Basing Leaders

miffedofreading · Post by **miffedofreading** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:31 pm

Hi guys,

I don't have the rules yet (on order amazon.co.uk) but have gathered that you have multiple leaders per side and that they are on a 40mm X 40mm base for 15mm. This would include the leader plus a little diorama of figures. Not sure if there are any guidelines as to how many would be in this diorama?

My main question is :- How feasible is it to make this leader base a 40mm diameter circular base?

A) Yeah sure not a problem, Leaders just stand around looking cool anyway
B) Tricky, leaders can fight in front rank of a unit so such an awkward base size would look funny
C) Not allowed rules say must be 40 X 40

Or some other such variation. As you may gather I do not actually know what a leader's role is in this game

Ta

Andy
PS I rather like circular bases for leaders and will use if it will work.

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:55 pm

The rules state that the base is 40mm wide and a depth of '40mm or less'
Most people go for 40mm square.

They should be rectangular because the leader needs to be in edge & corner to corner contact to classify as being 'with' a unit.

miffedofreading · Post by **miffedofreading** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:17 pm

Sorry I forgot to ask.....

Carthaginian and equiv Republican Roman leaders, are they foot or mounted??

Andy

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:58 pm

terrys wrote:The rules state that the base is 40mm wide and a depth of '40mm or less'
Most people go for 40mm square..

I'd say most people I know use 40 wide by 30 deep as thats what their DBM mounted generals were based on and they havent gotten round to re-doing them yet as they havent decided whether the potentially microsocopic advantage to be eeked out by being 10mm bigger as then you are 10mm closer to being "within 6MU" etc for some morale tests is outweighed by the "hmm, its slightly untidy when I put a 40x40 base in the front rank for combat of a unit based on 40x30"

terrys wrote:They should be rectangular because the leader needs to be in edge & corner to corner contact to classify as being 'with' a unit.

Hmmm - Im sure you could work out where a round one had to be quite easily, and it might look cool ?

richnz · Post by **richnz** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:35 pm

I have rebased some of my generals on to circular bases of 40mm diameter. This makes them compatible with other bases that have 40mm frontage.

The main benefit of doing this is that it makes it obvious which bases are generals, and whether they are fighting in the front rank. It also allows mini dioramas (esp for foot generals which used to be 40x15/20mm) to make them a bit more glamorous than the rank and file.

It's also easy to see if the general has been placed into side edge contact with a BG. Of course it always pays to say "and this general moves to be with this BG" as you move him.

neilhammond · Post by **neilhammond** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:43 pm

miffedofreading wrote:Sorry I forgot to ask.....

Carthaginian and equiv Republican Roman leaders, are they foot or mounted??

Andy

As per historical convention. There is no penalty for having your leader on foot vs mounted. My hoplite generals are foot (naturally).

I agree round bases look cool, but if using them in comps you may want to have a thin (metal?) 40x40 base to pop under the leaders so it's clear (use Blue Tac to ensure the square base stays with the leader).

Command range for most generals is 4"/100mm, which can be pretty tight when you're trying to cover a fair bit of frontage, so don't be surprised when units which are diagonally offset from the general get the occassional "If I had a square base it would reach but since it's round it doesn't".

miffedofreading · Post by **miffedofreading** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:34 pm

Thanks all, no chance i will ever be in any type of competition, I am the least competitive person I know. I also get beat at games a lot

Reckon I might just go with the 40mm diameter because i do think it looks cool!

Andy

neilhammond · Post by **neilhammond** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:04 pm

miffedofreading wrote: I also get beat at games a lot

Andy

My experience is that would make you very popular in a competition

miffedofreading · Post by **miffedofreading** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:00 am

That may well be true, but I suspect the enjoyment could be a bit one sided

Actually that was how I was going to sucker the serious gamers at my club to play me at FoG. Easy pickings.

Andy

miffedofreading · Post by **miffedofreading** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:01 am

That may well be true, but I suspect the enjoyment could be a bit one sided

Actually that was how I was going to sucker the serious gamers at my club to play me at FoG. Easy pickings.

Andy

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:56 am

miffedofreading wrote:That may well be true, but I suspect the enjoyment could be a bit one sided

Actually that was how I was going to sucker the serious gamers at my club to play me at FoG. Easy pickings.

Andy

Competitions aren't as bad as you might think. Because of the way the draws tend to be done (winners play winners, loosers play loosers) you very quickly end up at your own level and should get several games against players of much the same standard as you.

The great thing about comps (apart from weekends away and beer) is that you get to play lots of people you might not ordinarily play.

andy63 · Post by **andy63** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:07 pm

The great thing about comps (apart from weekends away and beer) is that you get to play lots of people you might not ordinarily play.

Hammy is right what makes a compitition is the socialising not just the playing.

Andy.

miffedofreading · Post by **miffedofreading** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:26 pm

Thanks guys. I'll see what tournaments come up. Maybe I will go along to one of the early ones to learn the game.

I would greatly enjoy the socialising if that is the way it went.

I remain very skeptical, but will try and keep an open mind

Andy

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:32 pm

miffedofreading wrote:Thanks guys. I'll see what tournaments come up. Maybe I will go along to one of the early ones to learn the game.

I would greatly enjoy the socialising if that is the way it went.

I remain very skeptical, but will try and keep an open mind

Andy

You could try the BHGS Challenge in Ascot in April, not too far to travel but there is the potential downside (for some at least) of three games on Saturday and two on Sunday.

miffedofreading · Post by **miffedofreading** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:57 pm

Thanks for the suggestion. I guess time is another factor. Would never get a 2 day tournament past my wife. So would have to be a 1 day one at maximum.

Andy

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:38 pm

miffedofreading wrote:Thanks for the suggestion. I guess time is another factor. Would never get a 2 day tournament past my wife. So would have to be a 1 day one at maximum.

Andy

I think quite a lot of people are in the same boat as you with regards to getting time off to play. There aren't many one day tournaments at present although there are plans to allow entries for one day of the BHGS doubles rounds this year.

I also hear rumours that a one day FoG tournament is planned for the UK Games Expo in Brimingham at the end of May.

The downside of one day events is that there is less time for players to find their level within the pool of players. The more games you play the more likely you are to get good close matchups.

You might get a pass to play at Warfare in November even though it is two days.

It would be great to see you at a comp, they aren't that scary and IMO are really good fun.

miffedofreading · Post by **miffedofreading** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:46 pm

Perhaps I will be able to play at Warfare.

As I am a member of the club I helped out this last year on the bring and buy rather than actually play games.

Of course I may hate FoG and have lost interest by November!!!

Andy

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:16 pm

hammy wrote:The downside of one day events is that there is less time for players to find their level within the pool of players. The more games you play the more likely you are to get good close matchups.

With a totally new set of rules I'm not sure this is going to be an issue for any of us for quite some time !

Shem · Post by **Shem** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:42 pm

Sorry for the threadnap

but I have a small extra question:

What about 25mm scale? 60x60mm I suppose as standard?

Thanks!

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:10 pm

Shem wrote:Sorry for the threadnap but I have a small extra question:

What about 25mm scale? 60x60mm I suppose as standard?

Thanks!

Yes, although generals on elephants and charoits will need extra depth bases. I would not say that 60x60 was standard, as yet, because most people who played DBM previously are still using their cavalry generals on 60mm x 40mm bases.