Slitherine

Made me smile

Mine are just squished as much as possible and overhang the rear a tad. For Heavy chariots it's not too much of an issue if you are 4 wide, but if you like 3 up and 1 back than consider carefull adjustment of the positioning of the wheels so they can slot either side of the horse team on the other chariots.



But your way would certainly generate much merryment

Steve

philqw78 wrote:Made me smile

Wait until you see my pachyderms.

stenic wrote:Mine are just squished as much as possible and overhang the rear a tad. For Heavy chariots it's not too much of an issue if you are 4 wide, but if you like 3 up and 1 back than consider carefull adjustment of the positioning of the wheels so they can slot either side of the horse team on the other chariots.

Cool chariot, Steve. I'll probably squish the horses in somehow to fit the 40mm depth. Anything to avoid negative / imaginary space.

Looks like an Essex model; I assume Assyrian. Did the parasol come with the model or somewhere else?

I've had to base my Assyrian heavy chariots on 50mm deep bases. I think the sensible way to play it that turns are made as if the bases were proper depth, but measurements (for shooting or contact from the rear) are made to the actual base.

Polkovnik wrote:I've had to base my Assyrian heavy chariots on 50mm deep bases. I think the sensible way to play it that turns are made as if the bases were proper depth, but measurements (for shooting or contact from the rear) are made to the actual base.

That's very sensible. ....an unusual trait in a wargamer...or so I've been told.

Polkovnik wrote:
I've had to base my Assyrian heavy chariots on 50mm deep bases. I think the sensible way to play it that turns are made as if the bases were proper depth, but measurements (for shooting or contact from the rear) are made to the actual base.

No doubt that will work fine most of the time.
However there will be times where you will run out of the space.

For example: If 4 chariots were in a single line next to another BG and turned 90 degrees to face away from the neighbouring BG.
Chariots based on 40 mm square bases will have exactly the right amount of space to form a 1 base wide column.
However chariots on 50 mm deep bases will require 200 mm of space. The rules solve this problem by saying something to the effect of, you must end at least as wide as you were deep (I don't have a copy of the rules handy for the actual wording). i.e. if on 50 mm deep bases you end up 2 bases wide and 2 deep, which you do have enough space for.

But then that open up the problem of deliberately basing on slightly deeper bases to gain an advantage. If I didn't have the 10mm room to turn I'd just turn them so that their backs are touching the neighboring BG, or even move the friendly BG the 10mm required to make room.

Polkovnik wrote:
But then that open up the problem of deliberately basing on slightly deeper bases to gain an advantage.

Yes.
That would legal and in the rules.

Pretending that bases are a different size to what they actually are is not in the rules.


Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating basing on different sized bases to gain an advantage. However if larger bases are used then they should be played with as the size they are.

Peter

I guess the way I would tend to play this is to treat the bases as being their nominal depth for changing face 90 degrees and determining how wide the new formation must be and for any other similar situations in order to avoid the accrual of undue advantage but would try to make sure that the distance to the nearest enemy remains constant whenever they do change facing. There is probably still some other advantage to be gained by deeper basing but that would seem to eliminate the biggest.

Chris

the worst thing about bases greater than 40mm depth is that it is impossibkle to turn 90 dregrees from column. I wonder how the rules treat 28mm chariots and turning.

If at all possible Id try to stick to the 40mm depth.

i have the exact saem essex chariots adn its possible by bringing the horses closer to the chariot and clipping the beam that attaches to the yolk so it doestn look silly projecting beyond the horses front.

expendablecinc wrote:the worst thing about bases greater than 40mm depth is that it is impossibkle to turn 90 dregrees from column. I wonder how the rules treat 28mm chariots and turning.

If at all possible Id try to stick to the 40mm depth.

i have the exact saem essex chariots adn its possible by bringing the horses closer to the chariot and clipping the beam that attaches to the yolk so it doestn look silly projecting beyond the horses front.

Do you mean it's impossible because of this rule:

"The new front edge must consist of the minimum number of bases so that the width of the turned group is at least as wide as it was deep before turning."

So, a BG of 4 chariots based on 40mm wide by 50mm deep in column of 1 X 4 would be 40mm wide by 200mm deep. Turning 90 degrees the maximum width would be 160mm....therefore, they can't be "at least as wide as it was deep" and a turn is impossible???

As you point out it's true of 28mm with chariots on 60mm wide X 80 mm deep; and it's also true of battle wagons in 15mm (40mm wide by 80mm deep).

Rather than insist that the turns impossible I would suggest that new width is "at least as wide as it was deep" or, if that's not possible then the formation of the turned unit is one base deep (i.e., has the maximum width even if less than the original depths). this probably needs some rule clarification in the FAQ.

expendablecinc wrote:the worst thing about bases greater than 40mm depth is that it is impossibkle to turn 90 dregrees from column. I wonder how the rules treat 28mm chariots and turning.

If at all possible Id try to stick to the 40mm depth.

i have the exact saem essex chariots adn its possible by bringing the horses closer to the chariot and clipping the beam that attaches to the yolk so it doestn look silly projecting beyond the horses front.

By the way I did eventually base on 40mm by 50 mm. I realised I could clip the beam and push the horses up against the chariot, but I didn't like the look. Since I don't play in tournaments - and pretty much solitaire these days - there's no real issue of exploiting the rule for cheap advantage.

I will try to be practical about the odd base depth (i.e., measurements are to the actual base, adjustments after turns will be so that there's minimum disruption of other units but the chariots should not get an advantage they wouldn't have otherwise, if properly based as a result of the turn, alignment / conforming of basees will assume a 40mm depth).

The philospohy should be that odd sizes are okay but treated on the gaming table such that "no advantage accrues" to the unit solely as a result of the odd size.

shadowdragon wrote:The philospohy should be that odd sizes are okay but treated on the gaming table such that "no advantage accrues" to the unit solely as a result of the odd size.

That seems far too sensible

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:The philospohy should be that odd sizes are okay but treated on the gaming table such that "no advantage accrues" to the unit solely as a result of the odd size.

That seems far too sensible

Agreed. It would never work.

Finally some of the (Neo-Babylonians) chariots based and painted; and, as you can see, on oversize bases. Also worth posting 'cause you just about never see pictures of Babylonians - although I admit it's hard to tell they're not Assyrian.