

http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/SAGA_Jomsvikings--category--38.html

New, and yet, so old...

**namiel**

Vermis wrote:
Azazelx wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

Look at Kings of War. SUPPOSEDLY, it is combat unit-to-unit, with no casualty removal.
WHY THEN do they have the figures individually based???
Why do they not base them as units, like Impetus?

You're seriously asking this? With ALL CAPS-style outrage? Seriously?

Because being a supplier of WHF-friendly proxy figures is important to their business model.
They recognise that an incredibly-huge proportion of their playerbase are current of ex-WHFB players, and would prefer a seamless transition for them rather than running the risk of alienating them.
Movement trays are already a thing.
KoW-style bases are designed to be easily glued together as they have straight-not-slanted sides.
They do officially encourage multibasing.

This. Mantic was a provider of cheap alternatives for that skirmish-game-grown-too-large, Warhammer, before KoW came about. I've been wondering if KoW will eventually switch to 'official' unit basing, now that the world they were orbiting has blown up, but only Azazel here wants to talk to me about it.

I doubt KOW will change the way they base their minis. You have always had the ability to have them on individuals or on regiment bases. It makes no sense to take away the ability to not put them on individual bases and make it more a regimental unit

**Vermis**

namiel wrote:
I doubt KOW will change the way they base their minis. You have always had the ability to have them on individuals or on regiment bases. It makes no sense to take away the ability to not put them on individual bases and make it more a regimental unit

I have a feeling they won't change, but because even when big-battle Warhammer's been long-dead, it'll still be 'that's just the way it's done!'

Not to say you shouldn't base them how you like, but why doesn't it make sense to base KoW minis in a unit, even on a set of interlocking troop bases? That's how many base their KoW minis anyway, even how some are rebasing WFB armies for KoW. It follows after most mass battle games, which are overwhelmingly element/unit-based. What else are KoW minis being used for?

**lees_shadow**

BeAfraid wrote:
mdauben wrote:
BeAfraid wrote:
Well... Easy. Gripping Beast just released a set of Jomsvikings

Look at Kings of War. SUPPOSEDLY, it is combat unit-to-unit, with no casualty removal.

WHY THEN do they have the figures individually based???

Calling B.S. on several points.

Mantic sells bases with their figs so that they can be used in WHFB and other games. So many have accused Mantic of only being in business to bottom-feed of GW, it is refreshing to see them being bashed in the other direction for a change.

Mantic does not use slotted bases, but provide a flat area for their figs to be mounted directly onto a movement or into a recessed area on their provided bases (Win-Win)

Most of the KoW players mount their figs directly onto the movement trays and take the opportunity to create dioramas and vignettes with their army. Figure count does not matter, base size does. Creativity is encouraged and you do not have to play with Mantic figures to be in a tournament. The majority of the forces you see with square bases are converted GW armies (and those ranks are growing quickly)

An infantry troop of undead or elves, or dwarves is 100mm across x 40mm deep. You can fit 5 20mm bases across by 2 deep, or you can put 4 figs on 25mm bases x 2 deep (a little too deep, but nobody complains) or just mount the figures directly on the tray until you like the look. You are not required to have x number of models on a stand.

I have seen some wonderfully done Undead bases where all the zombies on a 200mm wide x 80mm deep tray are all mashed up in a pile in the front of the base with the back area left to model fallen enemies, open graves, etc. It gives you a great feel for a zombie horde rushing at you (and I have never heard anyone complain that there were only 36 instead of 40 models on the base)

Now as for the argument that historical and fantasy rules writers don't see idea to eye. Sure Phil would argue that GW is crap, but WRG was started in 1969. Historical rules have come a long way since they were thick tomes of exceptions and special rules for every historical army in existence.

Tastes are changing and gamers expect games to be done in a few hours, not 8.

Rules writers for historical rules have been borrowing more from fantasy in the past decades than the other way around to make their games faster and playable.

Flames of War?, Bolt Action? Saga?

