All hail Boudicca!

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:47 am

I painted up some new commanders for my Ancient Britons this week

Here they are in all their glory.

So I got them out for a game today , 600 points vs Ancient Indians, they proudly entered the fray each leading the warriors from the front rank.

Double 6 ! , a commander lost , not to worry , that happens.

One turn later...

Double 6 ! Another one down , " well thats bad luck , not to worry I have two more generals."

A few turns later...

DOUBLE 6 ! Boudica is slain ! "Crikey !"

And then a few turns later....

DOUBLE 6 ! All 4 commanders are dead !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't cry , but my eyes were watering

garyp · Post by **garyp** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:25 am

Actually a total of 6 commanders were destroyed in the battle - one of mine died gloriously leading a bg of elephants as it crushed some warband while my Inspired C-in-C was trampled by some other warband as they chased down a bg of routing clubmen - and I had kept him out of the front line and everthing - bugger! Interestingly my first double six was the next die roll after three straight "1's" for base losses - what are the odds?!

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:41 am

Very nice painting job, Keith. At least your Celtic commanders all died gloriously!

Slantia,
Scott

Jungle_Rhino · Post by **Jungle_Rhino** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:57 pm

I like the commanders based on a round base like that - would make them stand out better I imagine. I presume it is ok to do that then? I've been thinking about something like this myself as otherwise they might look a bit boring.

Also I was thinking it would be cool to put standard bearers/musicians in with my rank, sort of like a mini 'command stand' as each unit would of course have it's own sub commanders. Keeping the big boss generals on a circular base would certainly differentiate between them better.

davem · Post by **davem** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:38 pm

Jungle_Rhino wrote:I like the commanders based on a round base like that - would make them stand out better I imagine. I presume it is ok to do that then? I've been thinking about something like this myself as otherwise they might look a bit boring.

Also I was thinking it would be cool to put standard bearers/musicians in with my rank, sort of like a mini 'command stand' as each unit would of course have it's own sub commanders. Keeping the big boss generals on a circular base would certainly differentiate between them better.

There have been threads on this topic before, but in a nutshell;
There is nothing to stop you basing your Generals how you like for club or friendly games. However comp games will expect your Generals to be on standard base sizes, in the case of 15mm figures they should be on 40 x 40 bases (although many of us still have Generals on DBx bases of 40 x 30mm for mounted). You could base them as you want, but perhaps for comp games simply attach a 40 x 40 base beneath?

I like the idea of individualising "other ranks" bases. No-one is likely to have any problem with say 1 base in a BG of 6-8 bases looking a bit special, provided they are all on the correct bases for that troop type.

Have fun, see you on the weekend;-p

Regards

Dave M

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:41 pm

I really liked the look of the round bases, but in several matches now they lead to uncetainty which is not desirable. I think the round bases are different and therefore cool. But like smoking doesn't mean its healthy. I would suggest putting them on a 40x40 base for clarity or just doing the same cool diorama on a 40 x 40 base.

At first I didn't like the 40 x 40 and put my roamn commanders on 40x30 and am now rebasing all those.

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:40 pm

I like the round bases , I don't see any problem with them.
I really don't see any difference between a comp game and a friendly game , you guys must be taking it a little too serious.

madmike111 · Post by **madmike111** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:26 am

Keith - what sort of sacrifice to the gods did your commander perform prior to the battle, anything less than goat and you can expect to loss at least one commander. To loss 4 commanders is a strong indication to me that the sacrifice was in the ‘boiler chicken’ range.

Jungle_Rhino · Post by **Jungle_Rhino** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:43 am

I didn't realise they were meant to be 40x40mm - I thought they were meant to be based as cavalry which implied a 40x30mm. Guess I will have to read the book more carefully!! (and get some more 40x40 bases!)

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:22 am

madmike111 wrote:Keith - what sort of sacrifice to the gods did your commander perform prior to the battle, anything less than goat and you can expect to loss at least one commander. To loss 4 commanders is a strong indication to me that the sacrifice was in the ‘boiler chicken’ range.

