Slitherine

Hi there,

I bought yesterday Empires of the Dragon
I've been very interested in checking some Chinese and Samurai army lists.
Like a lot of FOG players I’m an ex-DBM player and I used a lot for example CHI’n Chinese.

I’m very very disappointed regarding some armies like Warryng States, Chou, Han and Samurais.

Where are all the HF (ex Sp and Bd in DBM)?

I don’t want to discuss from historical point of you, I mean for example regarding some Chinese armies it could be right considering MF and not HF.

But I’m very angry because, like all the ex-DBM players, if I want to use these armies I have to rebase all the HF (for example: regarding Han I don’t have any MF, for CHI’n I have 12 MF bases, but more than 50 HF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) .

Considering that some FOG authors are the same of DBM and made researches some years ago for making DBM army lists, do you think it was more important making right historical armies or considering costs involved by many DBM players?

Did you consider timing for rebasing, because I’m not sure it’s more important getting new players but maintain current ex-DBM players (not in all the European countrys FOG is the rule more played, see for example France).

I guess all the players liking Chinese and Samurai armies can agree what I think.
Sergio

There is nothing preventing you using troops based as HF as MF. After all MF an be 4 to a base. The only difference is the depth of the bases and to be honest that almost never makes a difference in the game.

There are two approaches to how to classify troops. One is to use all the historical information available and to make the troops work historically using the rules, the other is to try to shoehorn the way the troops fought into classifications enforced by another ruleset which in turn forced Oriental troops to conform to the classical model.

I have a Han Chinese army, at present I intend using it based exactly as it is but just pointing out to my opponents that all my foot are medium foot. I have done the same but the other way round with the halberdiers in my Swiss army. In DBM they were Bd(X) so on a 20mm deep base but in FoG they are HF.

hammy wrote:There is nothing preventing you using troops based as HF as MF. After all MF an be 4 to a base. The only difference is the depth of the bases and to be honest that almost never makes a difference in the game.

I actually like this as I can rebase them all to 3 to a base MF and increase the number of bases I own by 25%...I also like the clearer visual distinction of heavy foot being 4 to a base and medium foot being 3.

Hey ... Look on the bright side! Your army just got much bigger!

Mike B

ethan wrote:

hammy wrote:There is nothing preventing you using troops based as HF as MF. After all MF an be 4 to a base. The only difference is the depth of the bases and to be honest that almost never makes a difference in the game.

I actually like this as I can rebase them all to 3 to a base MF and increase the number of bases I own by 25%...I also like the clearer visual distinction of heavy foot being 4 to a base and medium foot being 3.

Yes, that possibility had occured to me and it may well be invoked when I decide to rebase my Chinese which I will probably do eventually as part of my basing standardisation programme.

Chairman Mao would tell us that Peace Flows from 3 Figures per Base.

Spike

sergiomonteleone wrote:But I’m very angry because, like all the ex-DBM players, if I want to use these armies I have to rebase all the HF (for example: regarding Han I don’t have any MF, for CHI’n I have 12 MF bases, but more than 50 HF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) .

It is possible to create 'add on' bases to convert HF to MF if the difference in base sizes is a problem. These work really well if your figures are magnabased. All you need (in 15mm) is a 40mm x 20mm base of steel paper, to which you stick a small 40mm x 5mm sabot to match the basing of your figures. Your HF cab then sit on the remaining piece of steel paper and will have the correct base depth. This doesn't involve a huge amount of effort.

Alternatively, as most of these armies have no HF in them, just specify to your opponent that all your troops based as HF are actually MF.

spikemesq wrote:Chairman Mao would tell us that Peace Flows from 3 Figures per Base.

Spike

Chairman Mao would have made the cover of the army list book red.

Marc

DavidT wrote:

sergiomonteleone wrote:But I’m very angry because, like all the ex-DBM players, if I want to use these armies I have to rebase all the HF (for example: regarding Han I don’t have any MF, for CHI’n I have 12 MF bases, but more than 50 HF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) .

It is possible to create 'add on' bases to convert HF to MF if the difference in base sizes is a problem. These work really well if your figures are magnabased. All you need (in 15mm) is a 40mm x 20mm base of steel paper, to which you stick a small 40mm x 5mm sabot to match the basing of your figures. Your HF cab then sit on the remaining piece of steel paper and will have the correct base depth. This doesn't involve a huge amount of effort.

