Switch Theme:

KoW unit frontage vs. depth - how strict?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

I've got a pile of 28mm minis that I want to multibase on 50mm squares, for use in a couple of different games. This is partly because I guess there'll be inevitable games of KoW, but it'll leave me with with slightly oversized infantry troops and regiments in that game.
I know some other games are more strict about unit frontage - doesn't matter so much about the depth as long as you've got the width. How is it in KoW? Would an extra 10 or 20mm confer a huge advantage or disadvantage? Or what's the chance of someone refusing to face it?

I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in gb
Painting Within the Lines





Extra frontage puts you at a slight disadvantage as it allows more "normal" sized enemy units to multi-charge you. Extra depth is swings and roundabouts really as it makes it a little harder to get round to a rear charge but makes your flanks a bigger target.
Actual unit footprints have to be a bit flexible anyway as movement trays give you a larger frontage and depth and multibasing means not everyone uses them.

Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't 
   
Made in at
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot





Youll always get some people who really stick to RAW and who wont play you if youre unit sizes are off. But thats normal with every game, and in a friendly environment, you shouldnt run into any issues. Tournaments might be another matter though.

Generally speaking though, its a good idea to get as close to the right size as possible. Just preempts all of those issues, though I guess its a bit more difficult if you want to run a different game that also has units in a specific size...
   
Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

Looking back, I might've been a bit vague in my wording. Frontage would be 100mm, no problem with that. It's just the extra 10mm and 20mm on the back of troops and regiments I'm wondering about.

 larva_uk wrote:

Actual unit footprints have to be a bit flexible anyway as movement trays give you a larger frontage and depth and multibasing means not everyone uses them.


That's good enough for me, though. I'm not likely to be playing in many tournaments, either.

I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




No, 100mm frontage for an offical 80mm or 125mm wide would not be accepted for KoW OP. I know from personal experience.

I've not yet found a KoW event that allows unit frontages that don't conform precisely to official specs. Even precise frontage AND depth are enforced.

I asked if I could use 2x DBA bases for KoW units (120mm wide) and was told 'no' by every OP event I tried.

Even in casual play the community generally rejects non-official basing.

Of course, all of this is whacky in light of Mantic's use of DBA and Impetus units THROUGHOUT the KoW Histroicals rulebook!

So they obviously uses 120mm infantry and cav units to develop KoW Historicals. But the community bans them from OP. Go figure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyr13 wrote:
Youll always get some people who really stick to RAW and who wont play you if youre unit sizes are off. But thats normal with every game, and in a friendly environment.


That has not been my experience.

On online forums I see friendly comments like yours on occasion.

But in the real world you can't find Kow communities willing to accept non-conforming unit frontages, even in casual play.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/26 14:31:21


 
   
Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

Wartopia wrote:
No, 100mm frontage for an offical 80mm or 125mm wide would not be accepted for KoW OP. I know from personal experience.


Huh. Another reason for Mantic to cut the apron strings of GW and WFB's basing conventions. Good thing I am only talking about infantry - and not anything that Games Workshop put on a 25mm base.

(What's got 80mm frontage, though? I can't see it in the 1st edition book.)


Of course, all of this is whacky in light of Mantic's use of DBA and Impetus units THROUGHOUT the KoW Histroicals rulebook!

So they obviously uses 120mm infantry and cav units to develop KoW Historicals. But the community bans them from OP. Go figure.


Nuts.

I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




re: 80mm frontage, WHFB used to give rank bonuses based on 4-man ranks. 5-man ranks became a thing to increase revenue.

So 4x infantry is 80mm. 4x cav or large infantry is 100mm.

Some people still have WHFB collections with move trays of that size.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/26 20:15:13


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

Monsters are explicitly allowed to have a larger base if needed for the model, so that should be no issue really (still want to be as close as possible, though).

For infantry what Reaaaaallly, really matters a lot is the frontage size. A bit of extra on the back really isn't a big deal, though.

Rule of cool will apply, too - if the modeling and painting is awesome, it's even less likely to matter about the back. But the front really is vital to get right

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/27 01:19:02


 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut






It can make a pretty big difference whether a unit is wider than deep or not. Having a square unit makes you easier to maneuver in some situations since you can pivot without getting to near to a enemy.

