Slitherine

can any one tell me why i should build my Gauls at 4 men a base instead of 3 I dont see any diff between Medium and heavy foot other than it takes longer to paint an army.

HF don't suffer certain -1 to cohesion tests that MF suffer (one is losing to HF in the open).

MF also give up a freebie + POA to mounted troops in the open, HF do not.

Of course, HF are slower...at 3 MU instead of 4 MU, and suffer significantly in terrain.

HF bases are less deep than MF bases.

And because HF bases are less deep than MF bases, you can put 3 figures on them instead of 4, because they can't be confused with any other troop type anyway.

pyruse wrote:And because HF bases are less deep than MF bases, you can put 3 figures on them instead of 4, because they can't be confused with any other troop type anyway.

You can, but if you want to use them for any other rules, you're better off putting 4 figures per base.

Plus, when I'm fighting a battle, I count figures - if it's three I know it's medium foot. If you're going to use 3 figures on heavy foot you're going to confuse (and possibly annoy/anger if in a competition) your opponents.

Maybe I read it wrong, but somewhere I read that if you have some miniatures based for other system, like DBM, where Gallic foot were irregular warband and therefore you should base them with three per base in 20mm deep, that there was no problem as long as the base size was deeper. Is this the case or the opposite?

I have already based my Gauls for Hannibals' army and I am thinking to base the new recruits the same way as those ones. Maybe some elite troops will be based as HF, but I find that 3 per base with dinamic miniatures poses look better. Some examples:





By the way, I prefer Medium Foot in terms of game. With Gauls if you don't win the impact, forget about the rest. And if you make your enemy routs, you will be more likely to catch them. Vae victis!

I think most people are doing 3 to a base for medium foot now, though some do 4. But 3 or 4 is good for MF.

pease1 wrote:Plus, when I'm fighting a battle, I count figures - if it's three I know it's medium foot. If you're going to use 3 figures on heavy foot you're going to confuse (and possibly annoy/anger if in a competition) your opponents.

Anyone who got "annoyed" or "angered" because troops were 4 to a base instead of 3 to a base probably need to re-evaluate their priorities.

It's a game.

I could maybe understand it if someone was trying to get an advantage, but from my experience nobody does. People try to get advantages by doing more devious things than putting extra/less figures on a base.

ravenflight wrote:

pease1 wrote:Plus, when I'm fighting a battle, I count figures - if it's three I know it's medium foot. If you're going to use 3 figures on heavy foot you're going to confuse (and possibly annoy/anger if in a competition) your opponents.

Anyone who got "annoyed" or "angered" because troops were 4 to a base instead of 3 to a base probably need to re-evaluate their priorities.

It's a game.

I could maybe understand it if someone was trying to get an advantage, but from my experience nobody does. People try to get advantages by doing more devious things than putting extra/less figures on a base.

The key thing is whether they can be confused with something else in the army by using different numbers of figures - if they can be then it will possibly annoy your opponent.

BTW it is worth pointing out (again) that the rules specifically say you can use "non-standard" basing/number of figures.

'Annoyed'. might be the wrong word. However, one thing that makes games with models better than those with counters, is that you can see what the troops are easily. At a distance across the table, unless you are stood up, 15mm and 20mm depths are not so easily distinguished. Three and four figures to a base is much easier to identify. While few people are likely to object to the occasional BG oddly based, I would find it very annoying if it became common.

If using 28mm figures, it's possible to fit 4 figures on a 60x20 base so long as they are in fairly uniform poses.
But for warband, it's hard.
Therefore I base them 3 to a base; they look good like that, and the base depth tells you they are heavies.
This also has the advantage that you can covert them to MF any time you want by sticking them on a sabot base with a 10mm strip on the back....

Regarding figures per base. page 126 shows 3 or 4 figures for medium foot. I have assumed this reflects the convention from an older rule set that 4 medium foot figures shows a drilled (regular) base whilst 3 shows a undrilled (irregular) base. This makes it easier to remember this designation during a game, is this now deemed to be wrong .

jonphilp wrote:Regarding figures per base. page 126 shows 3 or 4 figures for medium foot. I have assumed this reflects the convention from an older rule set that 4 medium foot figures shows a drilled (regular) base whilst 3 shows a undrilled (irregular) base. This makes it easier to remember this designation during a game, is this now deemed to be wrong .

No, just more expensive. FoG gives the choice. Other rules were odd with soem 'faster' foot 3 to a base and others 4.

jonphilp wrote:Regarding figures per base. page 126 shows 3 or 4 figures for medium foot. I have assumed this reflects the convention from an older rule set that 4 medium foot figures shows a drilled (regular) base whilst 3 shows a undrilled (irregular) base. This makes it easier to remember this designation during a game, is this now deemed to be wrong .

which itself came from even older rules where the number of figures in combat mattered, so those troops that were 4 to a base were better than those that were 3 to a base

Thanks for the replies, my Western Han will stay 4 to a base. Its bad enough that they are Classed as Medium Foot under FOG but the majority of paintings that I have seen plus the disposition of the earlier Terracotta Warriors seems to show that they fought in massed close order formations (ie fill the base), not dispersed loose order

That's the common misperception that Medium Foot classed infantry fought in distinct looser formations than Heavy Foot. I admit this misperception is supported by the view of 3 figures instead of 4 figures on the same frontage.
But there are also Medium Foot with 4 figures to the base on only slightly deeper bases. That's not considerable looser than heavy foot.

As discussed in other threads, Medium Foot should be considered as infantry "not so keen on fighting mounted" as this seems to be the main difference between them and Heavy Foot. It is really debatable whether Heavy Foot wasn't capable of dealing with rough terrain or Medium Foot to form dense ranks in the open. IMO Roman legionaries and their auxiliary troops should have been for example.

LambertSimnel wrote: which itself came from even older rules where the number of figures in combat mattered, so those troops that were 4 to a base were better than those that were 3 to a base

Which in turn came from an older rule set in which all MF were 3 to a base*. And hey presto, we have completed the circle

*well...effectively...there was no such thing as "bases" in those days. Frontage per single figure is what was specified.

giff wrote:can any one tell me why i should build my Gauls at 4 men a base instead of 3 I dont see any diff between Medium and heavy foot other than it takes longer to paint an army.

I never got to post my reply because I had to run out the door before I got the chance.

Personally, I think the only way to fly is Medium Foot.

For the most part you're going to be the same. Sure, you're going to suffer more against mounted, but you've got your own mounted to hopefully take them on.

The Medium Foot in the open against Heavy Foot isn't a very big deal. These boys are Impact Foot. The either win the combat at impact, or it's pretty much over. The -ve 1 is HUGE if you only just pass, but that only happens very rarely.

In comparision to the number of times you think to yourself you wish you could be in 'rough' steady - to me, it's a non issue.