I said rideable creatures. Mounts are rideable by definition!
But I don’t like units that look like infantry or large infantry proxying for cavalry.
2 Likes
Oh, ok. I should have said rideable creatures then. I was curious what someone modeled as a non-rideable creature. I can’t think of any as long as you could scale them up or down appropriately. I guess potato riders, though funny, wouldn’t make sense but I would let it go if they looked the part. 
2 Likes
I am lucky on that I have never encountered multibasing with huge chunks of portable masonry on them. They look good as display pieces, bit as gaming pieces, no.
Multibasing while not something I am a fan of, can work as long as any scenic elements are kept to within the same height or below of the models on the base. Anything taller can cause a lot of issues.
As for hills causing top heavy models to re-enact a falling tree, that has been an issue ever since miniatures encountered hills… the two are just natural enemies. I haven’t got any hills in my terrain collection.
Miniatures have a long track record of being sometimes posed in a way that makes them not game friendly (the 5th edition WFB Chaos Warriors come to mind).
I do play historical wargames that use wood blocks for regiments, and 2d terrain. It is fun, but sometimes I want to see 3d models and terrain, the spectacle of two painted armies on a great battlefield is something that not a lot of gaming hobbies can match.
5 Likes
First things first: As long as you’re civilised (which you are) you can post your opinion, whatever it may be. (disclaimer: barring some illegal activities that don’t have anything to do with wargaming). So in that perspective, I fully support your post.
That said, I bloody disagree with what you say.
For me, Kings of War is mostly about the visual spectacle and the immersion of stories told. This is aided best by beautiful and themed forces. (or at least, painted miniatures). I also love dioramas and scenic multibases, as there’s much more to be done with miniatures if you use height as a part of the diorama. A regiment base of 10x8 cm is only so big.
My ghoul regiment is one prime example in which I use the height to its fullest. In my undead armies, they are ghouls and they double as lower abyssals when I play abyssals. I don’t think anyhone sees these guys as anything but height 2 and all units (there’s 4 regiments) are the same. (here’s more)
I’d rather field or oppose this kind of multibase than the original
because it tells something.
My abyssal army features a lot of ruined terrain as it occupies a ruined temple. Though very few of the used miniatures are official abyssals, I don’t think there’s a lot of confusion which unit is which.
5 Likes
I love the spectacle of a diorama style base - even though I tend to base in blocks myself.
I’m a bit in awe of many people’s modelling talent to be honest. Like you say - a regiment tray isn’t exactly a large starting surface.
2 Likes
The purpose of wargaming miniatures is a visual one by nature. They are supposed to make your game look like a ‘real’ battle between armies. If you play historical wargames, it’s all about accuracy. If you play a fantasy or sci-fi wargame, it’s not. It is up to you how your army looks. Playability must be give, no question, but the rest is your imagination and creativity.
It’s the same with terrain. If you prefer 2d-terrain (which I do not, except for gaming mats), you probably do that to minimize technical issues and improve playability, but you basically end up with a boardgame. Boardgames are fun, often good designed (gameplaywise) and sometimes feature miniatures, but they lack the ‘visual greatness’ of miniature wargames, which is an essential part of the hobby for me.
2 Likes
I dont know man, I personally think you took those Ghouls too far in height. 
I get that you dont like the “flat, fully ranked” look tho. A couple of level changes is always nice on a multibase.
3 Likes
I have to agree. Those Ghouls are frankly too tall, would be easy to put a height 3/4 thing behind them and use the diorama to block an opponents awareness of the larger thing.
Feels a bit like modeling for advantage to me personally.
I entirely disagree. Everyone knows that infantry is height 2, that banners, unit fillers, scenery pieces etc. do not “exist” for purpose of heigh and that as god-like giants (compared to our delicate miniatures anyways 
) we can ALWAYS see whatever is on the board, and we also know the height of the unit/model behind the infantry unit in question
5 Likes
I agree with Luna. While I might not personally go with such a large structure on a mere grunt unit, I don’t think that wall is giving any unfair advantage.
It is perpendicular to the front facing so most of the time you will be getting less than it’s full potential of 80 mm blockage assuming you go down to its level. But more importantly my eyes are located at about height (edit) 32 for determining my own LoS on a meter high table ;). If I sat (for some reason I can’t stand sitting down for more than a short break when playing a wargame and I just realized that now lol) then I still would be height 13 from my thorax to my eyes, measured in terrain height
2 Likes
@the OP:
Interesting thoughts, I remember these kind of discussions around warmahordes quite bit, which was definitely more focused on the game than the miniatures than what I’ve seen here so far.
How I personally have viewed the matter of models in wargaming is part of a larger spectrum. I own a decent computer and have slowly collected all of the total war warhammer 1/2 expansions that have gone on full sale on steam (so I am 3 packs behind the new releases iirc).
