Samurai Figures in 15mm

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:59 am

You didn't see the Persian army at Burton this year. It looked great, but the Rhino's weren't quite historical.

irondog068 · Post by **irondog068** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:31 pm

You guys may be missing the point I am trying to make here.
If you can fake Samurai armor by 200 years than you should be able to fake western armor. The idea of "Well they are Japanese so they will work" grates my teeth as much as some of you when I show up with all my Great Italian war Heavy cavalry and calling them 1st or okay 3rd crusaders. You might as well be playing with colored blocks.

Osprey has a love it seems of Samurai and done a lot of books on them. Just get the right figures for the next book. As someone says Old Glory is cheap enough just use them. Look on the bright side, You could build not one but 2 totally diffrent Samurai armies. ! for the Gempi/Onin wars and the second (when the 1500+ book comes out) the Senjko peroin army with all the cool banners that everyone so loves.

Belive me, they are 2 totally diffrent armies that fought diffrent and used diffrent tactics.

Irondog

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:24 pm

irondog068 wrote:You guys may be missing the point I am trying to make here.
If you can fake Samurai armor by 200 years than you should be able to fake western armor. The idea of "Well they are Japanese so they will work" grates my teeth as much as some of you when I show up with all my Great Italian war Heavy cavalry and calling them 1st or okay 3rd crusaders. You might as well be playing with colored blocks.

I'm sure we all agree with you in principle. But its an unfortunate fact that most wargamers knowledge of what is "OK" for Samurai is generally a lot less in-depth less than their knowledge of what is "OK" for medieval knights. If (say) 90% of historical wargamers think that plate-armoured 1st crusaders are "wrong", maybe less than 50% of them would realise that banner-wearing Early Samurai were "wrong". It's their ignorance, not yours - but it is what its like out there!

irondog068 wrote: Look on the bright side, You could build not one but 2 totally diffrent Samurai armies. ! for the Gempi/Onin wars and the second (when the 1500+ book comes out) the Senjko peroin army with all the cool banners that everyone so loves.

Now that's a compelling argument to learn more

Mithras · Post by **Mithras** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:42 pm

WombatDazzler wrote:May as well play fantasy if you are not going to at least try and use accurate figures.

There are enough ranges on the market to at least make an effort.

It is historical miniatures wargaming after all.

D

Agreed with Wombat. I think sometimes it's ok to use figures that look the part, particularly if an actual accurate figure simply doesn't exist, but deliberately buying the wrong period because they "look cooler" seems to me to sort of defeat the purpose. And believe me, I pick a lot of my armies based on that "hey, it looks cool" basis;) I have a very odd thing about not liking scraggly bearded troops, for some reason...

Nevertheless, I try very hard to keep troops that look as if they are in the correct period attire.
I've got several options for modelling 3rd century Romans, for example, all of them valid. If I can't find figs that have the "right look" for me in the 3rd century, I won't dragoon first century Romans into service - I'll build first century Romans instead, or I'll find another list that suits me.

That said, everybody has a right to build his army as he chooses. Even if it rankles me when I see an "Eastern Woodland Indian" force modelled with Sioux Indians and Teepees, it's certainly the owner's right, and I won't refuse him a game on that basis alone. (Now, the guy who ran the French and Indian War game at a recent con and used desert terrain... I might make an exception.)

To answer your question, I have seen the new Peter Pig Samurai figs, and many of them are quite nice (for the late period, if my knowledge is correct). Worth a look, in my humble opinion. Two Dragons is nice too, but so far as I know they are out of business, or at least very difficult to come by. In the states, getting them is almost impossible.

-Mithras

irondog068 · Post by **irondog068** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:48 pm

Ahh,
Voice of reason. See I do make a point once and a while. Once you open one book on the Samurai you will see how painfully right I am. And when the new book on asian armies come out and you see how diffrent the Samurai look, and the fact that there were no Ashiguru (those hoards of medium troops wearing the big round helmets) you will why I was saying Hey! you guys are messing up.

The one big bummer with early Samurai armies is lots of cavalry. And being my other armies are Romans, Greeks and Swiss I am not a fan of cavalry unless they are fully barded and leaving nothing but feet, tail and a little bit of snout showing.

All my horses look like brown dogs.
Irondog

JCgoose · Post by **JCgoose** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:47 am

This also relates to me with something thats come up about Turks with a Fez. About 1/4 or more of my Turcoman have a Fez but apprantly they didn't become a military thing till the 16th Cent. They are otherwise armed and equiped the same as the rest. So what I am asking is are these models incorrect for my Seljuk? These minis were marketed to me as acceptable Seljuk Turks and I'd rather not turn up to a tourney only to have some one have ago about the incorrect hats on my LH.

