Attachments

[david53]

Hi There

Not to sure about this

if i were adding say an artillery attachment to a Division do I have too place a model attached to one of the units?

Dave

[BrettPT]

You replace one if the unit's bases with an artillery base.

[david53]

Cheers mind it would look odd since artillery are on 40 by 40 bases.

Dave

[Sarmaticus]

Cheers mind it would look odd since artillery are on 40 by 40 bases.

Dave

Wouldn't it be possible to use an alternative, such as suggested for skirmishers, and use a marker, FOGR-style?

[shadowdragon]

Cheers mind it would look odd since artillery are on 40 by 40 bases.

Dave

I thought 40 by 40 was only for heavy artillery and that other artillery (used for attachments) could be on 40 by 30. I guess it depends on the actual gun model too.

[david53]

40 by 40 is the size i use for artillery for FOG R and I can't see the guns and crew fitting on 40 x 30 but after reading the page about attachments it does say you can use different size bases.

Dave

[terrys]

The rule for artillery bases is:
40x40 for heavy artilley (or 60x60 for 25mm)
40x30 for others - unless the models are too large to fit, in which case the depth is increased. (usually to 40x40).

A base of the unit is replaced with the artillery model. For a 40mmx40mm base this means that either: You have the artillery stepped 10mm forwards, or you step back the base behind it (in tactical formation). In either case all distances are measured as if the bases were not stepped.
Note that if the unit is 'broken' and then rallied that artilley base is removed and replaced with a 'normal' base.

All of my artillery started life on 40x40 bases and it wasn't a problem. They've gradually been replaced onto 40x30 bases where the models actually fit.

[Astronomican]

I purchase a unit of 6 Line Infantry and then add an artillery attachment at an extra cost and it replaces an infantry base.

Why did i waste the points on an infantry base that I will never get the benefit of on the battlefield? Whats the reasoning behind this?


Jimi

[terrys]

Why did i waste the points on an infantry base that I will never get the benefit of on the battlefield? Whats the reasoning behind this?

2 reasons:
1) You don't have to have an artillery (or any other) attachment.
2) If the units routs and is rallied the artillery base is replaced by the infantry base.

I quite like the fact that I can mix and match bases to build different versions of the same Corps. This doesn't work well for units/regiments with specific costumes, but for the rank & file I count my available figures in bases rather than in regiments.

[Astronomican]

1) is total nonsense - its the reply I often got from my mother when I asked her why she had chosen strawberry ice-cream over my favorite chocolate ice-cream - "because I can!"

So, the bottom line is that I can morph an infantry base into an artillery base, and when it rallies from being broken, it morphs back into an infantry base - I know that infantrymen from the Imperial Guard were quite versatile in operating artillery pieces as well as being infantrymen, but I never knew EVERY infantryman was so skilled!


Jimi

[terrys]

1) is total nonsense - its the reply I often got from my mother when I asked her why she had chosen strawberry ice-cream over my favorite chocolate ice-cream - "because I can!"

In most armies about half the units do not have an attachment - in some armies hardly any. They are a very expensive upgrade. I don't understand your response - you seem to be arguing that we're somehow forcing you to include an attachment to your 6 base unit. We could go one step further and suggest that you add another attachment and make your one large unit into 2 small units. The point is that you can field your units in a variety of ways - as large or small, and with 0, 1 or 2 attachments.

So, the bottom line is that I can morph an infantry base into an artillery base, and when it rallies from being broken, it morphs back into an infantry base - I know that infantrymen from the Imperial Guard were quite versatile in operating artillery pieces as well as being infantrymen, but I never knew EVERY infantryman was so skilled!

They do not 'morph' into anything. The presence of an artillery base is purely a marker, so that both you and your opponent can see at a glance that your unit has an increased capability. You are not actually removing the 400+ men from the formation and replacing them with a battery of artillery. The number of men in the formation remains the same, but the artillery is an addition to the unit - probably spread across its frontage in single guns, or in pairs. The artillery is an ADDITION to the unit not a replacement.

