forum.wgcwar.com

I have recently rebased my 3mm ancients and fantasy armies to an 1x1 inch standard. Can I still use them for Triumph! if I presume 1/2 inch MU and just make all push back results one MU? What kind of distortions do you see coming into the rules if I do this?

I can see fall back pass throughs and supporting ranks as being slightly different, but not game-brakingly so. Anything I am missing here that I’ll need to think about?

You can of course try it with any base depths, but the different base depths for different troop types impact their brittleness on the battlefield.

For example a heavy or elite foot will fall back a shorter distance than a rabble or horde. Often this means that the elite or heavy foot can survive longer in battle (i.e fallback once or twice before being destroyed on the end of a line for example). Mounted also need more room to fallback making them easier to disperse when caught in a tight spot.

So you will lose some of the subtlety built into the troop types.

Hmmm. What if I made fall back half an MU for heavy foot (1/4 inch), an MU for light foot (1/2 inch) and 1.5 MU for mounted (3/4 inch)?

Macunaima wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 12, 2023 3:22 am

Hmmm. What if I made fall back half an MU for heavy foot (1/4 inch), an MU for light foot (1/2 inch) and 1.5 MU for mounted (3/4 inch)?

There are other issues involved as well. If you have square basing (as you mention) then any stand hit in the flank while part of a line will be killed if it falls back -- because when they turn to face, there is NO distance to fall back. Doesn't matter what distance.

If you have sufficient troop stands, you might do better by using stands in pairs (with a magnetic underbase or something) to create a 1"x2" paired stand, and treating that as a single stand of Triumph troops. With that, the fall-back distances you mention (converted to the new base width of 2", so 1/2"/1"/1.5") would give you something closer to Triumph behavior.

Thanks!

Thanks! That would apply to any regularly base Triumph! stand with a base depth greater than 1 MU, however, right?

Any other big issues you can see?

Macunaima wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 14, 2023 2:58 am

Thanks! That would apply to any regularly base Triumph! stand with a base depth greater than 1 MU, however, right?

Yes, in regular Triumph!, stands on square bases and bigger than 1mu bases (like Bow Levy, Knights, Rabble, Bad Horse, most mounted) will not have space to fall back if they are hit in the flank when in a line. Since you were asking about changes caused by your non-T basing system, I pointed out that you are changing that dynamic (which stands are vulnerable in that way).

Thanks! That would apply to any regularly base Triumph! stand with a base depth greater than 1 MU, however, right?

Any other big issues you can see?

Macunaima wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 14, 2023 11:59 am

Thanks! That would apply to any regularly base Triumph! stand with a base depth greater than 1 MU, however, right?

Any other big issues you can see?

Confused -- this post is the same as the one two below?

Sorry. That got posted twice for some reason.

I am thinking I might get away with giving units with a 15mm or 20mm depth a special marker if they get flanked and pushed back. I want to avoid using double-sized bases because I want to have a small footprint game. Making 1MU x 2MU bases in this scale just gets too fiddly, however.