I suppose the simplest option is to turn them into helms/turbans.

irondog068 · Post by **irondog068** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:27 pm

This relates closer to Napoleonices. Most palyers can only afford one big ass army. So I have seen no one complaing if the French were in shakos when they were fighting in 1805 or Russians in Kiwer Shakos in 1805 or British in tombstone shakos in anything but 1815. I bought all my French in shako and habit long since a older uniform would always be in use lare but not the other way. Except the US in 1812 who for some reason got everyone the new style of shako even though they were going bankrupt!

A hat on 1/4 of your figures is not as big a thing as using the wrong figure/uniform/armor that was out of date by hundreds of years.

and on the bright side you are 1/4 of the way for your Ren army! And you can slowly replace the Fez gus as yor Ren army takes shape with the rules that will come out someday someyear. For me and my Samurai I think I am sticking to Killer Katanas 2 till I see the Senjko peroid army list and new rules.

Irondog

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:21 pm

irondog068 wrote:I bought all my French in shako and habit long since a older uniform would always be in use lare but not the other way.

You would never consider playing a game from the revolutionary period then? I'm just assuming this from your earlier posts. Your style has been 'buy a second army'. All you have to do is open one of the Ospreys to see that the Revolutionary period headwear is radically different to the later periods. Heaven forbid you should have the wrong shade of green on your line chasseurs, and I'll refuse to play you if you've got the wrong facing colours on your troops. The first line infantry had better be the first line infantry... if it's coloured as the second..., and if we're playing a re-fight of Waterloo the week after playing Valmy, you'd better get busy with your painting and hock your house to have (at least) three different styles of French uniform!

Ian

Mithras · Post by **Mithras** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:13 pm

DaiSho wrote:
irondog068 wrote:I bought all my French in shako and habit long since a older uniform would always be in use lare but not the other way.
You would never consider playing a game from the revolutionary period then? I'm just assuming this from your earlier posts. Your style has been 'buy a second army'. All you have to do is open one of the Ospreys to see that the Revolutionary period headwear is radically different to the later periods. Heaven forbid you should have the wrong shade of green on your line chasseurs, and I'll refuse to play you if you've got the wrong facing colours on your troops. The first line infantry had better be the first line infantry... if it's coloured as the second..., and if we're playing a re-fight of Waterloo the week after playing Valmy, you'd better get busy with your painting and hock your house to have (at least) three different styles of French uniform!

Ian

That's when it gets ridiculous. But I'd argue, for what it's worth, that ten or fifteen years in difference for uniforms, or having to substitute one uniform for another when doing a historical scenario is different from, say, using a Late Roman legionary to fight Cannae. I guess everybody has his limits. We had one guy in my previous group who insisted upon using the "right uniform" from the "right period" of the American Civil War. So, he'd be terribly unimpressed if you were using, say, 1865 era Union cavalry at Bull Run...
And then there was the other extreme. A gentleman who'd frequently run games, like scenarios from the Spanish American War, using troops in Shakos, because "they were all Spanish anyway, right?"

It's a funny old hobby.

-M.

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:01 pm

Mithras wrote:I'd argue, for what it's worth, that ten or fifteen years in difference for uniforms, or having to substitute one uniform for another when doing a historical scenario is different from, say, using a Late Roman legionary to fight Cannae.

I don't see any difference at all.

That same 10 or 15 years of difference is the difference between a Spitfire and an F4 PhantomII. The bloody things are representations of men in the field. Irondog want's us to buy a second army rather than use a later Samurai for an earlier Samurai. I want him to buy a second army to fight the Revolutionary period. Actually, I don't. I couldn't care if he turns up with veterans of Waterloo to a Valmy battle. It would be nicer if the Valmy guys had bicorns, but I'm not going to say a word if they aren't.

I believe that anal behaviour of the 'those buttons are supposed to be brass not gold' variety (which the early/late Samurai argument is an extention of) are part of what is killing the hobby. We're supposed to be having fun.

I remember on a newsgroup once a guy came into a Napoleonic forum to ask how to paint up his army to be British for his Warmhammer Napoleonique (I think it was called) rules. Quite a few decended on him like a plague of locusts, and he ran with his tail between his legs. Way to recruit him to the hobby guys! Why is Warhammer so successful? I think it's because people have fun and don't get tied down into minutae of 'those troops shouldn't have Lorica Segmentata'.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, our figures are 'blocks of wood'. They are often nicely painted 'blocks of wood' and carved into familiar shapes, but they are 'blocks of wood' none the less. They are a representation of what they are meant to be... that's all.