[timt9cole]

If I understand correctly, a fuller answer here is that in buying an attachment you do not lose the ability of the infantry base that you are having substituted by an artillery base. The ability of the infantry base remains but is enhanced by the artillery attachment. ie the infantry continues to fire and melee as if it were present.

Of course, you may not like it if you have just painted a new unit and do not get to play with all the bases. If you prefer you can always use a marker (as in FOGR) rather than substituting a base. Personally I am not too keen on the substitution method, particularly if you are substituting an infantry base with an officer. The rules on page 88 talk about an alternate method of representing a skirmish attachment but rather coyly refuse to say what it is. (I suspect there are several pieces missing here as there is also reference to "...as shown below" when nothing is shown).

In short, it is your army and so long as it is clear how you are depicting Attachments I do not think that anyone (outside the pedants) is likely to be concerned about just how you do it.

Regards
Tim

[IanB3406]

I'm simply not rebasing, and will use what I have with sabots as needed. I plan to use a gun marker ala fogr. I am also figuring a way now to show the front bases as skirmishes for light infantry without rebasing. As long as 40mm frontage is used I can't see any problem yet. I don't believe any comp organizers will hold any strict baseing rules if it comes to that, and if they do well good luck in being successfull and getting people to play. Certainly can't see a reason to hold to strict baseing conventions in club games.

[terrys]

Certainly can't see a reason to hold to strict baseing conventions in club games.

Quite right. We certainly do not want to restrict players from doing whatever they want in a club game. Only in coompetitions is it required to be at least compatable. Even in those there is a great scope for indicating the presence of the attachments in different ways. I know of one player who places his cavalry and officer attachments to the rear of his units and his artillery and skirmisher attachments to the front, and it works fine. The only time it causes a problem is if he ends up with units routing though others......but that never happens does it ?

[hazelbark]

I think Ian's point about rebasing and what works is valid.

I see how the authors meant to not impose basing on people.

It seems like we are going to have some forced coherence or incoherence if the rules succeed as we hope they will.

[david53]

Not sure about this I have small artilley based on 40 by 20 for Regimental guns in FOG R I'll use them can't see what the problum is either model or marker, there does seem to be a lot of rebasing required ie attachments Officers Cavalry and skirkmishers. Thats without going into the proper skirkmishers.

Dave

[terrys]

Not sure about this I have small artilley based on 40 by 20 for Regimental guns in FOG R I'll use them can't see what the problum is either model or marker, there does seem to be a lot of rebasing required ie attachments Officers Cavalry and skirkmishers. Thats without going into the proper skirkmishers.

I've know some players who use an artillery attachment (40x20) placed to the front of the unit - I see no problem with doing this, it certainly doesn't affect game play as long as all measurement is still made to and from the main body of the unit.

[Scrumpy]

So let me see if I have this right (odds are not)

You replace an ordinary base of infantry with an artillery/officer/skirmisher attachment, but need to replace the artillery if the unit breaks and then rallies, or the officer if he is killed ?

The skirmishers stay with the unit throughout the battle ?

[shadowdragon]

So let me see if I have this right (odds are not)

You replace an ordinary base of infantry with an artillery/officer/skirmisher attachment, but need to replace the artillery if the unit breaks and then rallies, or the officer if he is killed ?

The skirmishers stay with the unit throughout the battle ?

That's right. While the bases are being replaced, there's no replacement of capability. Rather the base replacement is to show that capability is lost because the guns were lost (artillery base replaced) or the commander killed / severely wounded (brigade commander base replaced). On the other hand just because the unit broke doesn't mean all the skirmishers ran away but not the line infantry.

BTW, you can also have a cavalry attachment for infantry units some armies. Again the cavalry attachment base doesn't mean you've lost infantry put that a few cavalry have been added (e.g., a squadron as was common in later Prussian army) to the infantry as support.

[hazelbark]

I think for me it is more likely that I will use specialty marker bases as attachments rather than replace.

But will have to see.