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.

Heresy i know, but I'm toying with creating a few generic warbands in 15mm (my prefered scale) and figured i might try to do it with aos in mind as well as dragon rampant. Has anyone tried it? Or tried playing aos with multibased units? How did you get on?

How on Earth would multi-based (multiple models on the same base) units work?

You either end up with "I have no reason not to mount my entire army on the same base, so that they all get to fight at the same time" or you end up playing 7th edition with formations.

I suppose I shouldn't judge the way a person spends their time, when I'm replying to their question, but...

Of all the games in the world to bother investing time in to begin with, but to then try and home-brew a different scale for it? I don't play, but seriously. Quit eating all the glue.

KoW works with multibasing and in 15mm scale, can't say I have ever thought someone would try AoS with either.

I can't see any benefits of using 15mm, in fact it'll probably make everything more fiddly. Multi-basing will need some house-rules too or for you to count each base as a single "model".

But saying that, if you have loads of 15mm minis you would love to play in AoS style games, go for it! Create some custom warscrolls and off you go :-D

Dragon Rampant isn't multibased, is it?

 Mymearan wrote:
Dragon Rampant isn't multibased, is it?

It can be, if you want it to.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I suppose I shouldn't judge the way a person spends their time, when I'm replying to their question, but...

Of all the games in the world to bother investing time in to begin with, but to then try and home-brew a different scale for it? I don't play, but seriously. Quit eating all the glue.

Then dont or be constructive regardless of the voices in your head, wtf?

Firstly, I quite like 15mm; it's an ideal compromise between detail and cost, time & space.

I can probably get 2 decent (50 minis) warbands for about £30.

I've not decided on the multibase - it makes it easier for some games but I'd single base them (probably on 20mm's) if the rules are totally unworkable.

I am slightly amused that Age Of Sigmar is all about freedom to do it your way without relying on GW, unless you want to deviate.

The reason I'm looking at AoS is because it's a super simple quick play rule set that has a name behind it at a bit of traction. I've no objections to the core game from that point of view, especially with some minor tweaking. Plus it's a bit of an experiment to see how the rules fare on their own.

Herzlos wrote:
Firstly, I quite like 15mm; it's an ideal compromise between detail and cost, time & space.

I can probably get 2 decent (50 minis) warbands for about £30.

I've not decided on the multibase - it makes it easier for some games but I'd single base them (probably on 20mm's) if the rules are totally unworkable.

I am slightly amused that Age Of Sigmar is all about freedom to do it your way without relying on GW, unless you want to deviate.

The reason I'm looking at AoS is because it's a super simple quick play rule set that has a name behind it at a bit of traction. I've no objections to the core game from that point of view, especially with some minor tweaking. Plus it's a bit of an experiment to see how the rules fare on their own.

Might be a language thing, but I genuinely don't see what your aim/point is, especially with your last comment?
If you want to use 15mm I don't see why you couldn't in your group, but as described multi basing will be problematic at best because the mechanics revolve around individual models.
Other than that, halving all ranges is pretty straight forward, and as 15mm minis tend to have far less 'flair', measuring from the model would become even easier - but if they're on 20mm bases that would create a problem in itself.

Sounds like a cool idea Herzlos, please report back with your experiences!

RoperPG wrote:

Might be a language thing, but I genuinely don't see what your aim/point is, especially with your last comment?
If you want to use 15mm I don't see why you couldn't in your group, but as described multi basing will be problematic at best because the mechanics revolve around individual models.
Other than that, halving all ranges is pretty straight forward, and as 15mm minis tend to have far less 'flair', measuring from the model would become even easier - but if they're on 20mm bases that would create a problem in itself.

I mean that the core rules will be sufficient for what I'm likely to do, and likely to be pretty balanced since I'm using mundane fantasy characters with somewhat mirrored forces. I'm probably looking at humans (Empire) Vs undead or Orcs.

I was going to keep the ranges the same, as it'll make it feel a bit more realistic.

Good point about the measuring from models, but why would there be an issue with a 20mm base, is it just because the bases will seem pretty big in comparison?

I'm also not sure if individual basing is strictly a requirement, I know positioning is important for pile-ins, but that's easy enough to work around and I can always cluster the mini's rather than ranking them up.

Ah, cool.
If you were scaling down ranges then mini coherency on 20mm could be a problem, but if you're leaving ranges as-is then a mini on a 20mm should be okay (been a long time since I've been up close with a 15mm fig so not sure).

I'd suggest if you were multi basing then you might have to abstract things a little. For example, weapon ranges and movement from multibase infantry is still pretty simple, but tracking things like location of special weapons might be an issue.
The other thing is that pile-ins are triggered by the *unit*, but pile-in movement and direction is determined per *model*. I've had plenty of games where two minis in the same unit who were in base contact with each other had to pile-in in opposite directions.

It might be easier to deal with the multibase idea by having a single base represent 3-5 troops with X number of wounds and attacks multiplied. There are a few abilities in-game that this would cause an issue for, but nothing common.

That's a good shout actually. It'd be easy enough to treat each base as a distinct 'model' that's scaled up appropriately, and all ranges are done by the base.

As long as you stuck with the principle of applying wounds to the same base in a unit until it is removed, this should be fine.