Ian

irondog068 · Post by **irondog068** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:52 pm

Well to end the argument about myself. Yes I agree with most posters that 10 to 15 years diffrence is easy to overlook but
I never played (at least with my French) Revolutionary peroid with the French. When I found out my French from Essex (after studying) were really good only for the 100 days I started to get diffrent mfgs. I played from 1809 to 1815 since the older peroid unifrm was worn till the end. And yes I had 2 units of Carbineers. One in the early uniform one in the late. So no Valmy, 1800 or 1805. Since My Prussians were Calpe 28mm 1806 was out since the whole line is geared for 1813+
As Far as aircraft of course not and about buying a second army, it was not my idea at first it was someone else who made the comment about the price of Old Glory figures and buying more. Hell, I can't get my second Perry command set for my second Diaymo!

Once again some of you guys are missing the point. If people want to show up with Samurai figures which are 100 to 200 years out of date than there should be no one complaining if My 3rd Crusaders knights figures are from the Great Italian Wars.

JCgoose · Post by **JCgoose** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:56 pm

philqw78 wrote:You didn't see the Persian army at Burton this year. It looked great, but the Rhino's weren't quite historical.

Sounds like someone had been watching 300

irondog068 · Post by **irondog068** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:35 am

I missed that on the post. Well, if someone did a persian army including Rinos well than I have nothing else to add.

But who makes the Bizzare imortale figures from the movie? No very historical but I would love to see it.

JCgoose · Post by **JCgoose** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:09 am

irondog068 wrote:I missed that on the post. Well, if someone did a persian army including Rinos well than I have nothing else to add.

But who makes the Bizzare imortale figures from the movie? No very historical but I would love to see it.

Theres probably a line of ninja orcs out there thats close

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:29 am

irondog068 wrote:Once again some of you guys are missing the point. If people want to show up with Samurai figures which are 100 to 200 years out of date than there should be no one complaining if My 3rd Crusaders knights figures are from the Great Italian Wars.

No I for one, have not (and I don't think anyone here has) been missing your point. And your point has not been anything at all to do with you turning up with Great Italian Wars to a Crusader game. I don't believe for one second that you would turn up for a Crusader game with Great Italian Wars figures. You seem like the type of person who would hold some kind of antipathy to this. However, I've never seen anyone complain about people (in ancients) turning up with out of period figures - this seems to be squarely in the realm of Napoleonics. So, if it happens that you turn up with Great Italian Wars to a Crusader game, I'll probably nod sagely and accept what you're putting down as what they are - representations of what you are telling me they are!

Ian

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:33 am

WombatDazzler wrote:May as well play fantasy if you are not going to at least try and use accurate figures.

There are enough ranges on the market to at least make an effort.

It is historical miniatures wargaming after all.

D

Interesting to hear you say that Dazzler - especially in light of the 'Persian' comments on the next page. Wasn't it you (at Easter-con the year before last) who bought a Rhino to put in place of a Scythed Chariot for your Persians? I might be mistaken, but I thought it was.

Ian

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:24 am

DaiSho wrote: However, I've never seen anyone complain about people (in ancients) turning up with out of period figures

Lived a sheltered life have we?

irondog068 · Post by **irondog068** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:11 pm

I have to agree on the last post.
But I thought the whole reason we do this is so we have figures within say 100 years of the proper peroid? Otherwise, Why do I have a Late Republic and a Early Imperial Roman army? I could buy one and use it from Ceaser to the fall of the West.
I thought part of the fun is building a bunch of armies. This is one of my complaints of FOG. I think the armies are too big and it gets to expensive to build several. I have been trying to build a Sassanid army for some time but with 2 kids and a 3rd on the way it is still not happened. I know we all overlook a lot since we fight armies that did were not around in the same couple of 100 years but even the rules like the idea of tourneys using a theme (rise of Rome etc.)

But on the "WTF" in a army before John Jenkins pulled there Terra Cotta warriors (those who have seen then know what I mean). I was going to build a unit to go with a planned Warring States Chinese army and just treat them as a standard line unit with my friends.
And I swear Some day I will have one for each book! On the wish list:
Sassanid (to fight my Friends Byzatines)
Hussites or Bohieman league
Warring states
1st or 3rd Crusader (with proper Crusaders)
Norman or Saxon (not sure).

Don't Know what is in Oath to Feilty and I build a 28mm Assirian army and sold it so a new Biblical army is not in the cards

JCgoose · Post by **JCgoose** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:18 pm

Well I guess it comes down to how accomidating your going to be and how far your opponent is trying to push it all. If say a veteran player is subbing in models too an extreme I might raise an eye brow but if its a new player then I usually allow lot of slack in there first game and try and make them conform more to the army list later.

WombatDazzler · Post by **WombatDazzler** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:10 am

not me. Never ran persians.

I have no problems with the occasional figure for variety, or something that is amusing - like the persian rhino or a funny camp.

My issue is whole armies that have no link to their historical counterparts. If you like sashimonos run late samurai.

I also agree that someone who is just starting should be given a lot of leeway.

cheers

Dazzler