Cataphracts

[skc]

All of that would be true, if we were playing with 6mm figures.

Does that mean, if 6mm then figures easier to fit onto the bases or are there game mechanisms involved at that scale?

The underlying truth of the matter is this -- base depths are created by the figures. A line of combat Elephants should be (historically speaking) less deep than a line of close-order infantry, much less mounted. The space occupied by a Chariot formation would probably have been very similar to that occupied by Horsebow. But it is EXTREMELY tight trying to fit Elephants or Chariots on a square base, much less an open-order mounted or open-order foot base.

I guess as the scales get bigger, figures become more difficult to fit. I see 28mm is revolutionizing wargaming. (I, at 70yrs, and with home downsizing, aching back etc, have reached the stage of life where I want less and smaller figures, (not 6mm anymore though. My eyes!), that take up less space, and less to carry. Will stick to my almost 40yr old 15mm metals. In fact I've designed my carrying case that I am able to carry to Klub, two 144pt armies and terrain with two hands. (One guy who plays 28mm Meq must make about 5 trips to his car. Boxes and boxes!)

I didn't understand the first part -- Horde don't shatter anyone. For the second part, I think you might be thinking of it wrong. Horde falling back 40mm (their own movement distance) is a crippling blow to their maneuverability -- one recoil takes them almost out of the battle. With their extremely slow movement, their fall-back distance is a major problem.

No I meant the other way around! The Horde get shattered by say Warband and Knight, who would normally Pursue.
If they fall back 2mu, they return to battle with 2mu. I not sure how that's problematic. (Is it its with large depth and slow move, making it cumbersome to do other manoeuvres?- Really just trying to see how base depth causes this.)


Our basing is good and makes sense; we long-ago considered the pathways we could take with basing. One path was to go completely new. One path was to hew slavishly to the eccentricities of the DBA/DBM/DBMM/WRG7th/WRG6th basing system, with all its idiosyncrasies and decisions that were made based upon gaming systems built back in the 1980s and earlier. We took a middle road, keeping to the general system of 40x15, 40x20, 40x30, but modifying it slightly so all open-order foot are on one basing, all open-order mounted on another basing, all close-order foot on a third, and then using 40x40 for exceptions (close-order mounted -- Cataphracts) and a couple of deep formations of close order foot (Pavise, Horde), and for several things that the figures prevent from being on other bases (Chariots, Elephants, War Wagons).
So no, not a chance that we're going to make any significant change to our basing in future updates. And I will point out that "future updates" is probably more than 5 years away, maybe even 10. Anything is possible in the future, but we might have a manned mission to Mars before the next version of Triumph starts getting worked on, so don't be holding your breath.
[/quote]

PB brought out updates possibly to cater for the competition crowd and money, (?) which just increased the complexity! (DBM-DBMM for example. I tried one DBMM and gave up!) No rule set is perfect (even Triumph!) but I can see you've put much thought into all this. (more than I!) I'm sure you would bring out update if there was a valid rules reason. Please do consider from time to time based on players concerns. I would not like to see Triumph! die. (as I've seen other rules sets which became inflexible.) The odds and sods Hordes, et al I can understand having square bases, but for now I'll continue using 30mm for Cataphracts. (my 'club rules' and to get more playing Triumph! Uphill battle with the DBA crowd!;)

[Rod]

Efforts to grow the player base are appreciated and I do not see a big deal playing with 30mm base Cataphract in your group. However, if you want to understand the difference in the base depths I would encourage you to try them on the deeper sabot bases.

I think as DK points out that would not be something that would be likely to change even just from a practicality of basing figures let alone the way it would impact play against other mounted. Plus we are all too old to imagine doing a version two

Many of us are going through the pain of switching to 80mm wide bases for our 28s, but it was a change that was about 20 years overdue.

[David Kuijt]

Does that mean, if 6mm then figures easier to fit onto the bases or are there game mechanisms involved at that scale?

6mm figures are small enough that the game designers can ignore figure size/type when choosing base sizes to assign to each troop type.

I guess as the scales get bigger, figures become more difficult to fit.

Exactly.

PB brought out updates possibly to cater for the competition crowd and money, (?) which just increased the complexity! (DBM-DBMM for example. I tried one DBMM and gave up!)

Your guess is as good as mine, but my interactions with PB over the years solidified my opinion that he didn't care about the competition crowd -- or about the non-competition crowd either. He had an active war going on with the British competition crowd during DBM, for example. And his shift from DBM to DBMM was triggered by a rejection of the DBM competition crowd, and caused major strife in the DBM player pool here in the states, at least -- more than half of the DBM playing pool in the USA was driven away by the DBMM shift, and it never recovered.

I'm sure you would bring out update if there was a valid rules reason.

Right.

Please do consider from time to time based on players concerns. I would not like to see Triumph! die. (as I've seen other rules sets which became inflexible.)