Personally I'd prefer if there was some leeway with the base size of regular units as well as for Monsters/Characters/War engines but strictly RAW, there aren't. Although, the rulebook recommend including a unit's movement tray into the unit footprint, effectively allowing units that are a few mm's too wide and deep. Actually, Mantic sell plastic trays that's advertised as both movement trays or unitbases if turned to the other side. If used that way, any unit mounted onto them will be a bit too wide and a bit too deep.

I'm not sure how representative for the community as a whole your experience are Wartopia, but it sure does sound like your local community has kinda missed the point. I do think (hope) acceptance might be higher elsewhere.


Having slightly wider infantry units is almost never an advantage, as long as it's within reasonable boundaries, but being more narrow or deeper can often be advantageous since it's good to be square, and being narrow, you sometimes fit an extra unit into a multi-combat of get around terrain you'd have otherwise clipped.

If it were up to me, units would be allowed to be perhaps 20% wider than regular and deeper, as long as it doesn't make the unit square or severely affect the default relation between width and depth. This would allow the common 120mm infantry units of many historical armies to be used. (It's stupid to put up unneeded obstacles up for people with those models to try out KoW)

I don't see a good reason for allowing smaller footprints however since that often creates an advantage, and it's very easy for anyone with too small a base to just put that unit onto a thin extra base or movement tray to mark it's official boundaries.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/27 01:42:35


   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User






Base sizes are critical to the balance inherent in the game - if you start radically changing them it can give a real advantage (or disadvantage) to one player.

Broadly speaking though: bigger = worse. It's a common gripe of people who want to field huge GW dragon models that they suffer from a competitiveness perspective.

All of the above said, I can't think of anyone I've played casually who would strongly object to (much less refuse to play) some slightly bigger unit bases, especially if they're just a bit deeper.
In most circumstances a bit of extra depth on some units is unlikely to affect a game's outcome - and if it did, it's more likely to be to your detriment.

Tournament play is a different matter, and I suspect most TOs will take a firm line on unit footprint.

   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Wafflecakes wrote:
Base sizes are critical to the balance inherent in the game - if you start radically changing them it can give a real advantage (or disadvantage) to one player.

Broadly speaking though: bigger = worse. It's a common gripe of people who want to field huge GW dragon models that they suffer from a competitiveness perspective.

All of the above said, I can't think of anyone I've played casually who would strongly object to (much less refuse to play) some slightly bigger unit bases, especially if they're just a bit deeper.
In most circumstances a bit of extra depth on some units is unlikely to affect a game's outcome - and if it did, it's more likely to be to your detriment.

Tournament play is a different matter, and I suspect most TOs will take a firm line on unit footprint.


Since larger base sizes are generally a disadvantage, that's precisely why I believe people should be allowed to use them for infantry/cavalry, just like we are when it comes to characters/monsters/war engines.

Extra depth is actually more likely IMO to give you an advantage then extra frontage. Someone using 4x4 25mm based models to make a regiment of normally 20mm models would get a regiment that's 100x100mm instead of 100x80. Being perfectly square can help that unit in certain situations (although the longer flanks are a liability). In that particular case it's of course easy to just use 12 models in a 4x3 formation to create a 100x75mm footprint and either place them in a suitably sized movement tray or plasticard.

Extra frontage makes you more unwieldly and leave room for more enemies to gang up on you. I guess a bonus is that it's more effective to screen stuff with a wider frontage, but it's not very often that it makes a difference.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/27 10:23:24


   
Made in nl
Zealous Knight







As long as it's not a chaff unit you're oversizing there's not really any advantage to be had, other than increasing depth vs. width aspect ratio.

I remember a thread on the mantic forums where, after a few pages, the more fanatical proponents of ultra-strict base size rulings started showing their hand: they were basically annoyed at the idea of keeping models on bases suited to other games as KoW as well as soon as that meant the slightest compromise had to be made.