If I want more realism with little guys running around and being sent flying by explosions and cavalry charges, I play twwh2 which for less than the cost of an average wargaming army gives you access to the full rooster (or a few units less if you are cheap like me) of 14 distinctly different armies each with 2+ (median 4 or 5) subfactions. I can load and reload in a minute to try something new, make scenarios myself or let the game throw me into scenarios so I have to think on my feet. I can play alone or with a friend.
With this in mind, why would I play a tabletop game at all?
Going to the other end of the spectrum, the blocks. I actually have a small set of cardstock cutouts to test things. I have full access to all kings of war factions and rules, and even better my cutouts are scaled down so 1 inch is 1 cm. Everything being a factor 2.5 small is a godsend for quick setup and clean up.
So why would I commit to a single army for 150++€ when I can play the game to its fullest without models for the price of the rulebook?
For me the reason I commited to a proper scale army is because I wanted everything else that came with it. I wanted my own dudes, I like being able to hold them and push then around on the table. I like painting them and I absolutely adore basing. With this in mind, I multibase with scenery. I line them up in cool looking formations that make me happy to look at. And I make pretty terrain pieces separate of my army so they have cool 3d things to stand on or around for a pleasing (to me) visual spectacle.
All this effort I put into them also gives me an attachment to them I don’t have on the two extremes of my personal spectrum of rank and file games. I spend more time planning out an army so it occupies more mind space.
And in the end, I know the person across the table also made this kind of decision, although perhaps for completely different reasons. So I respect the work they put into their army, whether it be multi based or movement trays of individuals.
So tldr I guess to sum it up, I’d just be playing total war warhamma on the computer if we didn’t have 3D models and terrain that I liked
7 Likes
As someone who has played with this particular multibase many times: it’s indeed possible to “hide” an individual or small monster behind the multibase, but no more than it’s possible to hide one behind a forest, hill, or whatever. It’s (in my region, at least) a common courtesy to let your opponent know at all times where your models are and point it out in case it might get lost. Never had a problem with this, personally.
Furthermore, the number of units on the battlefield seldomly exceeds two dozen, so “forgetting” one is actually quite hard.
1 Like
While it is true that elements of a force can hide behind hills, forests, and other large pieces of terrain. Those terrain pieces don’t move, whereas that Ghoul unit does.
Informing an opponent during your turn is great, still doesn’t make the situation fool proof. Some players are often engrossed in their own plan and may miss when you inform them that there is a thing behind the Ghoul unit that while it has a model smaller than the Ghouls is in fact many times taller as far as the rules are concerned. Also some players (myself included), are going off what we can see. So very easy to miss that mounted Vampire Lord about to come crashing in undamaged, where he could have been turned into a red smear by my artillery a few turns earlier.
I understand you wanted to break away from the standard rank and file, however I think that Ghoul unit is far too high, at a glance I’d say that is easily 6" in height.
3 Likes
@Morofang
I forget which podcast it was now but I recall them going to adepticon and seeing the Warmachine tables after seeing the 40k ones. Going from nicely built terrain pieces to foam circles left even hardcore tournament players feeling like they were missing out. Wargaming is a visual hobby as well as a gaming hobby, many people play to paint and some paint to play. If we want controversial opinions on this front I can throw a nice one out there. You should always try to paint your army (ideally to a good standard) out of respect for your opponent. A completely painted game is very different in feel to a game where half the arms are missing and everyone looks like a cyberman. Even if you can only manage a base coat and a dip, it’s a better experience IMO. If you’re strapped for time you can still pick up a suitable primer colour, paint the flesh and weapons then dip them. It’s how ratkin players have painted for years after all. You don’t have to speed paint your new unit the moment you get it to show respect in this way. If you bring it bare metal week 1, primed week 2, blocked in week 3 and washed week 4 that’s good enough in my book. A month to paint a new units not an unreasonable pace and you showed you cared about the visual element which many people play for.
WYSIWYG is a good rule with common sense applied. If you have an axe painted blue then you can say it’s a magic sword. If you have a dagger and say it’s a spear, not so much. Being able to visually read the board is important. If you can’t represent an item you should have a token or just use tokens by default. You can buy tiddly winks and a permanent marker to make 200 of them for less than the cost of a goblin.