Inflexible might be a problem, but constant updates is even worse in the long run, as players become disillusioned by the ground shifting under their feet. But yes, we would definitely update if we found something that needed updating. The big thing is to stay involved with our player base, and to keep producing product that they find interesting and new, to reassure them that this is an active, growing game system, not a dead one with a dwindling pool of aging players grumping in a corner about the good old days.

[David Kuijt]

Many of us are going through the pain of switching to 80mm wide bases for our 28s, but it was a change that was about 20 years overdue.

As Rod says -- the legacy system basing for 28mm figures (both the crowding on 60mm wide bases, and the depths) was bizarre and largely a relic of gaming in the 90s with true 25mm Ral Partha and other figures. It was cumbersome and unwieldy by the turn of the millennium and truly impossible with today's figures (who are more like 30mm or even 32mm than 28mm, in many cases).

And while we're talking about basing, let me point out that the Triumph basing and movement system means that Triumph is scale independent -- the game is exactly the same with every base size. Which was not true with legacy systems (where you could close the door if playing with 60mm bases, but not if playing with 40mm bases, and other oddities).

[greedo]

I’ve started to appreciate the games that are on grids such as To The Strongest just because they avoid the rebasing problem entirely. Have even been flirting with playing triumph in a grid. There are some things that would change (you can’t slow down troops with an angled ZOC) but I think it would also simplify the issues of base depth, and recoil distance. Then again it has a bit of a board gamey feel so is an acquired taste.

That said, I do like that the different base sizes and number of figs per base allows me to easily identify the different troop types. I suppose this is why the 80 wide for 15mm figs is becoming popular too.

Hard nut to crack for sure.

[David Schlanger]

No rule set is perfect (even Triumph!) but I can see you've put much thought into all this. (more than I!) I'm sure you would bring out update if there was a valid rules reason. Please do consider from time to time based on players concerns. I would not like to see Triumph! die. (as I've seen other rules sets which became inflexible.)

I informally collect feedback and keep notes to fuel our discussion for the eventual next version of Triumph! Not sure when that will happen, but it will likely be a long way down the road.
The biggest impetus for a new version would be for WGC to sell all of our current print rulebook inventory OR possibly to find something seriously wrong with the current rules version. Neither seems likely to happen anytime soon.
But this should not be confused with inflexibility. These rules are very flexible and we encourage people to do what they like with their games. And it doesn't matter to me if people adjust the base depth sizes to avoid a lot of extra work or to increase compatibility. The biggest thing is to get more people playing!

DS

[skc]

I informally collect feedback and keep notes to fuel our discussion for the eventual next version of Triumph! Not sure when that will happen, but it will likely be a long way down the road.
The biggest impetus for a new version would be for WGC to sell all of our current print rulebook inventory OR possibly to find something seriously wrong with the current rules version. Neither seems likely to happen anytime soon.
But this should not be confused with inflexibility. These rules are very flexible and we encourage people to do what they like with their games. And it doesn't matter to me if people adjust the base depth sizes to avoid a lot of extra work or to increase compatibility. The biggest thing is to get more people playing!

Inflexible might be a problem, but constant updates is even worse in the long run, as players become disillusioned by the ground shifting under their feet. But yes, we would definitely update if we found something that needed updating. The big thing is to stay involved with our player base, and to keep producing product that they find interesting and new, to reassure them that this is an active, growing game system, not a dead one with a

DS
[/quote]

Agree re: Constant updates. Nothing is more demoralising than (my old brain) taking eons getting used to and mastering a ruleset, only to find it has changed yet again! One guy in our Klub not only writes his own rules, but will not give anyone copy, and even changes them mid game. I certainly cannot find the enthusiasm to play with him anymore.

Thanks David, Rod for all the Feedback. One thing is for sure; The amazing feedback response and concern for your players. A strong and often rare, factor that will ensure your ruleset will survive and grow.
"...dwindling pool of aging players grumping in a corner about the good old days...?" Ha, Ha. Tell me about it!

[greedo]

Even if the base rules don't change, would you ever consider modifying the points for each troop type? I know it's not much, but I have noticed some rulesets need to tweak the cost of troops, after finding that there's too many/too few.

Also, I don't think there's a problem with the points as they stand, but thought that might be a place where changes could be done without messing with people's understanding of the rules, or their armies (maybe add or subtract an element).

[David Kuijt]

Even if the base rules don't change, would you ever consider modifying the points for each troop type? I know it's not much, but I have noticed some rulesets need to tweak the cost of troops, after finding that there's too many/too few.

Also, I don't think there's a problem with the points as they stand, but thought that might be a place where changes could be done without messing with people's understanding of the rules, or their armies (maybe add or subtract an element).

If we're talking hypotheticals, sure, we'd consider it. Although there are other ways of adjusting as well, if something is overpriced or underpriced.

So that's us talking hypothetically now about something we might be considering (talking hypothetically about) in the future -- that's a two-level hypothetical, which is a little ... nebulous. Or to put it another way, this conversation got a little meta.