|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 4, 2019 21:49:51 GMT
Silly question about 15mm elephants:
Been expoxying all my Corvus Belli Elephants onto bases, and realized too late that their trunks/nose etc. tends to crash into enemies to their front.
I saw on several blogs that some people have stuck their elephants diagonally onto the 40mm (15mm scale) bases.
My question is have people found this works well? And if it's diagonal, how to you determine what's the front?
I know there can be the deeper base, 60mm, but that becomes a problem if he's forced to turn sideways..
Thanks!
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Mar 5, 2019 0:20:10 GMT
Chris, when I've based elephants, or indeed chariots diagonally, I ensure that it isn't a 45° angle. Rather ,I try to make it between 50° & 60° so that the front of the element can be easily identified.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 5, 2019 0:51:32 GMT
Makes a lot of sense. Grr, have to pull up the Epoxy. It really works well!
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 5, 2019 8:05:33 GMT
....or just paint the front edge a slightly different colour.
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 5, 2019 15:27:06 GMT
I usually go with the description in the army lists in Purple that note that the standard crew on pre-howdah Indian ellies that the crew was an archer and driver for line ellies and a general with parasol holder on command ellies.
With my Tinsoldier ellies (which are the largest in my collection) the crewa had two archers - one shooting to the left and one to the right. So then when I based them on the diag I used the archer facing to define the 'front' of the element.
|
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Mar 5, 2019 19:16:48 GMT
My Xyston chariots were a squeeze to get on their bases!
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Mar 6, 2019 13:49:56 GMT
What is the problem with using 50mm or 60mm deep bases, the rules specify "Players should keep as closely as possible to the minimum depths recommended below."
So 40mm is a minimum, now recoils etc. are based on base widths, an elephant using 1BW.
Apart from extra depth, is there anything against 50mm and 60mm deep bases in the rules?
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 6, 2019 14:12:39 GMT
What is the problem with using 50mm or 60mm deep bases, the rules specify "Players should keep as closely as possible to the minimum depths recommended below." So 40mm is a minimum, now recoils etc. are based on base widths, an elephant using 1BW. Apart from extra depth, is there anything against 50mm and 60mm deep bases in the rules? David Constable Possibly not, David, but whenever an elephant on a deeper-than-40mm base, being the end element of a line, is turned by eg a flank attack then its relative position will change, eg a 50 mm deep ellie would end with its front edge 10 mm to the side of where its original side edge had been. Sometimes no problem, sometimes cause it to inadvertently enter bad going if it were the end of a friendly line before turn. (As we see with 6Kn or 6Cv). A spare foot figure on the base, looking ahead towards element front, might help to define front edge? |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Mar 6, 2019 14:48:42 GMT
Thanks Martin.
So it might pay to use a sabot base if the terrain is not likely to be a problem, use 40mm square if terrain might cause a problem.
If I am reading the rules correctly, if the elephant forms the end of the line (all facing in the same direction), and is contacted on its 60mm depth side it then turns to face, the rest of the line then shifts down to accommodate the extra 20mm, what happens with terrain then?
Do not answer if this opens a can of worms.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 6, 2019 15:11:51 GMT
Thanks Martin. So it might pay to use a sabot base if the terrain is not likely to be a problem, use 40mm square if terrain might cause a problem. If I am reading the rules correctly, if the elephant forms the end of the line (all facing in the same direction), and is contacted on its 60mm depth side it then turns to face, the rest of the line then shifts down to accommodate the extra 20mm, what happens with terrain then? Do not answer if this opens a can of worms. David Constable Rather than the rest of the line shifting, normally the 50mm deep elephant (or 60mm deep 6Kn eg) would rotate and find its front edge more off to the side it was attacked from, so it occupies a different set of space. |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Mar 6, 2019 16:16:17 GMT
Thanks Martin. So it might pay to use a sabot base if the terrain is not likely to be a problem, use 40mm square if terrain might cause a problem. If I am reading the rules correctly, if the elephant forms the end of the line (all facing in the same direction), and is contacted on its 60mm depth side it then turns to face, the rest of the line then shifts down to accommodate the extra 20mm, what happens with terrain then? Do not answer if this opens a can of worms. David Constable Rather than the rest of the line shifting, normally the 50mm deep elephant (or 60mm deep 6Kn eg) would rotate and find its front edge more off to the side it was attacked from, so it occupies a different set of space. So what is to stop a player having a 2Ps/3Ax/4Ax at the end of the line 14mm from the edge of a wood etc., if on a 60mm deep base it forces the opponent into the wood when it turns.
And 60mm is allowed as it is more than the 20mm minimum, no maximum is given.
David Constable
|
|
eg407
Beneficiarii
Posts: 98
|
Post by eg407 on Mar 8, 2019 11:46:19 GMT
Is it not the attacking element that shuffles backwards?
On the point of being able to determine the front of the element. I have an old DBM playing friend, who has based his NKE chariots at 45° on the base. In the spare corner at the front he's added a single foot figure (from his left over Ps packs). He uses the direction that that figure is facing to determine the base front.
Cheers,
EG
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Mar 8, 2019 17:34:54 GMT
Is it not the attacking element that shuffles backwards? On the point of being able to determine the front of the element. I have an old DBM playing friend, who has based his NKE chariots at 45° on the base. In the spare corner at the front he's added a single foot figure (from his left over Ps packs). He uses the direction that that figure is facing to determine the base front. Cheers, EG Yes, but a neat trick if the opponent did have to move backwards. Further down a line however can it be used to advantage, the rules say "Any existing contacts are adjusted by moving the elements forward, back or the minimum sideways to maintain contact." The official way could be used to extend your line across the board, as elements turn sideways each extends further to the left or right, so you extend your frontage, against the correct opponent it might be useful.
I was curious if you extended the thought further, how about having a single element in front, turned sideways on the longest base permitted by the frontage. As quickly as possible you extend the line with two elements giving a threat zone at front and back?
Just thinking back a long time, PB did not like my idea of having my pike block as individual figures five wide, first quarter you faced away from the enemy, second quarter you reduced the frontage by four, this gave a column twenty figures deep by one wide, third quarter you about faced, fourth quarter expanded by four to re-form your pike phalanx.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 15, 2019 13:05:51 GMT
What is the problem with using 50mm or 60mm deep bases, the rules specify "Players should keep as closely as possible to the minimum depths recommended below." So 40mm is a minimum, now recoils etc. are based on base widths, an elephant using 1BW. Apart from extra depth, is there anything against 50mm and 60mm deep bases in the rules? David Constable Didn't think of this until the post - Deeper basing for 28mm - where among the considerations on using deeper bases it was noted - " Most serious are certainly two things: 1. Mounted elements that knock a hole in a front line can not flank in the gap. 2. The rear support of Light Horse is outside the thread zone, so the supporting element can freely move." Using anything more than the 'suggested' element depths then for elements with a 40mm base would those effects here as well on elements in a column. The turning to face is relatively minor but for the second element in a column not being in the threat zone would be a significant advantage. |
|