Large diorama bases open the door to cheating and unsportsmanlike conduct. Mantic should add a rule that scenic multibases must not block the majority of line of sight to units behind them. Having some corner ruins or a tree you can see under while sitting or over while standing is fine and adds a nice element to the base. I ran across a battle report earlier (how I ran across this thread too) where a unit of elves/humans were standing on a terrain piece as big as a lunch box. You could see through it since it was an arch but it was obviously taking the piss as a gaming model. You could hide war machines behind either side of it and short arses (dwarf players I expect) aren’t going to be able to see what’s behind it without strolling round the table. There’s no need for that and it’s open to abuse where you will win games off of tired or forgetful players. If I was an unsporting chap, I might be inclined to use this tactic because often during the game my opponent will have to ask me what I’m hiding behind my lunch boxes. Depending on which ham salad sandwich vessel he asks about I have an insight into his battle plan I other wise wouldn’t have because I made him ask me for visual information he should already have had free access too. I suspect most of us are the types to let your opponent take back moves they just made or if they pass the turn and forgot to do something you hand wave the pass and let them do it. It’s not going to make a huge difference to those types of players, but tightening rules up is usually to the benefit of all since it kneecaps abuse before it becomes an issue.
@KoshtraBelorn
Could you tell the story of having your army barred please? I’m really curious now.
2 Likes
WYSIWYG is somehow difficult with KoW.
That is something I love and “hate” about KoW, you can use any miniatures you like and that helps to build some really great looking and thematic armys.
But it can make it very difficult if you are playing with someone whos army you don’t know.
If I would play Warhammer (whichever Version) and my opponent would put Swordmasters of Hoeth on the battlefield, I would instantly know what kind of unit that is and what they are capable of.
With KoW that’s way more difficult. They could be elf palace guard, or forest guard, they could also not be vanilla elves but sylvan or twilight kin, actually they could also not be elves at all but a unit of the Kingdoms of Men, or Brothermark, maybe Varangur? Some would even play them with rules for Orcs.
One could walk in a store and watch a mighty battle between what looks like orcs versus humans only to be told that these are actually “Varangur” playing “Nightstalkers”.
This complete freedom in choice for miniatures can be very confusing for newer players.
1 Like
Thanks for taking the time to write what’s on your mind. I fully agree with you that a fully painted army is a sign of respect to your opponent and battling one is a much better experience that fighting against an army of empty bases with the unit stats scrawled on them.
That said, for some players, the game is all about the tactical battles and they do as little hobby as possible. It’s up to me to decide if i want to play those players or not.
This is where I wholehartedly disagree with you. Large diorama multibases create more avenue for the hobby to create something immersive and beautiful in a way that rank-and-file don’t get. Creating diorama’s / multibases /display boards is as much a part of the hobby as playing games to me. For others, this may differ, but for me this is important. I’m happy Mantic does not limit this part of the hobby in the official game rules.
As to “hiding” units behind other units and terrain, this should not be a thing. When I play and there’s doubt what a unit can see, I anounce this to my opponent before finishing my movement. (“I place this flying monster here and turn him a bit so he can see past the building and has LOS to your unix X” or “I stop the moment of this cavalry unit 10-and-a-half inch away from your unit, keeping just out of your charge range”)
By being really clear about what units can see before finishing the movement, these discussions almost never come up. Doing so also prevents a lot of discussion about charge ranges, sight angles, etc.
Edit: The purpose of Wargaming is just to have fun. If you don’t have fun, you’re not doing it right. And in that, there is no “right” way of doing that for someone else than yourself. It helps to have a community with similar hobby/gaming goals, but ultimately, it’s up to yourself if you have fun or not.
4 Likes
I’d seen the army referenced in the original post, which was deemed potentially confusing. It was clear enough, but possibly in the heat of battle issues might have arisen - that said, I sometimes forget what/where my own units are!
It doesn’t necessarily help when some of the actual mantic models don’t really match their own stats - tortured souls are great figures, but look more like infantry with a ranged attack than a flying swarm; the recently released cavern dweller (for LoI) is a h5 monster but is barely bigger than a forest shambler; the action man sized giant puts most other models in the shade (literally) so getting other height comparable titan types is hard, unless they all stand on boxes.
[Pet hate - squeezing massive models onto the smallest base size possible, because it is better ‘in game’ than using the exceptional base size rule]
2 Likes
What my gaming group would use for 2D terrain is cut out felt pieces of different colors to represent different terrain features. For example light green is a hill, dark green is a forest, light blue is a river, etc. It really helped with being able to move the miniatures around the table. Also we used a large playmat so the felt would stick really well to it. So you did not need to worry about the terrain moving (or falling over).
This is practical for moving around the units but it does not look as epic as large terrain pieces. It is cheap too though.
2 Likes
Sorry other post. As a Herd fan that is an amazing way to model the army. I can see how they could be unclear for the opposing player at first. Honestly my first idea to solve any confusion would be to add little temporary printed or hand written stickers on the unit bases. Nothing permanent. That may be helpful for lots of armies actually since so many different types of miniatures are used to represent units.
2 Likes