If you can use magnets (one way or the other) make a 40x40 sabot base for the two ranks.

do you think it was more important making right historical armies or considering costs involved by many DBM players?

Clearly the first is more important!

And being a similar problem, I look forward to the day a rule set has the guts to introduce DBx-style 8cm bases for 28mm scale!
If preventing rebasing were the most important thing, there wouldn't be any improvement ever.

hammy wrote: I have a Han Chinese army, at present I intend using it based exactly as it is but just pointing out to my opponents that all my foot are medium foot. I have done the same but the other way round with the halberdiers in my Swiss army. In DBM they were Bd(X) so on a 20mm deep base but in FoG they are HF.

me too, the only problem can be when you want for example making a complex move (turnig 90° and than move) because the depth is different
Sergio

mbsparta wrote:Hey ... Look on the bright side! Your army just got much bigger!

Mike B

Hi MIke,
you are right but you have to play in different way, because there are only MF you must use more terrain.
Besides Cavalry and Han chariots are average and not superior
Sergio

DavidT wrote:

sergiomonteleone wrote:But I’m very angry because, like all the ex-DBM players, if I want to use these armies I have to rebase all the HF (for example: regarding Han I don’t have any MF, for CHI’n I have 12 MF bases, but more than 50 HF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) .

It is possible to create 'add on' bases to convert HF to MF if the difference in base sizes is a problem. These work really well if your figures are magnabased. All you need (in 15mm) is a 40mm x 20mm base of steel paper, to which you stick a small 40mm x 5mm sabot to match the basing of your figures. Your HF cab then sit on the remaining piece of steel paper and will have the correct base depth. This doesn't involve a huge amount of effort.

Alternatively, as most of these armies have no HF in them, just specify to your opponent that all your troops based as HF are actually MF.

You are completely right, besides my figures are already magnabased.

But I have many Chinese armies: Chou/ Zhou, Warrying states, Han, Three Kingdoms/ Northern Dynasties, Song and Samurai .................... many many HF and a lot of work to do
Sergio

Mehrunes wrote: And being a similar problem, I look forward to the day a rule set has the guts to introduce DBx-style 8cm bases for 28mm scale!
If preventing rebasing were the most important thing, there wouldn't be any improvement ever.

The Impetus rules set actually uses 12 cm frontage for 28mm figs. They also have no set number of figs per base. They say to remember that heavy foot has closer ranks etc. but there are no set numbers. However, a cunning thing is this is just twice the DBx base width so I suspect this is not what you wanted...

Mehrunes wrote:

do you think it was more important making right historical armies or considering costs involved by many DBM players?

Clearly the first is more important!

And being a similar problem, I look forward to the day a rule set has the guts to introduce DBx-style 8cm bases for 28mm scale!
If preventing rebasing were the most important thing, there wouldn't be any improvement ever.

................ I'm glad someone finally said this. There are a few simple solutions to improving basing for 28mm figures that would allow models to be compatible with any number of rule systems. 80mm frontage would be one solution.

Mike B

babyshark wrote:

spikemesq wrote:Chairman Mao would tell us that Peace Flows from 3 Figures per Base.

Spike

Chairman Mao would have made the cover of the army list book red.

Marc

As red as Detroit was painted Sunday night after the stunning win over the Skins ?

I am going to be setting to work and likely re-basing a lot of my chinese figures. I figure what the heck.

babyshark wrote:

spikemesq wrote:Chairman Mao would tell us that Peace Flows from 3 Figures per Base.

Spike

Chairman Mao would have made the cover of the army list book red.

Marc

Well, be cautious because Chairman Mao would have push for revolution in the FOG!

Dareun wrote:

babyshark wrote:

spikemesq wrote:Chairman Mao would tell us that Peace Flows from 3 Figures per Base.

Spike

Chairman Mao would have made the cover of the army list book red.

Marc

Well, be cautious because Chairman Mao would have push for revolution in the FOG!

Only if you put a long marsh on the table...

hazelbark wrote:I am going to be setting to work and likely re-basing a lot of my chinese figures. I figure what the heck.

How frustrating it is to rebase all those figurines. Just buy my upcoming T'ang Chinese and you won't have to worry about all that pesky ripping up and breakage!