Sure they are no longer as accurate as the "simulations" of old, but lets face it, those "simulations" were based on second and third hand accounts. When I got into this lovely hobby it was as a fantasy gamer, then I found DBA as my gateway game to historicals (Thank you WRG).

But as a youth I realized the older historical gamers had an unwritten phase of every game...The arguing historical accuracy and why this rule set is wrong in it's depiction of x army. More and more it is just a game, not a historical simulation. I don't miss those days.

As a quick aside, one thing Historical Gamers gave to Fantasy was the griping over editions. I remember the endless arguements (pre internet) about how 6th edition of WRG was so superior to 7th and how it was broken. Second thing Fantasy developed was the uber competitive min-maxing army weasel who shows up with his broken Han Chinese all crossbow army to win every WRG 6th tournement

As an example of Fantasy giving back to Historicals, after the army book for disgruntled GW fans is done with playtesting, Kings of War will be releasing a historical book.

What would the rules write of KoW know about historicals? Well he wrote Bolt Action with Mr. Priestly, and has produced historical board games including a recently kickstarted Waterloo game.,

Add to that his resume Mordheim, Warmaster, LOTR, and Terminator Genisys and you have a pretty strong resume that a rules writer can "switch hit"

Respectfully,
That Lee Guy

**Azazelx**

mdauben wrote:

Azazelx wrote:
Also, I was looking on the GBG site for the plastic Jomsvikings you mentioned but couldn't find them. Do you have a link?

I'm not Be Afraid, but I found them here:
http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/SAGA_Jomsvikings--category--38.html

Thanks for taking a look.

I saw those when I went looking, but they're the existing metals.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vermis wrote:

This. Mantic was a provider of cheap alternatives for that skirmish-game-grown-too-large, Warhammer, before KoW came about. I've been wondering if KoW will eventually switch to 'official' unit basing, now that the world they were orbiting has blown up, but only Azazel here wants to talk to me about it.

I can't see them doing that anytime soon. GW may have officially killed off WHFB, but the WHFB playerbase (particularly 3rd and 8th) will remain far, far larger than KoW for years, and Mantic is slowly learning not to alienate their playerbase. Though they often seem to need a whack on the nose from a newspaper.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vermis wrote:

I have a feeling they won't change, but because even when big-battle Warhammer's been long-dead, it'll still be 'that's just the way it's done!' Not to say you shouldn't base them how you like, but why doesn't it make sense to base KoW minis in a unit, even on a set of interlocking troop bases? That's how many base their KoW minis anyway, even how some are rebasing WFB armies for KoW. It follows after most mass battle games, which are overwhelmingly element/unit-based. What else are KoW minis being used for?

Too many people are a bit obsessed with doing what the game tells them to do with their bases. There's no need to rebase from single bases to mutibase simply in order to use a WHFB army in KoW, just as it's not necessary to rebase their WHFB models onto rounds for AOS. I mean, do what you want, but we should be way past the days where everyone focked their bases and edged them in Goblin Green because the game told them to. (Not that I did that then, either!)

To me, single basing means I can use them in any game I like. I also paint figures as something I enjoy doing, and put an appropriate amount of time and effort into making each individual model look good. When I get to my Historicals properly, I'll probably take less time and do them a bit more "en masse" but still base them individually.

**BeAfraid**

http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/SAGA_Jomsvikings--category--38.html

MB

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, now that I have had a few moments to swallow some Morphine (before I was too paralyzed to do so)...

I have, to this date, NEVER seen a player use the figures for a Fantasy Army that are individually based, use them for a skirmish game of some sort.

I understand that this is not to say that such people do not exist, and the sample size I am talking is hardly huge.

But in the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Austin, and Dallas, I have not seen this occur in over 30 years of gaming.

True, this does exclude the GW War of the Ring game, which was essentially forced to make that accommodation.

But, really, this sample-group population really only includes Warhammer Players, because pretty much they are the only "Mass Combat" game around that has individually based miniatures.

