Oh no, a 25mm base post

Please be merciful ;p

So over the weeks I have been thinking about bases sizes, especially with the discussion being brought up more due to the whole Old World stuff (though to be fair Oathmark were the first I noticed using 25mm square bases), but I cannot help but wonder if there may be a good point.
20mm has for a very long time been something of a standard but models and tools to make them have changed quite a bit over the years and on occasion 20mm feels rather restrictive to some of the poses and arms available.

I know that in KOW there are units, even armies that use 25mm referred to as Heavy Infantry.
However I cannot help but feel what is considered Heavy Infantry feels a bit arbitrary on occasion, Say for example Huscarls are Heavy Infantry, but Footknights and several units of Abyssal, Imperial and Free dwarves aren’t, despite having higher then average Defense and in the fluff being acknowledged as being heavily armored.

So I can’t help but wonder if maybe Heavy Infantry is rather redundant and if Infantry should maybe be changed to 20mm minimum and 25mm being the maximum.

Just the two cents of a dummy, anybody with an actual brain and good understanding of the game feel free to tell me why I’m being an idiot.

2 Likes

I strongly agree with 20mm base sizes being too small. It does seem redundant to have two different infantry sizes.
My only issue here is that infantry have a tough enough time in the meta as it is and Heavy Infantry hordes are incredibly unwieldly.
On Counter Charge, IIRC it was Alex Kus who was talking about crusading to make infantry regiments 5x5 instead of 5x4. I think the extra room would allow for Heavy Infantry models to fit more nicely on standard infantry bases and moving infantry bases to a square would actually make them better. Those heavy infantry hordes would have -5mm to their flanks which is probably not worth the effort?

Something interesting to talk about. Thanks for the post!

1 Like

I have two main thoughts on the topic:

  • Infantry (20mm) are fine as they are and provide a solid standard for all other base sizes. From an aesthetics standpoint, I think y’all should be putting 15 models on your Infantry regiments, especially if you’re using modern Mantic or Games Workshop models. KOW is not TOW, lean into multi-basing and pursue the volume of PMC over a slavish dedication to TMC. (I have a lot of respect for TMC armies as a hobby goal and aesthetic choice, but it’s a choice that KOW doesn’t require.)

  • Heavy Infantry (25mm) don’t appear to have the disadvantage of their base size factored into their points cost. That larger base sucks and any Orc player can tell you all about it. Honestly Heavy Infantry should be done away with or given some kind of boon, as it’s a very arbitrary distinction that as far as I can tell has only downsides to game play. Base size is a rules design space that could be explored but I get the feeling it really hasn’t been from that standpoint, so if we’re changing bases here I’d rather collapse Heavy Infantry (25mm) down to Infantry (20mm). Boosting all Infantry to 25mm further enforces that other types of units are better at the game - at movement, at applying force, at avoiding retaliation, etc.

3 Likes

I agree that 20 mm is too small for a single miniature. That said, better to limit the amount of miniatures on a multibase (which most of us do anyhow) to 15-20 models than to increase the base sizes.

Increased base sizes lead to less flexibility or larger tables to keep the same amount of battlefield space. As KoW needs quite a large table (4x6, which is a nightmare, especially for tournaments) there’s something to be said to decrease base sizes in order to be able to play on a smaller scale.

I would advocate to remove the “heavy infantry” from the game and harmonise base sizes to 10x8 cm (or alterrnatively 10x10 cm) for infantry and cavalry. That said, no one is happy to rebase their armies (especially multibases) so maybe keep things as they are…

1 Like

Main point:

Difference in 20mm and 25mm is important for heroes only, units use unit-bases and infantry has 100x80 for a regiment while heavy infantry is 125x100, which can be a balancing factor is being larger is a disadvantage (so while the difference between 20 and 25 is not there, it is for 100 and 125)

same for large infantry and monstrous infantry, 120x40 and 150x50 for a regiment

having a unified base size of 100x80 for everything like some historical R&F games would have been possible with 2nd Edition, now it is too late and I don’t think it is needed (specially as with monsters and chariots 100x40/80 is kind of small and if you have a different size for those, the point of unification is gone)

my personal preference would have been 80x80 for standard infantry regiments or 50x40 as the smallest base, with a regiment being 4 times 50x40

that TOW is going larger with the minimum size and might use wider units (preview showed 6 wide), might look cool but horrible to play on 6x4 or smaller tables
and increasing the smallest unit die 125 wide won’t be doing good for the game rather decrease the unit width if there should be changes

