Rebasing - goodbye sabots, hello multi-basing

Rebasing a whole collection? Really? Yes, really. Up until now, I'd resisted the temptation, if only because of the effort involved. Now that the task is completed, I'm very pleased. But why did I do it? 

It all started with a bit of false logic. I'd based my Second World War 20mm figures on 20mm round bases. When I started the AWI project, my first project using 28mm figures, I intended using them to play Sharp Practice. That seemed to suit single figure basing. For reasons that made sense at the time, I assumed a bigger base would be required for larger scale figures. As a result, I went with 25mm rounds. I continued that with other periods like the colonial Sudan project.

That was my first mistake. One that was compounded when it came to using sabot bases. Obviously, they needed 25mm slots, which in turn meant a larger sabot base. I ended up with four figures on a 60mmx60mm sabot base. 

Even at the time they looked too big and the figures appeared too spaced apart. The large footprint was problematic enough, but what bothered me just as much was the spacing between the figures. It just didn't look right for any of the periods. Particularly when you consider some of the classic images of the Victorian age (which may or may not be truly representative of the reality, but they remain iconic images in the popular imagination).

Every time I played a game or posted a picture something jarred. 

The individual basing and sabots worked well in game terms. Moving a unit was quicker and it allowed for casualty removal. Yet that created another issue, what to do with the unsightly empty sabot slots once a figure is removed? I'd never liked that. To fill them I made up bases that held shock markers, or casualty figures, or just empty terrain. 

Sometimes there were never enough of them.

Of course, one option would be to ditch the idea of using sabot bases altogether and simply use the figures on individual bases. Aside from the laborious process of moving units one figure at a time, I couldn't escape the distance between individual figures, even when the bases were sitting right next to each other.

I wrote a lengthy blog post on all I was doing to try to reduce the visual impact of those sabot bases, indicative of the fact that I wasn't completely happy with the approach even then.

When I started my Romans for Infamy, Infamy I decided to use multi basing. A decision I was very happy with, so it wasn't much of a step further to consider doing it for the AWI and Sudan collection.

For the Romans I used 50mmx50mm for four figures, but for both the AWI and Sudan I settled on 40mmx40mm. I know for many that's a very standard size for rules like Black Powder, so I wasn't exactly breaking any new ground here. However, from my perspective this was going to make a huge difference. I would go from four figures on 3600 sq mm to four figures on 1600 sq mm. That was going to change things more significantly than I realised. 

It goes without saying, the difference in footprint is amplified the more bases you have in place. Below you see the frontage and footprint comparison for two Sharp Practice groups of eight figures in line formation.

A line formation made of three groups for Sharp Practice would be six bases of four figures each. On my old sabots that was a frontage of 360mm (approximately 14.5"). With smaller 40x40 bases, the same formation would have a frontage of 240mm (approximately 9.5"). In effect, the new formation of three units would have the same frontage as two of the sabot based units. They would also have less depth, making them easier to place within terrain.

Perhaps most surprising was that having the figures closer together actually gave the impression of a greater number. Not quite sure why that is, but it certainly is the case. Once I started the rebasing that all became clear very quickly  

Initially, a fairly laborious task beckoned, but now I could see the reward for the effort. A good result in my book. This was just as well, given this was a major distraction from all the other things in progress or planned.

It is, of course, a problem of my own making. I've no doubt a few of you are rolling your eyes and wondering why it took me so long to see the benefits of multi basing over sabots. Perhaps, if I had based the figures on 20mm rounds to start off with, I may never have been motivated to do this? Regardless, I'm happy where things have ended up.

I pondered how best to deal with the larger militia groups of ten figures. In the end I settled on two bases, one 40x40 with four figures and one 60x40 with six figures. That allowed flexibility for other rule sets that might require units in multiples of four, six or ten figures.

One other decision was how to treat skirmishers. For those, I settled on the same approach I've taken with the Mahdists and Germanic tribes. I would use a mix of 3,2,1 basing that would allow figures to be spaced in more open order, with the added convenience of easier movement and casualty removal.

The only other key question was how to handle casualties for the multi-based line units? If one of the motivations for the rebasing was an improved aesthetic, I needed to have something that blended in reasonably well with the table, yet also served its purpose as a game marker. 

Once I no longer needed casualty figures to fill empty sabot slots, I decide to convert them to casualty markers. My immediate thought was to use mini-dice to track the numbers lost, but then it occurred to me that I need to track a maximum of three casualties in most cases, as a fourth would simply mean the removal of a four figure base and the marker.

