Slitherine

I just noticed the size requirements for the camp and was surprised to find that my old camp is no where near big enough (4 60x60 bases in 25mm). Now, I understand the 180mm wide will allow three bases to make contact in front, but I'm curious about the 160mm depth, as that doesn't correspond to a 2 or 3 base depth.

So, I guess my question is what's the straight skinny on the odd base depth for camps in 25mm?

Thanks
Cole

60mmx80mm is the baggage stand size for 25mm figures, according to my copy of DBM 3.0, not 60mmx60mm. I'll bet cash money that's where it comes from.

I believe the FoG camp is designed to be the equivalent (in base size) of 6 DBM baggage bases arranged in two ranks of three, so since each DBM baggage base in 25MM was 60MM by 80MM the camp becomes 180MM by 160MM.

So would it be safe to say that there is no game play reason to make the camp 160mm deep?

Cole,
Who's willing to make 2 more camp bases, but less thrilled at the thought of having to make entirely new ones...

Cole

they do seem to be dang big...probably the only things i won't have ready for this weekend....so we may be playing without camps or say that that spot there is a camp ...i'll see...

Regarding the size of 25mm Baggage - I agree it is a bit big and can greatly influence deployment...!
Once deployed touching the rear of the table there is only room for 4 HF or 3 MF infront of it within the 10MU regulation. Prevents rear supporting troops etc. and if not thought about in advance can be a real pain and get in the way.
You have been warned...!

As camps cannot be garrisoned and only need to be contacted by enemy forces to be looted (needing a dice throw for fortified camps) why can't they simply be represented as an area on the rear edge of the table?

I think they could really but a real camp with baggage and figures looks so nice it makes you want to protect i!!

Martin

korvus wrote:So would it be safe to say that there is no game play reason to make the camp 160mm deep?
Cole

No, it wouldn't. The authors seem eminently sensible IMO, and the rules seem very carefully thought out. If they made the camp that big, I suspect they had a reason, even if we can't discern the reason.

Well, I'm not sure I entirely agree. If there is a good reason (which I haven't been able to figure out) I'd like to know so I can make a new camp.

On the other hand, if it is simply because thats the way it was in DBM, I won't be in such a hurry, as I have other painting/sculpting priorities.

Thanks
Cole

The camp is going to be the last thing I'm going to paint, but then again I'm playing amongst friends, and not going to tournaments.

I'm playing 15mm but I still wonder why the camp depth in 25mm is twice as deep as an 15mm camp (160mm vs 80mm) while its width is only 1.5x wider ( 180mm vs 120mm) ?

Don't forget to post yours pictures here :

viewtopic.php?t=5715

Maerk,

Thats a very interesting point, and seems to point to the, "that just happens to be the way it was in DBM," or a typo, oversight, or some such thing.

Could I please impose on RBS, TH, or one of the other authors to weigh in on the subject, in particularly, is 120mm deep an acceptable camp depth in 25mm?

Thanks,
Cole

The decision on the size of the camp was made on the basis of 6 DBM bases.
This was because there are a number of players who had specially made camps/diaramas of that size, and we didn't want to force players to take a hacksaw to some very nice models.

To compensate for the additional depth taken up by 25mm camps we increased the depth of the deployment zone.
(which was originally only 8MUs)

This does mean that you have to think a little more about your deployment in 25mm - on a 6x4 table.

Players using an 8x5 or larger table (with or without a 40mm MU) don't suffer from this problem.

Maerk wrote:I'm playing 15mm but I still wonder why the camp depth in 25mm is twice as deep as an 15mm camp (160mm vs 80mm) while its width is only 1.5x wider ( 180mm vs 120mm) ?

The only reason for the specified camp sizes is so that DBM players (who already have baggage for all their armies) can use their existing baggage.

However, the camp does form something of an obstacle to redeployment by its own side, so a player would be getting an uunfair advantage if he used a smaller camp than specified.

(That being said, when playing at home we sometimes use beer mats as camps when we can't be bothered to get the proper camps out of another box).

rbodleyscott wrote:

Maerk wrote:I'm playing 15mm but I still wonder why the camp depth in 25mm is twice as deep as an 15mm camp (160mm vs 80mm) while its width is only 1.5x wider ( 180mm vs 120mm) ?

The only reason for the specified camp sizes is so that DBM players (who already have baggage for all their armies) can use their existing baggage.

However, the camp does form something of an obstacle to redeployment by its own side, so a player would be getting an uunfair advantage if he used a smaller camp than specified.

(That being said, when playing at home we sometimes use beer mats as camps when we can't be bothered to get the proper camps out of another box).

I am now going to make a beer bottle indentation for my beer in my camp. Thank you for the idea.

The camp size is good IMO and allows more modelling then an equivalent DBA camp or 6 individual bases.

Thanks for the info...

And you English!

Sadly there's no room for a beer bottle on my camp, as the stakes and impaled turks take up too much room.

Cole

Ok, to stir this one up - again.

If the total circumference is the same is that OK? For instance: 100mmx 100mm or 40mmx 160mm?

Most of my camps are from DBA which does not have a strict dimension, just a minimum.

Thanks,

John