I recently had an email from a blog reader who wrote that they like my recent series of blog entries about Joseph Morschauser's wargames rules, particularly how I had adapted and developed them. They also wrote that they would have like to have tried the rules out, but all their figures were on single figure bases and not multi-figure bases as shown in the images of my play-test battles.
It set me thinking. Over the years I have written and used rules that featured both types of figure stands, with the result that I have a collection of wargames figures that contains two sets of figures for the same historical periods and of the same scale that I cannot use together. Effectively I have created a situation where I have duplicated my collection.
Is there a solution to this?
One way forward would be to only use singe figure bases or multi-figure bases. Another method would be to use a combination of the two. A third possibility is to put all my figures on single figure bases – something that would take a considerable amount of time and effort – and create sabot bases. These are large bases designed so that single figure bases can be used together as multi-figure bases as and when the latter are needed.
I am not quite sure what to do at this stage, but the idea that I could find a method that would allow me to use all the figures for a particular historical period together is very appealing.
It set me thinking. Over the years I have written and used rules that featured both types of figure stands, with the result that I have a collection of wargames figures that contains two sets of figures for the same historical periods and of the same scale that I cannot use together. Effectively I have created a situation where I have duplicated my collection.
Is there a solution to this?
One way forward would be to only use singe figure bases or multi-figure bases. Another method would be to use a combination of the two. A third possibility is to put all my figures on single figure bases – something that would take a considerable amount of time and effort – and create sabot bases. These are large bases designed so that single figure bases can be used together as multi-figure bases as and when the latter are needed.
I am not quite sure what to do at this stage, but the idea that I could find a method that would allow me to use all the figures for a particular historical period together is very appealing.
I have been pondering over this for some time: in my case I am worried that, with large armies, moving single-based armies individually would become something of a chore.
ReplyDeleteMy best idea so far would be the day before the battle I'd attach my figures to a temporary multi-figure base using small dabs of white PVA woodglue: they could be detached from this easily enough.
I've been there (am there) on this one. After 30+ years of experimentation, basing, de-basing and rebasing, I have settled for the following:
ReplyDelete1. Where possible my rules are basing independent so that they may be used with a multiplicity of basing within the same game. For example, if you are using a grid and each grid can only hold 1 "unit", does it matter if the unit is on a base or not? Or if one unit is and another isn't?
2. I've have been leaning more and more towards individual bases but am mounting figures on metal washers so that I can line sabots or trays with magnetized sheet to hold the singles in place for movement or if using rules that need a certain size base.
3. I have some projects such as my 16thC that are dedicated to set bases sizes and use rules developed from Morschauser while other projects are based individually. I am trying to avoid having 1 period and scale both ways but when I do, practices 1 & 2 come into play.
cheers,
Ross Mac
I suppose it all comes down to convenience at the end of the day. Multiple figures bases are quicker and easier to move but single figures, depending on the game, are more versatile. In the old days aa I am sure you can recall people like Grant and Young etc (I am thinking of Charge! and The Wargame) used single figures and large units. It looked great on the table but I wonder how long some of the games went on for! Moving half a dozen 50+ figure battalions must have taken an age. I think that basing figures individually gives more versatility to a collection and bearing in mind 'modern' techniques of such things as magnetic paper etc means that sabot bases are perfectly viable. A down side I suppose though is that for storage purposes figures based in multiples tend to be easier to box and transport. It is a tricky one and no mistake with no right or wrong answers. As you rightly say, having an entire collection based individually with the use of sabot bases as appropriate is a sound idea - although gamers with large collections may baulk at the work involved! IIRC Bundok and Bayonet used individual figures which seemed perfectly workable and certainly held no terrors for me in designing armies for use with them. I think the biggest problem would be to decide on the sabot bases and how well they can be churned out - that in itself will avoid the seemingly obligatory rebase every time a new set of rules comes out! WRG have of course gone some way towards popularising standard base sizes and I think that many gamers (myself included)have subconsciously accepted these when planning new armies for ease of finding opposition. It has made me think about my own gaming ideas thoughand the basing thereof.
