Looked for Heavy Infantry in the rules and was surprised to find their base size in the Legacy section. Units with new models such as Placoderms are listed as Hvy Inf.
The correct base size for these units isn’t obvious. Is It included under Infantry in the book?
Legacy makes it sound like it’s on the way out.
Its just very badly chosen wording. Its like Militia being Mercenary, they needed a word to assign to these types of base sizes, and they chose.. poorly.
Heavy & Monstrous Infantry definitely aren’t going anywhere, given a bunch of brand new models that size!
It’s a slightly weird way they have done it, but mainly so they can just use Infantry and Large Infantry throughout the rules - rather than ‘Infantry/Heavy Infantry’ and Large/Monstrous Infantry ‘ since the same rules apply to each pair.
There are several new units with ‘obsolete ‘ base size which is not listed as a regular one. And there is a whole army (Orcs) with this “exotic, unusual “ size or type of unit.
I don’t know why they thought it is a good thing to treat Heavy and Monstrous Infantry like that, especially when they still release mimiatures with that base size. Very very irritating.
The Xiirkali do have Heavy Infantry, the Placoderms are Heavy Infantry, Deep Ones were changed from Large to Monstrous,…
I can’t see this types of units are obsolete, but I don’t get why they are treated like outsiders.
Especially because the base size of Monstrous Infantry is the same like Large Cavalry, which is still “regular”.
First of all they could have listed all units at the same place.
Second, they could have written that all rules for infantry are for heavy too and not mention Heavy Infantry in any Command or Special rule (like Rampage).
I’ve seen this differentiation as an information about Base size only. In KoW 3 it was like that and nothing wrong with that.
I looked for this as I’m not new to Kings. If I was just starting out, I’d probably assume all Infantry would be on 100x80.
The Orc list is a particularly funny example.
I’m definitely not saying it was a sensible way to write the rules! P85 could simply have covered oversized units, with HI & MonI being in the early bit
It would be really good if Mantic provided an official answer to a question whether the base sizes of units mentioned on page 85 in the rulebook are to be kept in a foreseeable future. Speaking of them as “obsolete legacy“ unit types (and respective base sizes) is quite disturbing and makes one worry if it’s worth to put an effort in building scenery bases for such units.
Base size just needs a table - like the tables for Height, and Unit Strength.
The more I look at this, the weirder it seems! What were they thinking?!
They should put it right in the companion rules.
they’re barely answering questions in the dedicated ‘ask questions’ thread, but of course they did all go home for christmas and such. who knows what’ll happen, hopefully we get a good chart in the new printing, but maybe we get a ‘just play the game, it’ll become so obvious’.
If only one Infantry size was kept, I’d prefer it to be 125×100 as it’s less cramped.
However, it was mentioned in a podcast that they looked at standardising bases and Ronnie rejected it as too disruptive.
I can fully understand that. Rebasing those individuals to 40x40 and chariot legions to regiments is already a PITA, having to rebase a whole army would seriously piss me off. Good call from Ronnie, that one.
Furthermore, I’m on the other side of the fence. I’d rather have everything on 100*80 in the case of standarisation.
Increasing unit footprints only creates less room on the battlefield, so in effect the battle mat (already a hefty 4x6 foot or 1m20x1m80) gets smaller. I noticed the difference after piloting a salamander army after a streak of Kingdoms of Men, it’s easier to fill out the battlefield leaving less room to manouvre. The amount of models on a unit is almost never 100% these days, so it;s just a matter of fielding a few less orcs on a 100x80!