The Ancients game doesn't have too terribly many people who play "Ancients-Based/Historical Role Playing Games" where such skirmishes would take place.

And the fantasy gamers I know in san Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Houston, and Dallas all tend to buy figures specifically for each game.

Looking online, I have been able to find NO images of people using WHFB based miniatures for a Fantasy Skrimish game (again, this doesn't mean they don't exist, there is just little to no evidence of their existence).

And, of the players I know who have WHFB Armies, who have used this excuse, I have yet to see one of them ACTUALLY USE Their army figures for a Skirmish game (again, doesn't mean they don't, just no evidence I have seen).

Given that such little evidence exists, I think maybe those who might use their figures in such a way are such a small minority that it is not really worth marketing in such a way for such a small segment of the population.

MB

**namiel**

BeAfraid wrote:
http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/SAGA_Jomsvikings--category--38.html

MB

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, now that I have had a few moments to swallow some Morphine (before I was too paralyzed to do so)...

I have, to this date, NEVER seen a player use the figures for a Fantasy Army that are individually based, use them for a skirmish game of some sort.

I understand that this is not to say that such people do not exist, and the sample size I am talking is hardly huge.

But in the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Austin, and Dallas, I have not seen this occur in over 30 years of gaming.

True, this does exclude the GW War of the Ring game, which was essentially forced to make that accommodation.

But, really, this sample-group population really only includes Warhammer Players, because pretty much they are the only "Mass Combat" game around that has individually based miniatures.

The Ancients game doesn't have too terribly many people who play "Ancients-Based/Historical Role Playing Games" where such skirmishes would take place.

And the fantasy gamers I know in san Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Houston, and Dallas all tend to buy figures specifically for each game.

Looking online, I have been able to find NO images of people using WHFB based miniatures for a Fantasy Skrimish game (again, this doesn't mean they don't exist, there is just little to no evidence of their existence).

And, of the players I know who have WHFB Armies, who have used this excuse, I have yet to see one of them ACTUALLY USE Their army figures for a Skirmish game (again, doesn't mean they don't, just no evidence I have seen).

Given that such little evidence exists, I think maybe those who might use their figures in such a way are such a small minority that it is not really worth marketing in such a way for such a small segment of the population.

MB

Mordheim.

**BeAfraid**

Google's Mordheim.....

MB

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reads about Mordheim. . . . . . .

MB

Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK... Looking through the various links and seeing miniatures for Mordheim, I stand by my statement.

Most of the images of miniatures I see for Mordheim have the miniatures on bases that do not look to be easy to rank.

Some do. I see a LOT of images of miniatures (Skaven, mostly) that could be ranked.

But most of the figures I see are on round bases, or on bases with terrain that hangs over the edge irregularly.

Nordheim looks to be a game that rose to popularity while I was dead, in the 1990s/early 00s, and then was killed by GW just as I got back into things in the early-00s after my wife took off (damn I wish she had done so earlier).

It may represent a game that attempted to give players a dual-use for their miniatures, but seems to have overall failed in that regard.

And other rules systems for either skirmish or for mass combat do not even pretend to play lip-service to dual-use for their miniatures.

They either have their miniatures based specifically as Skirmish needs (round bases), or for Mass Combat (multi-figure bases).

MB

**Vermis**

Azazel: fair enough.

No need to rebase existing Warhammer collections, of course. I was just a bit taken aback by the assertion that it made no sense to even base newly-bought KoW minis together, especially since that's what many love to do...

I had a feeling Mordheim might pop up as an example in this discussion! But y'know, it might be a bit like Warhammer - the exception to the rule. Though it did have it's own mini ranges, added to right up to the end, which were often easily proxied with WFB minis but not so much for one or two factions.

**Mysterious Pants**

BeAfraid wrote:
And, of the players I know who have WHFB Armies, who have used this excuse, I have yet to see one of them ACTUALLY USE Their army figures for a Skirmish game (again, doesn't mean they don't, just no evidence I have seen).