Honestly, my Herd guardian brutes are on 50mm round bases. that means either I go with a 155x105 multibase (five models mounted three in back, two in front) or I go with the 'correct' 120x80+movement tray margin (so 138x88ish), with three models plus whatever cheapass crap minotaur I can mangetize on to fit in between the proper models, just to deal with their whining.

That horde is **NOT** a chaff unit; I'm only disadvantaging myself in order to use some actually good miniatures (let's face it, if you want to work with Mantic stuff and have more than average looking miniatures your choices are limited to about four armies, five if you count the two flavours of undeath separately) and still diffuse the significant expense over multiple gaming systems.

TBH if anyone tried to pull the crap some of those loudmouths advocate around here he'd be out of opponents right quick so no problem in the immediate future but that bass-ackwards slowed nonsense does mean I won't bother trying to make my way to any tournaments any time soon.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Wafflecakes wrote:
Base sizes are critical to the balance inherent in the game - if you start radically changing them it can give a real advantage (or disadvantage) to one player.



No, they're not, at least if it's matter of 100mm wide infantry vs 120mm wide infantry or 125mm wide cav vs 120mm wide cav.

We know this to be true because even mantic used 120mm wide infantry and cavalry unit for KoW Historical. They're in the photos in the book!

Unless of course Mantic just used those units for a photo shoot. Which would indicate that even Mantic and it's closest associates couldn't be bothered to rebase or build new collections for KoW Historical.

I guess at this point I no longer care if Mantic did indeed use DBA/Impetus bases perfectly well with KoW or if they themselves found KoWH so unsatisfactory that even they didn't rebase or build new armies.

Whichever is true, the KoW community and TOs are stuck on strict adherence to fixed basing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/27 14:09:17


 
   
Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

 Zywus wrote:
Actually, Mantic sell plastic trays that's advertised as both movement trays or unitbases if turned to the other side.


Well that makes a bit of difference, if there's something to make up the footprint. The 125mms, as well as being able to break them down to troop size, gives them an advantage over the Renedra trays I have.

I still think it'd benefit KoW to abandon that last connection to WFB sometime, though, now it's defunct.

I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User






Wartopia wrote:
 Wafflecakes wrote:
Base sizes are critical to the balance inherent in the game - if you start radically changing them it can give a real advantage (or disadvantage) to one player.



No, they're not, at least if it's matter of 100mm wide infantry vs 120mm wide infantry or 125mm wide cav vs 120mm wide cav.

We know this to be true because even mantic used 120mm wide infantry and cavalry unit for KoW Historical. They're in the photos in the book!


They definitely are, and if you haven't played a few games with orcs/salamanders (25mm base sizes) I'd suggest giving it a try to appreciate the big impact to manoeuvrability from larger footprints.

What is or isn't in pictures in a book doesn't really change that.
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Vermis wrote:
 Zywus wrote:
Actually, Mantic sell plastic trays that's advertised as both movement trays or unitbases if turned to the other side.


Well that makes a bit of difference, if there's something to make up the footprint. The 125mms, as well as being able to break them down to troop size, gives them an advantage over the Renedra trays I have.

I still think it'd benefit KoW to abandon that last connection to WFB sometime, though, now it's defunct.

It's four troop sized trays connected to each other. So you can use it as one big horde base, or break it apart into two regiment or four troop ones.
http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/kings-of-war/movement-trays/product/kings-of-war-small-movement-tray-pack.html
http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/kings-of-war/movement-trays/product/kings-of-war-large-movement-tray-pack.html

Since it's the inner measurements that correspond to the rules, if you turn the movement tray around and use it as a unit-base, the width of the tray's edge will be included in the footprint. It's just a mm or so but it means that using mantic's own trays as unitbases will create troop units that's something like 82mm x 41mm or If used as a horde tray it'll add up to something like 205mm x 83mm (for 20mm based models)


I'm not sure what you mean with 'abandoning that last connection to WFB?'

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/27 17:00:43


   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Lancaster PA

One thing you might want to try, Vermis, is mounting the models on 40x40 mm bases, and just have 50x50 bases with little magnets in them to snap onto the bottom of the 40s. Then you can move the models around systems easier.

