Rebasing!

johngl · Post by **johngl** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:42 pm

Just read through the rules for the first time, and a couple of things leaped out at me. First: the prospect of rebasing all my double-based elements (DBEs) to single bases. That may not sound like a big deal, but I have 18 double elements of knights (Germans and Byzantines), 24 of bowmen (Babylonians and Byzantines) and about 100 of hairy German warbands. Not very happy about that prospect. It's worst for the Byzantines - the DBM double elements have 6 figures whereas the AoW single elements will need 4 each - that means painting as well as rebasing.

I also notice that there's no provision for naval units. Aaargh! What about my 16 Sung Chinese ships, as well as all the Viking, Roman and medieval ships??

Now, perhaps I'm an extreme case - I have a lot of armies with all the bits. But I'm sure there are others in similar positions and they may well be put off the rules by these aspects. I'm sure that Vis Bellica has suffered from its "non-standard" base sizes. Have these issues been discussed previously?

I'll read through again and try to sound a bit more positive about the rules generally - they look pretty good at first glance.

Cheers

John GL

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:52 am

John, you certainly don't need to rebase the foot - they fight best at least 2 ranks deep anyway. We need to put in a note to the effect that troops can be optionally double based provided that some singles are available as "change".

Sorry about the Byzantine kataphraktoi, I am sure nobody will mind if you have the "wrong" number of figures on a base.

With regard to other double based knights - we had these in up until a few weeks ago, but we were unable to find good evidence for them prior to 1450 (so if your army is earlier it would have had to be rebased anyway), and eventually decided that the effect they were designed in DBM to replicate was adequately modelled by the 1 HP3B benefit of being 2 deep.

It is unfortunate, I will need to rebase mine too, but we think the abandonment of double based knights is a step forward.

Missing out naval units in the main rules was a conscious design decision. However, be assured that they will appear in our planned Campaign Supplement in due course.

johngl · Post by **johngl** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:23 am

Ah, that's a relief. The warband would be the main issue; I'll suspend judgment about the Bw(X) for the time being. As for the German knights, I naturally have two lots, 13th and 15th century - doesn't everyone??

A note in the rules to avoid instant reactions like mine would be an excellent idea!

shall · Post by **shall** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:14 pm

Yes don't worry JGL,

I have lots of double based McNeils - scots warriors in kilts - and I aim to get them on the table some time soon....

Si

johngl · Post by **johngl** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:36 pm

Thanks, Si.

By the way, if you lot are going to label me a Peasant you ought to get your own titles right - Princeps and Hastatus.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:10 pm

johngl wrote:By the way, if you lot are going to label me a Peasant you ought to get your own titles right - Princeps and Hastatus.

Indeed, and I seem have been "promoted" from a Triarius to a Princeps, which seems a little odd. I am certainly old enough to be a Triarius, if not, indeed, too old.

I wonder if I will become a Primus Pilus when I get to 2,000 posts.