3 Likes

Good points all, I have to admit in retrospect the question was born out of a personal bias.
I’ve never tried my hand at multibasing, despite the fact that it does look pretty cool, always gave every model their own base.
Hope I don’t came of as someone yelling at a cloud going ‘20mm can piss off’.
My advocating was more give people the freedom to do one or the other, but as pointed out that has its own set of issues.
Though I do maintain the Heavy Infantry thing just remains redundant, as suggested by Boss_Salvage either give them a special boon or have some sort of consistency in what can be considered Heavy Infantry cause it seems a bit too much a case of ’ we made a model too big for a 20mm base let’s label it Heavy Infantry.'.
Ultimately in the end it all comes down to how the models was designed, can’t imagine it is easy to keep a ‘regimental’ look while giving enough freedom to people to give it a personal touch regardless of base size.

1 Like

Adding to that, heavy infantry was not born from model design but was there before

It is kind of a legacy that was taken over by designer of 1st Edition from the other game he made

And you can also look at it in a different way, with individual basing and everything being 25mm
Infantry is 4 wide and 3 deep
Heavy Infantry is 5 wide and 4 deep

And Heavy Infantry is usually stronger than equivalent Infantry

2 Likes

I think more consistent base sizes would be nice, but not worth the effort and fallout of asking people to rebase.
I come from historical ancients, where EVERYTHING is on the same width base. It’s become the standard and no attempt at a new rule-set dares change it.

If your prefer 25mm bases, then you can use 4 wide instead of 5.

3 Likes

This.

4x3 miniatures on a 25*25 base equals a regiment base of 100x75mm, which is just 5mm off (on the back) for an official regiment. while some tournaments will ask for a movement tray with the right dimensions, in casual play no one will bother.

2 Likes

I actually made a teeny 100x5 basing shiv out of plasticard for this purpose, to fill out a movement tray prior to just rebasing.

2 Likes

The terminology Heavy Infantry for the 25mm based stuff is a little odd - since it also encompasses gargoyles and a variety of halfling heroes! - but game-wise i can see the point. It does add a little extra difference between some armies - and being a bigger footprint does have both positives and negatives.

There are undoubtedly issues with model/scale creep getting some stuff on 20mm bases, even amongst mantics own ranges - NA clansmen!!!, Abyssal Dwarfs to name but two.

I will come out and say that since warhammer blew up the old world, I’ve not done anything other than multibasing and full model count isn’t something that crosses my mind much :wink:

3 Likes

Well i’m pretty slow to change, so multibasing can still take a while.
I only recently convinced myself that, maybe assembling the miniature and THEN painting them instead of each piece apart and stop painting minute details in regiments and hordes that are easily lost in the crowd to avoid burnout and up the miniature output, may be a better way to go. :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes

Heresy of the worst kind! Come back to the light and paint your minis the way it was intended… each individual part and, only then, assemble them. Dont be fooled.

It would be akin to washing your whites with reds… terrible outcome.

1 Like

Oh god no, please no peer pressure.
My one weakness…well one among a list of many.

As always, multibasing is the answer. Almost like 42🤔

But seriously, I get the point when you are thinking of single models. Modern miniatures are bigger and tend to have more dynamic poses.

So stop that and multibase!

1 Like

Multi-Basing, or Unit Bases is the one answer to model agnostic games
it is in historical Rank & File games for a long time and should be the solution for fantasy as well

you don’t care what the size or dynamic pose of your models is, as long as the unit is the correct size
like take napoleonic, marching pose lets you place place 32 models on the 100x80 mm unit, which is often used to represent nations that use larger companies
while with attack/charging poses the very same unit might only have 20 or 16 models because there is not enough space for more
and everyone is fine with this, with the big difference that there are at least 4 Bases per unit rather than 2 like in KoW (as a Regiment out of 2 Troop Bases, were a Batallion is 4-6 company Bases)

and this makes a system really independent from model, poses, or scales and even easy to port collections between systems

3 Likes