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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The 2.0 rulebook calls out model counts for formations, how tightly policed is that?

It's not. The unit footprint is still what matters. Just don't, you know, try to pass off one dude as a Horde.

Gamer :This is Bob - he's my Horde!
Bob: 'Sup?

The Auld Grump, in Gamer's defense, Bob is pretty big, and fills up a base all by himself....

There'll be tighter official guidelines released with the first FAQ. The rules regarding multibasing in the rulebook say:

You might even end up with a little more or
less than the correct number of models on
the multibase – this is fine, but it must be
reasonably close to the correct amount, so
that there is no chance of misleading your
opponents in regards to the real size of the
unit.

We've seen a few examples crop up lately that have some members of the community scratching their heads over, so Mantic will be issuing their official guidelines for events. People are free to do what they want in friendly games, but for events there'll be a minimum basing standard in just the same way as a minimum painting standard. The debate is just how to word it so that those taking large counts-as models aren't excluded.

infinite_array has nothing to worry about with his unit sizes.

Thoughts on the basing of my undead regiments? I have 6 per base, more than that just looks too crowded...

That's not a unit, that's spare bitz on a base.

Silver - looks cool. I wouldnt want to face a whole army done in that style but a single regiment as a 'just coming out of the ground' theme is cool

Reminds me of the genestealers in a blender video.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Thoughts on the basing of my undead regiments? I have 6 per base, more than that just looks too crowded...

Just, no.

6 in place of 20? No. Does not qualify as "a little more or less than the correct number of models on the multibase"

Sorry, I meant troop rather than regiment. But very glad everyone is so positive; really picked me up!...

It's not so much negative, but we don't really want to encourage just gluing spare bits to bases and calling it a unit. Like a couples dude emerging from the ground in the back/sides of the unit would be awesome. It could even be like a tidal wave. But that looks more like debris than a fighting force.

For another vastly undercounted regiment, here's what I'm going to use as a Regiment of Sylvan Kin/Guardians of the Wild:



I'm using them as swamp creatures called forth to protect the jungle. One half is only 5 models and the other is 7. 12 models instead of 20, but they have enough presence that it doesn't really detract from how they look.

Yeah, that fills up the base nice and proper.

Yeah, it doesn't look filled up. Maybe if you've added more skeletons popping off the ground, some halfway out while maybe one or two completely off the ground, or if there were some crawling skellies. Or bones.

If not more skeletons, then maybe tombstones to give it fill and character without looking skelly-crowded? Otherwise I wouldn't have a problem with 6 in place of 10, and I like what you've done

 NTRabbit wrote:
If not more skeletons, then maybe tombstones to give it fill and character without looking skelly-crowded? Otherwise I wouldn't have a problem with 6 in place of 10, and I like what you've done

this is a good idea. or even a big centerpiece statue/tomb. Make it look like a graveyard with skellies popping out of a few graves.

Yeah, the bases wouldn't look so bare-bones - heh - if they had a little more going for them. Add some tombstones, a statue, maybe a spooky tree with a crow in it or something.

The bases are currently bare just for model sticking on; the gaps will be filled with tundra themed scatter, stuck in arrows, additional piles of bones/skulls/weapons etc. I am not planning on leaving them just bare wood

My query was more to do with whether the work in progress was heading in the right direction and whether they would look too sparsely populated when completely based.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The bases are currently bare just for model sticking on; the gaps will be filled with tundra themed scatter, stuck in arrows, additional piles of bones/skulls/weapons etc. I am not planning on leaving them just bare wood

My query was more to do with whether the work in progress was heading in the right direction and whether they would look too sparsely populated when completely based.

You're heading in the right direction then

I think the troop/regiment confusion contributed to the negative response more than anything else

One of my favorite 'underpopulated' unit of skellies has a graveyard and five skeletons - with two of the skeletons with shovels, and another helping a fourth out of a grave.

The fifth is sitting on a tombstone, shovel propped against a tree, eating a sandwich.

All are either the old GW skellies or Wargames Factory.

But there are also about twenty graves on the base.