Given that such little evidence exists, I think maybe those who might use their figures in such a way are such a small minority that it is not really worth marketing in such a way for such a small segment of the population.

MB

Maybe you're not looking at the right people?

For me personally, I love having multi-use miniatures.

My Warhammer guys have seen a good amount of use in different wargames. One evening my heavily armored commander might be stuck in the front row of a unit of 40 miniatures, the next he might be on his own representing a Dungeons & Dragons character or representing something from Malifaux or whatever game the people around me are playing.

Actually, similarity in scale is what got me into bigger size miniatures wargaming in the first place.

I will say though, that it's best to use unit fillers for the big blocks of troops.

**BeAfraid**

OK... Call me an old Cranky bastard who just likes to have his miniatures purposed for a single use.

I had a Ral Partha Goblin and Orc army of about 300 miniatures prior to my wife stealing it.

But I still had about 50 of the exact same figures based on 1" circular bases (prior to any companies making them - I made a punch for 7/32" styrene to make 1" round bases with ) to use for RPG or Skirmish gaming....

I don't like square bases on skirmish figures, or round bases on mass combat figures.

It ain't natural....

MB

**Azazelx**

BeAfraid wrote:
http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/SAGA_Jomsvikings--category--38.html

Same page. Still not plastics.

BeAfraid wrote:

I have, to this date, NEVER seen a player use the figures for a Fantasy Army that are individually based, use them for a skirmish game of some sort.

the usual blahblahblah. Maybe you need to get out more. Or perhaps stop stating your opinions as fact or "moral high ground" and so forth endlessly. No-one here cares if you dislike people using individually based models in mass battle games, and it'd be awfully nice if you'd stop rabbiting on about it and being so rude about it. You can like whatever you like of course, but stop trying to tell others that they're doing it wrong. Because when you do that, you'e "doing it wrong."

kthx

Only liking square bases for mass battle figures sounds like you're the one who's bought way too far into GW's basing shenanigans to me...

**Lord Corellia**

I like having my minis single based because I'm more of a collector than a gamer. I played Warhammer quite a lot in the past, but basically skipped 8th altogether. Usually, my painted minis can be seen on display with some castle terrain or some other such thing where one massive 100x200mm base wouldn't fit.

**Azazelx**

Excellent point - and I'm going to blow my horn here. I'm a quality painter. My stuff doesn't belong on multibased regiment bases. End of fething story.

**Vermis**

Azazelx wrote:
Excellent point - and I'm going to blow my horn here. I'm a quality painter. My stuff doesn't belong on multibased regiment bases. End of fething story.

So multibases can only ever look crap? Nice. If we're bragging, I'm not so bad with a set of paintbrushes myself, and as you might have gathered, I like multibasing. The two aren't mutually exclusive in my view.

I have to ask, I don't know if you game or just collect, Azazel, but if you have regiments of individually-based minis in either case, what the difference for a mini stuck in the middle?

FWIW, this page includes some of the multibased armies that have impressed me. Maybe not CMoN 'highlighted to white' quality, but not just with paint slopped on any old way either. Here are a few things I like:

http://www.hourofwolves.org/?view=armies&which=theEmpire&pic=3
http://www.hourofwolves.org/?view=armies&which=highElves&pic=1
http://www.hourofwolves.org/?view=armies&which=undead&pic=43
http://www.hourofwolves.org/?view=armies&which=bretonnia&pic=23

And this:

http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=41342.15

And as with do many other things, 'I'm a collector' is deflecting the issue. Missing the point, even. If you don't game with your minis then it doesn't really matter how easy it is to move 'em about in a mass battle game. You can stick one mini on a round, square, hex, triangular, dodecagon, 20mm, 25mm, 100x80mm, 300mm base if you like, if you're not doin' anything with it.
You can even build and paint a small scene or vignette, the way many miniaturists and scale model hobbyists do, within and outside wargaming. But creating a scenic miniature display might involve sticking more than one mini on the same base, so best check if your painting is too 'quality' for that kind of thing, or else paint it badly, right?