While this idea might not survive actual contact with a game, I've come up with a base with a casualty figure and two empty dice frames. 

The casualty figure will represent the first casualty. I just need a suitable item or marker to fill the two empty frames as further casualties occur. For now I'm going to try small rocks (in this case, painted aquarium pebbles).

If this proves impractical for any reason, then there's always the option to revert to mini dice if needed.

If I do go down that route, then perhaps the same frame can also work to record shock with a different coloured dice.....

Time will tell, but I also have a Plan B. I've put a small dice frame on these adjustable markers from Warbases. My thinking being the marker itself will be used to record shock, while the small dice frame holds a mini dice for casualties. This does have its merits, as it consolidates two markers into one for a smaller footprint.

That said, I do like the way the casualty figure adds to the game narrative, so I'm inclined to carry on down that road, or at least give it a good try, but it does mean a second marker on the table to record shock. Too much clutter? Perhaps.

On the other hand, my newly based units have a smaller footprint, so perhaps there is more room on the table after all?

More Romans for Infamy, Infamy

As part of putting together the early imperial legionary force for Infamy, Infamy I painted a group of auxiliary infantry. While that's only eight figures, there are a couple of other lists featuring auxiliaries in the rule book. In that sense it was logical to invest in a bag of Victrix plastic figures, as I was bound to want to create a few other options. 

The bag was sufficient to make up nearly three groups of auxiliary plus a centurion and optio. One of the auxiliary lists in the rule book calls for four groups of infantry, the other, which includes a mounted contingent, requires only three. That meant the bag of figures left me eleven foot figures short if I wanted to put together the auxiliary list with the larger infantry force. Needless to say, I ended up buying another bag of the auxiliaries. Technically, that now gave me more than I needed. Or did it?

I made up the additional eleven figures to have four groups of auxiliary infantry. That was straightforward enough.

Given the number of extra figures, I decided to make use of the arms holding a gladius to try to put together figures in fighting poses. While Victrix do a set of legionaries in fighting poses, they don't do the same with the auxiliaries. I thought it would be good to have those auxiliaries that are part of the legionary list in a similar pose.

If I could do that then all the figures in the legionary force, both legionaries and auxiliaries would be in fighting poses. I liked the symmetry in that. While the auxiliary torsos are more suited to a marching pose, by placing them at an angle and doing something similar with the heads, they could be made to look more like the poses of the legionaries.

They are not as dynamic looking, but certainly do the job.

That still left me with enough spare figures for one more group. This time I decided to base them differently. In Infamy the auxiliary infantry have the flexible drill trait which means they can also fight in skirmish order. Up until now I've represented this on the table by separating the two four figure bases by an inch or so to show they were in a more extended order. That led me to think I should create a group with the remaining figures that are based in either ones or twos. That way I can use them to make up a more natural looking skirmish line.

Alternatively, they can be assigned to perform other tasks, such as escorting prisoners, cattle or a cart.

The base with two figures is 50mm wide, the same width as the other multi based figures and the single figures are on 25mm rounds, so they can be put together as a group in close order.

That gives them exactly the same size footprint and formation as the multibased groups.

A group of auxiliary archers is made up of eight figures and the first of those were based in a similar format to the infantry. In Infamy the archers are classed as skirmishers, but they have the flexible drill trait that allows them to form into a closer order and defend themselves in close combat. 

On reflection I wonder if I should have based them as I've based the auxiliaries in skirmish order. Rather than rebase the existing figures, I made up the four remaining figures in the Victrix set and based those in a pair and singly. 

That way I can use them alongside the four figure base without the need to rebase. I suspect one day I'll simply cut the four figure base in half, but for now this works well enough.

Once again the bases are sized so that they can form up to match the footprint of the unit when no longer in skirmish order.

I liked the idea of adding a scorpion bolt thrower, but the Victrix set includes more than I would ever need, fortunately I was able to find a single sprue.

A group of engineers is six figures and I wondered how best to represent those. Fortunately the scorpion bolt thrower set has a number of arms with various tools, perfect for a group of engineers. Using spare bodies I made up four figures and I've already picked up a spare sprue that will allow me to make another two and complete the group. 

Two groups of auxiliary cavalry are next in the queue. All that remains is a cart for the engineers and, dare I say it, the force will be sufficiently complete to field a range of different units for most games of Infamy.