The real advantage of this 1,2,3 basing (apart from the units looking great), Is that they can now fit into all sorts of terrain pieces. Here is a sneak peek at a church I am basing up, with a broken tower that was crying out for a sniper. Now at least I can fill it to the gunnels with able bodied musketeers, something I couldn't do with my four to a base system before.
This officer figure is a really good one to have as a single figure. He looks great in amongst the men, either stopping them from running or pushing them forward.
4 comments:
Interesting system why did you adopt it rather than using individual bases? I've played Dragon and Lion Rampant (supposedly based on a similar system) with no issues using individual bases. why do you feel this works better?
Can you remind us how many figures are in a unit?
Ta
Alan
I feel the basing style looks good with some bases being big enough for small diarmas. This will come into its own with the mounted figures that look great. Basing up the cavalry with the extra single figure breaking formation was one of the major factors in adopting this style. Of course there is also the fact that units can be moved quicker but that was not that important for me. It was the look and the character the ragged units take on.
There are 12 men to musket and pike units and six to cavalry and forlorn shotte. Some a full regiment will be two lots of 12 muskets and 12 pike.
I will add a few bases of standards to these units for eye candy, with no game value. Partly because I have four standards for my regiments and I think it looks very in period. That's only a personal touch though.
A bit like in dragon rampant with units being measured in points rather than actual figs on the board.
Do you plan to use the infantry as skirmish figures also? ... ECW rulesets on the horizon so the individual bases delivers much more flexibility ''
goldenslot mobile
gclub
สล็อต ออนไลน์ ได้ เงิน จริง
Post a Comment