His technique for the graves is worth copying - on top of the movement tray is three layers of sheet of cork, with the graves cut into the uppermost layer of cork - the whole then sanded, painted and flocked - so it looks like a lot of sunken graves.

The deepest ones are empty, or have that fourth skeleton clambering out of it.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
One of my favorite 'underpopulated' unit of skellies has a graveyard and five skeletons - with two of the skeletons with shovels, and another helping a fourth out of a grave.

The fifth is sitting on a tombstone, shovel propped against a tree, eating a sandwich.

All are either the old GW skellies or Wargames Factory.

But there are also about twenty graves on the base.

His technique for the graves is worth copying - on top of the movement tray is three layers of sheet of cork, with the graves cut into the uppermost layer of cork - the whole then sanded, painted and flocked - so it looks like a lot of sunken graves.

The deepest ones are empty, or have that fourth skeleton clambering out of it.

The Auld Grump

Any chance you could find a picture of that? Having a hard time visualizing it exactly, but am interested in seeing it!

 Daedleh wrote:
There'll be tighter official guidelines released with the first FAQ. The rules regarding multibasing in the rulebook say:

You might even end up with a little more or
less than the correct number of models on
the multibase – this is fine, but it must be
reasonably close to the correct amount, so
that there is no chance of misleading your
opponents in regards to the real size of the
unit.

We've seen a few examples crop up lately that have some members of the community scratching their heads over, so Mantic will be issuing their official guidelines for events. People are free to do what they want in friendly games, but for events there'll be a minimum basing standard in just the same way as a minimum painting standard. The debate is just how to word it so that those taking large counts-as models aren't excluded.

infinite_array has nothing to worry about with his unit sizes.

What about Regiments/Hordes that look like this? - Which is my preferred style of basing: 25mm rounds filling a correctly-sized movement tray (as much as possible). It's not "75&" or "80%" It's 3/5 = 60%

Officially Mantic has said they would LIKE to see at lest 2/3rds.

But they also understand that many figs are on 25mm bases or other companies figures are just too big to look good squashed together.

Also sometimes money is a factor, and that can be compensated for by dioramas.

Often the 25mm based units are 4 across x 2 deep for a Troop(50mm deep vs 40mm deep), 4 across by 3 deep for a Regiment (75mm vs 80mm deep) and 5 deep for Legions (125mm deep vs 120mm)

4 across vs 5 across cav is pretty normal because you just can't fit most cav 5 across.

And the gaming community being who they are has found there is nothing to argue about in the rules, so they become shocked and shaken that a Heroquest Goblin on a piece of cardboard the right size doesn't count as a horde. I am exaggerating as any gamer would. Everyone knows you need at least 2 goblins to make a horde.

Debates have raged about "well my (x number of ) figures on a (Troop/Regiment/Horde/Legion) base OBVIOUSLY is a (Troop/ Regiment/Horde/Legion) because it is on the correct base for a (Troop/ Regiment/Horde/Legion) and nobody should argue.

A nice diorama means less figs, and less painted figs win out over the "legions of primer" but no one is going to throw you out of a tournament if you are within the spirit.

My opinion is I like to see the front rank up tight unless it is an irregular type unit like rangers, and then the quantities can decrease the deeper you get (or blend into a diorama).

But the positive of Manic is the expression of creativity. Go nuts, have fun, and don't get engaged in arguments about how many Orcs should be based on the head of a pin.

I myself am scratch building some coffin-lid mantlets for my Skeleton Archers which cuts down on the figs I can mount. I don't expect anyone to complain as the rank of archers behind will be in a tight formation across the base.

Not worth the time to argue when Alessio has given us a great, fair and competitive game that has no "have to have" units and the chance usually to play twice in an evening to avenge a crushing defeat.

Respectfully,
That Lee Guy


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Those figs look fine. There are also companies out there making trays with circles cut out so you can drop the 25bases right in.

Warbases in the UK does it if you like the look. Base as a group, pull out to use separately.

One of my mates is using those exact figs for KoM.