ReplyDeleteAll the best,
Ogrefencer
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteAh, the old basing conundrum. Its has been around since wargames with figures began. I have been on both sides of the fence. I have played games using both basing systems. As you feared, I have a belly-button, so I have an opinion.
I assume magnetic basing is the most used method of attachment, followed by using s small raised edge around the sabot to keep the figures on the sabot. Personally I wouldn't recommend or use any other methods.
Multi-base systems = multiple figures per base.
1. faster set up and take down of games meaning you don't have to put the sort out your figures and put them on their sabots.
2. less fiddly when moving bases.
Single-base systems = one figure per base.
1. ultimate flexibility when using sabot bases.
2. sometimes fiddly movement - figure can come "loose"
Mechanically, using singles figures on a sabot is the same as multiple figures fixed to a base. Truly, there is no difference. Want to play a game using different basing? Get the other sabot bases and away you go.
Sabot-based systems can do anything that multi-based system can do, plus you get the freedom that single figures bring to the table. Freedom to do casualty removal through figure removal, which might eliminate the dreaded unit roster. Freedom to play single figure based games, which is difficult to do with multi-base figure.
Painting figures might even be easier as some folks actually paint the figures after gluing them to a multi-base stand. I can't do it, but some can. More power to them.
Look at Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer Ancient Battles games. Probably the most played single figure based games around. My gaming friends jumped deep into WAB when it came out. It took about two games before everyone was showing up with "unit trays", a sabot base by another name. Everyone uses them now, sometimes even for skirmishers. They get the flexibility of single figures with the ease of multi-base movement.
In the final analysis, the answer to the multi-base or singe/sabot-base question, is that it is ENTIRELY A PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
Rebasing one's figures is the chief reason most gamers will not change their basing. It is a lot of work. Gamers are typically a hidebound lot. One finds a ruleset one likes, invests time and money to create the armies, and does not want to hear about other systems as, obviously, one's chosen clearly the best. Peer pressure is also a major influence among gamers, affecting rules played and figures used. It is the old question of "what rules and figures should I use" and the old and true answer of "what do the gamers in your area play." If one can get past that issue, then all options are available.
All this being said, I typically play 15mm on multi-figure bases, and 25mm+ on both types of bases, ENTIRELY A PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
Lately though I have been rebasing 25mm to all single-figure basing for the flexibility it allows, ENTIRELY A PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
There is no right or wrong basing system.
Do what feels right for you.
Jim
Andy, Ross Mac, Ogrefencer, and Jim,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your comments and ideas.
The reason why this conundrum has occupied my mind over the past few days is due in no small part to the preparations I had begun to make for the play-test of my new rules. I looked at my 15mm colonial figures and it struck me that I have managed to duplicate quite a lot of stuff over the years because I have written rules that needed either single figure bases or multi-figure bases. If I had stuck to either one system or the other I would have a lot more figures to fight battles with.
I then thought about my 20mm World War II figures, and again realised that I have duplicated armies. I have both German and Russian armies for Megablitz – which uses multi-figure bases – and for Red Flags and Iron Crosses – which uses single figure bases.
I was beginning to favour single figure bases that could be magnetically ‘fixed’ to movement trays or sabot bases for use with rules that require multi-figure bases, and having read the advice you have all given I think that this is the way I will probably go in future. However, I was very taken with Ross Mac’s suggestion that ‘… if you are using a grid and each grid can only hold 1 "unit", does it matter if the unit is on a base or not?’ as this is the system used by Richard Borg in ‘Memoir ’44’ and ‘Battle Cry’ … and has also been very successfully adapted by Rudi Geudens (see the various hex-based rules on the THE ANTWERP FUSILIERS website).
I still have a bit more thinking to do before I finally decide.
All the best,
Bob