I am doing a similar thing with nearly all my newer models now that I am doing more KoW, Frostgrave and other "modeless" systems. Almost everything is going on a 20mm round or square base, then I have unit trays with sockets for KoW (with sculpted/decorated areas in between models) and 25-35 mm bases for games that need it. A 20mm round fits on top of a 25 mm GW base perfectly, as well as in 20-25 squares.

Basically, find the smallest base footprint that works for you, then just make extenders and trays for the rest of the games.


Woad to WAR... on Celts blog, which is mostly Circle Orboros
"I'm sick of auto-penetrating attacks against my behind!" - Kungfuhustler 
   
Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

I've thought about this far too long and hard. Once I had ideas of individually magnetising half an army so they could switch between individual and multibases. But while I've seen some sabot bases (bases fitting within bases) and they don't look bad, I'm taken with the kind of unbroken unit dioramas I've seen for games like Impetus and, indeed, KoW. Even compromising by splitting that into multibases for different games is a bit of a wrench.

The situation is that I want to build up Dragon Rampant skirmish forces, but stick 12-strong units on multibases, four minis on each of three bases. (For me, any unit that's 10-strong or bigger on individual bases is a faff, and the strength points and very flexible basing in that game are a boon) Then expand a couple of them for mass battle games. Add an extra 50mm base to make a 100mm square for Mayhem, partly because things like chariots and warp lightning cannons will fit on that better, partly because I think GW's scale-crept minis benefit from 25mm of space.
But much as I moan about getting people to try obscure games, I know I'll have to make allowances for more popular games like KoW. Not to make it sound like some awful drudge! But I wasn't aware of Mantic's movement trays until Zywus pointed them out, and I think those'll be very useful for getting the right footprint. Might even buy a few extra minis to fill the gaps.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 01:29:58


I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Lancaster PA

Sounds like a plan! I look forward to seeing how it turns out.


Woad to WAR... on Celts blog, which is mostly Circle Orboros
"I'm sick of auto-penetrating attacks against my behind!" - Kungfuhustler 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




Wartopia wrote:

So they obviously uses 120mm infantry and cav units to develop KoW Historicals. But the community bans them from OP. Go figure.


None of the developers used DBA in any way to develop the book. The photography was completely separate.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Daedle wrote:
Wartopia wrote:

So they obviously uses 120mm infantry and cav units to develop KoW Historicals. But the community bans them from OP. Go figure.


None of the developers used DBA in any way to develop the book. The photography was completely separate.


So the developers had so little interest in historical gaming they didn't own historical troops based for KoW.

Well, that certainly explains the lack of history in Kings of War "Historical".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/14 13:48:58


 
   
Made in us
Hunting Glade Guard




York, PA

The historical rules were mostly done as a favor to the players who had been asking for them for quite some time. Mantic isn't a historical gaming company and doesn't make historical miniatures. They get very little out of making a historical rules set other than the sale of the books which can't be that much. It's pretty clear that whoever made them does not have a very extensive knowledge of history or the composition of historical armies. That said, if you don't like it, don't play it. The basing size is pretty important to the game. If I started making my chaff units bigger and my hammer units smaller, it would severely impact how the game would be played and would be very unbalancing.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 thethreefates wrote:
The historical rules were mostly done as a favor to the players who had been asking for them for quite some time. Mantic isn't a historical gaming company and doesn't make historical miniatures. They get very little out of making a historical rules set other than the sale of the books which can't be that much.


When a friend whips up some homegrown rules and emails them to you, he's doing you a "favor".

When a for-profit company represents a product as having certain characteristics (e.g. being "historical" in nature) and then charges cash in exchange for the product, that's called a business transaction. It's not doing anybody a "favor" since favors are by definition free.

On the contrary, when a for-profit company misrepresents a product for which it charges, that's called something very different from a "favor".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/15 14:18:29


 
   
Made in at
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot





Historical rules dont necessarily have to be historically accurate. Thats up to the player. And having rules compatible with KoW fantasy means it can be a lot easier to recruit new historical gamers, or even play mixed games in a pinch.
Mantic really dont make a lot of money from this, and as said above, dont like it, dont play it.
   
 
Forum Index » Mantic Miniature Games (Kings of War, etc.)
Go to: