What do you think of round bases for generals.

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:51 pm

Hi all
I have found that Generals get in the way and displace too many rank and file figures in units.
e.g. a commander based as Cav joins some HF and the HF bases stick way out the back of the unit.
This is especially true with 25mm.

I played a game today with my 15m Ancient Britons and I had some spare generals based on round bases from a dabble with warmaster ancients. So I decided to try round bases for my commanders.
The round bases were great , easy to see , and you just place them in front or behind the unit or declare their status as in the front rank or rear.
But really , I don't think I've ever had a general in a unit and he was in the rear rank while the unit was fighting , they are always fighting in the front rank !

So if I was painting a new army now , I'd go for round bases for my commanders , and I might make a few round based commanders for my existing armies.

What do you think ?

Jason_Langlois · Post by **Jason_Langlois** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:09 pm

I went with hexagon bases myself.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:44 pm

The only time that I can see it being a problem is when you need are measuring to see whether a BG is in command range. then the extra few fractions of a MU afforded by a square base would be very useful indeed.

Marc

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:18 am

I use 20mm by 60mm in 28mm.

Aligned with a B/U sideways is a commander in the rear ranks, aligned front to back is him in the front rank.

I loose some command distance, but it looks so much better.

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:27 am

"Macamouse" always hides in the rear ranks

Keith Antony leads from the front !

hehehe

Looking forward to the invasion this Friday night

miffedofreading · Post by **miffedofreading** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:51 am

I have rebased all my generals on 40mm round bases. They are far superior to square bases where the general does not really stand out. The general is only really suppossed to be a marker anyway, he is not a fighting unit

miffedofreading · Post by **miffedofreading** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 am

I have rebased all my generals on 40mm round bases. They are far superior to square bases where the general does not really stand out. The general is only really suppossed to be a marker anyway, he is not a fighting unit

Hobilar · Post by **Hobilar** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:53 pm

I plan on mounting all of my generals on round bases. It's a holdover from Warmaster that I really liked.

willb · Post by **willb** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:36 pm

i decided to go with 40mm rounds also. we also adopted a house rule of measuring from the center and adding one mu to the command radius. this covers the extra few mm that the square bases would.

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:25 am

Here is Keith Antonious Maximus on his new base.

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:49 pm

And some of Keith Antonious Maximus's commanders pushing the Legions forward to victory.

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:11 pm

following up on this discussion from awhile ago, how are people now feeling about generals on bases that can't line up edge to edge and corner to corner with a base of troops? Does a round base have an implication for generals counting as being "with" a BG?

Martin

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:35 pm

Provided that players and umpires are willing to use common sense, I can't see why there would be any significant problems with round command bases.

Cheers,
Scott

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:00 pm

I am going with 40x40 bases for 15mm generals. They stand out and have plenty of room for whatever you want to put on them.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:26 pm

Provided that players and umpires are willing to use common sense, I can't see why there would be any significant problems with round command bases.

Because for a general to be considered with a unit he should be in edge to edge and corner to corner contact..... If people want to get picky...... Which some will

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:57 pm

philqw78 wrote:
Provided that players and umpires are willing to use common sense, I can't see why there would be any significant problems with round command bases.
Because for a general to be considered with a unit he should be in edge to edge and corner to corner contact..... If people want to get picky...... Which some will

If people want to be picky just plonk the round based generals on a square base and stick them with a bit of blutack

Omar · Post by **Omar** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:30 pm

How big would be good for 15mm?

Also, dont the rules require that you base your general like a certain troop type from the army list, including base size?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:32 pm

Omar wrote:How big would be good for 15mm?

Also, dont the rules require that you base your general like a certain troop type from the army list, including base size?

By the rules for a 15mm general the base should be 40mm wide and upto 40mm deep. A 40mm or smaller diameter circle for commanders would be fine.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:51 pm

I base my commanders as cavalry.

But I was curious what is the standard for tournament players? Do they adhere to the 40 x 40 base size?

Thanks

Brian

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:18 pm

BrianC wrote:I base my commanders as cavalry.

But I was curious what is the standard for tournament players? Do they adhere to the 40 x 40 base size?

Thanks

Brian

heh. i base my generals as little round diorama.

it does makes them much, much easier to identify.

i'm suspicious that as competition around FoG tightens up (most games are friendlies round here) there will be pressure to conform to rules like careful edge/edge corner/corner touching.

then i'll just blu-tack on a square base...