Good point , I'll be bringing a goat and big highland beasty to sacrifice next battle

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:23 am

Jungle_Rhino wrote:I didn't realise they were meant to be 40x40mm - I thought they were meant to be based as cavalry which implied a 40x30mm. Guess I will have to read the book more carefully!! (and get some more 40x40 bases!)

Most of my commanders are still on DBM sized bases, actually all of them apart from the elephant and chariot ones which were on 40 by 40 for DBM.

I have simply not gotten round to reoganising my figure collection for FoG yet and I have been playing for nearly 3 years

I blame all those little tanks and chaps with rifles, SMGs and machine guns for taking my modeling time.

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:37 pm

For an army like ancients britons or gauls where you have lots of similar BGs of foot troops it can be quite useful to include a "command stand" for each BG. If you place them in a consistent position (say fromt left of each BG) they serve to indicate where one BG finishes and the next begins when they are in a battle line. It's particularly useful if you have different sized BGs in the battle line.

Fulgrim · Post by **Fulgrim** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:40 pm

Great minies and paintjob!!

Commanders are not required to be based 40x40, not in the rulebook atleast - they are required to be based "up to 40 mm". I see several points in making them 40x40 though, for estetic reasons, but ive based my roman foot command on 40x30 since it fist better with the legionaries bases (at 40x15mm), replacing 2 bases exactly - and that imho looks nicer on the table.

To my understanding the rules in this area are more inclined to be interpreted like this: The Companions state that commanders should be based as a certain troop type - example cavalry - then that base size should be used (40x30mm for Cv) up to a maximum of 40x40mm (remember to rulebook states "up to 40mm base depth"). Since a smaller base is worse than a large, game-wise, i would find it very obnoxiuos if someone didnt want to play vs round bases (if of course they are not exceeding 40mm in diameter).

note: Please pardon my english

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:52 pm

Fulgrim wrote:To my understanding the rules in this area are more inclined to be interpreted like this: The Companions state that commanders should be based as a certain troop type - example cavalry - then that base size should be used (40x30mm for Cv) up to a maximum of 40x40mm (remember to rulebook states "up to 40mm base depth"). Since a smaller base is worse than a large, game-wise, i would find it very obnoxiuos if someone didnt want to play vs round bases (if of course they are not exceeding 40mm in diameter).

Actually the companion books state that commanders should be depicted as ... not based as.

note: Please pardon my english

Your English is fine.

FWIW I am totally happy to play against commanders on round bases and have done so on more than one occasion.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:59 pm

Keith wrote:
madmike111 wrote:Keith - what sort of sacrifice to the gods did your commander perform prior to the battle, anything less than goat and you can expect to loss at least one commander. To loss 4 commanders is a strong indication to me that the sacrifice was in the ‘boiler chicken’ range.

Good point , I'll be bringing a goat and big highland beasty to sacrifice next battle

So the big highland beasty is for sacrificial purposes, I dread to think what the goat will be for....

HannibalBarca · Post by **HannibalBarca** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:09 pm

hammy wrote:Actually the companion books state that commanders should be depicted as ... not based as.

That strikes me as an odd reading of it. Basing is surely a part of the on-table depiction?

At any rate, that would still give a basing scheme for commanders as a choice of anywhere from 40x1mm to 40x40mm. Certainly no requirement to use the maximum allowed depth, which is what seems to have been suggested.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:41 pm

HannibalBarca wrote:
hammy wrote:Actually the companion books state that commanders should be depicted as ... not based as.
That strikes me as an odd reading of it. Basing is surely a part of the on-table depiction?

At any rate, that would still give a basing scheme for commanders as a choice of anywhere from 40x1mm to 40x40mm. Certainly no requirement to use the maximum allowed depth, which is what seems to have been suggested.

IMO 40 by anything up to 40 is fine.

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:18 pm

The commanders are just markers of where they are. Round bases look better , you know where the commanders are etc.
Once you start sticking a 40x40mm base into a unit , the battle group shape changes as the commander displaces bases. The bases hanging out the back of a BG due to the commander in the front rank is a real pain, it's even worse when you play in 28mm.
In my experience the square bases cause more problems than round bases , but it really doesn't matter what shape the base is so do what you want.

madmike111 · Post by **madmike111** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:17 am

big highland beasty

I assume you mean a haggis, I thought they were all extinct