Respectfully,
That Lee Guy

lees_shadow wrote:
Officially Mantic has said they would LIKE to see at lest 2/3rds.
...
And the gaming community being who they are has found there is nothing to argue about in the rules, so they become shocked and shaken that a Heroquest Goblin on a piece of cardboard the right size doesn't count as a horde. I am exaggerating as any gamer would. Everyone knows you need at least 2 goblins to make a horde.

Debates have raged about "well my (x number of ) figures on a (Troop/Regiment/Horde/Legion) base OBVIOUSLY is a (Troop/ Regiment/Horde/Legion) because it is on the correct base for a (Troop/ Regiment/Horde/Legion) and nobody should argue.
...
Not worth the time to argue when Alessio has given us a great, fair and competitive game that has no "have to have" units and the chance usually to play twice in an evening to avenge a crushing defeat.
....
Those figs look fine. There are also companies out there making trays with circles cut out so you can drop the 25bases right in.
Warbases in the UK does it if you like the look. Base as a group, pull out to use separately.
One of my mates is using those exact figs for KoM.

Yeah, these are my figures, and I don't have any complaints in friendly games with friends - and obviously people like yourself would be nothing but cool to play against, but then if I were to go to a tournament... the last thing I want is to argue with someone deciding to be TFG because it's a slightly more competitive atmosphere. Because I'd probably just tell them to feth right off (with those words, to their face) and leave.

One of the big problems is that recent quote from Alessio stating that figures are required to be based 1-1 and on the bases the figures came with. Wording straight out of GW's playbook, and something that contrasts directly with even Ronnie's recently-blogged Dwarf army. Good to see the RC looking into it. I have a single Bone Giant that was going to stand in for a regiment of Obsidian Golems (until the new TK list that has one in it) but as Matt said, I have other cool large monsters that will be proxied in for other various regiments and such.

Where did Alessio say that?


Also, isn't he a freelancer? Why would he care more than Ronnie Remton if KoW players use Mantic minis on Mantic bases?

^^ I'd be interested in seeing where that quote was too.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:
There'll be tighter official guidelines released with the first FAQ. The rules regarding multibasing in the rulebook say:

You might even end up with a little more or
less than the correct number of models on
the multibase – this is fine, but it must be
reasonably close to the correct amount, so
that there is no chance of misleading your
opponents in regards to the real size of the
unit.

We've seen a few examples crop up lately that have some members of the community scratching their heads over, so Mantic will be issuing their official guidelines for events. People are free to do what they want in friendly games, but for events there'll be a minimum basing standard in just the same way as a minimum painting standard. The debate is just how to word it so that those taking large counts-as models aren't excluded.

infinite_array has nothing to worry about with his unit sizes.

What about Regiments/Hordes that look like this? - Which is my preferred style of basing: 25mm rounds filling a correctly-sized movement tray (as much as possible). It's not "75&" or "80%" It's 3/5 = 60%

They're fine.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Where did Alessio say that?
Also, isn't he a freelancer? Why would he care more than Ronnie Remton if KoW players use Mantic minis on Mantic bases?

I can't find it (I looked yesterday), but I read it very recently while the 2.0 armies were in playtesting. And yes, Alessio is a freelancer, but he's also the main rules writer for the game, so you can see where his word could be used as the correct interpretation if we don't have the RC to officially override it.

And thanks, Daedle.

Shrug, if it was a quote from a random interview, it doesn't have much bearing on the printed official rules let alone how I choose to play the game

He was being asked specifically about basing, so it read as more of a FAQ. It wasn't a random chat with the bloke from BoW or anything like that. I'm pissed off now that I can't find it.

I mean, you know that I'm more than happy to ignore it, but you wouldn't want it causing issues in a tournament when someone decides to be TFG.

Alessio isn't involved in the official tournament rules and at least one of the Rules Committee is, so there won't be an issue with 1-2-1 basing. Whether or not there is a minimum basing standard or not is another matter.

While we're throwing up questions..

The Dwarf Character J'Zik-Gearlund, where are the rules for him?
Have I gone blind? Can't see them in the Dwarf list at all.

Not all the Living Legends have survived through to the new edition - don't ask me why, that was done by the Studio.

Ah fair enough. Cheers.
Grabbed the model anyway, as I thought he'd make a good Stone Priest.