I'm sorry Azazel. I know BeAfraid comes over abrasive, a lot of the time, but I think you're reacting too much in the other direction. Again, I'm only talking about what I like, not saying what anyone else should do, but some of the anti-multibasing reasons are starting to look too much like tit-for-tat remarks, or beside the point. Not to mention toeing the GW line of what a mass battle wargame is. You gotta let some of it wash over you.

**BeAfraid**

Funny.... I don't get how I am being abrasive.

I must live in a VERY different world; I don't communicate too much differently than how EVERYONE I am around communicates.

MB

**Azazelx**

Vermis wrote:
Azazelx wrote:
Excellent point - and I'm going to blow my horn here. I'm a quality painter. My stuff doesn't belong on multibased regiment bases. End of fething story.

So multibases can only ever look crap? Nice. If we're bragging, I'm not so bad with a set of paintbrushes myself, and as you might have gathered, I like multibasing. The two aren't mutually exclusive in my view.

Hell no. Multibases can look fething awesome as well. It was, shall we say a ...pointed comment, and not pointed at you.

I just dislike people (again, not you) telling me that there's a problem with individually based models, or the idea of using the same figures in different games.

I'm sorry Azazel. I know BeAfraid comes over abrasive, a lot of the time, but I think you're reacting too much in the other direction. Again, I'm only talking about what I like, not saying what anyone else should do, but some of the anti-multibasing reasons are starting to look too much like tit-for-tat remarks, or beside the point. Not to mention toeing the GW line of what a mass battle wargame is. You gotta let some of it wash over you.

His derogatory comments about single basing are basically a direct reference to a previous ...disagreement that we had in this very forum. I intensely dislike people telling me that I'm wrong to choose to do something my way. That's why my reaction was so severe. And pointed. I'm very much in the "it's a hobby, so do whatever you enjoy" camp, but I get pissed off when people who might lack social skills make sweeping statements about the way others enjoy their hobby with any kind of presumed authority. Because that's bs. I recognise that I may have come across the same way in my reply above, and for that I apologise.

**BeAfraid**

Who said anyone was "Wrong"?

MB

**mdauben**

Vermis wrote:
I had a feeling Mordheim might pop up as an example in this discussion! But y'know, it might be a bit like Warhammer - the exception to the rule. Though it did have it's own mini ranges, added to right up to the end, which were often easily proxied with WFB minis but not so much for one or two factions.

Many of the Mordheim human ranges were incomplete, though. For example, the Reiklander line included a couple of alternative Captains, a Chanmpion, and a couple of Youngbloods. The list also included swordsmen, warriors, archers, crossbowmen, etc. which had no "Mordheim" miniatures, so you needed to use Empire minis for those figures. Some of the other lines were more extensive, but I don't think any of them provided examples of everything you could field without needing to do some conversions or using WFB miniatures (at least if you were playing WYSIWYG).

**namiel**

mdauben wrote:
Vermis wrote:
I had a feeling Mordheim might pop up as an example in this discussion! But y'know, it might be a bit like Warhammer - the exception to the rule. Though it did have it's own mini ranges, added to right up to the end, which were often easily proxied with WFB minis but not so much for one or two factions.

Many of the Mordheim human ranges were incomplete, though. For example, the Reiklander line included a couple of alternative Captains, a Chanmpion, and a couple of Youngbloods. The list also included swordsmen, warriors, archers, crossbowmen, etc. which had no "Mordheim" miniatures, so you needed to use Empire minis for those figures. Some of the other lines were more extensive, but I don't think any of them provided examples of everything you could field without needing to do some conversions or using WFB miniatures (at least if you were playing WYSIWYG).

The empire free company box was the mordheim humans box. Same as the gutter runner box was for mordheim. How I know this is because a long time gw employee who was around for the creation of mordheim told me so but also look at it, the arms have daggers. No other box has daggers