|
|
Post by louien on Aug 27, 2020 4:12:44 GMT
Hello there,
This is a weird question. What if BW was not exactly BW for measurements.
I got these lovely 3.5" movement trays for my individual based 15mm armies. Yes I said 15mm.
Now fractions annoy me and I keep thinking...What If for measurements I use 3" vs 3.5"
I know this is pity but I was wondering if it would break the game in anyway?
So I asked the wise crowd.
Thanks
and yes I will show the bases and army soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Aug 27, 2020 4:36:46 GMT
Totally unproblematic technically, but no-one else build armies in that dimensions, so you would have to provide everything yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Aug 27, 2020 7:05:02 GMT
I don't see a problem as long as every element on both sides is based in the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 27, 2020 10:00:25 GMT
Here is something you could do Louien:-
3½ inches = 88.9 mm (let’s call it 90 mm...it’s only 1.1 mm more)
So a BW is 90 mm instead of the current 40 or 60 mm.
This will of course require a larger battlefield...a 15 BW square table will need
to be about 4.4 foot/53 inches/1,350 mm square.
But at least all the ratios, rules, and effects will be the same as they are now.
On the other hand, having a BW as 3 inches but elements with a 1.17 BW frontage (3½ inches)
wouldn’t cause many undue measurement discrepancies...heavy foot would still be able to
‘shut-the-door’ and ‘hard-flank’ an overlapped opponent that has recoiled ½ a BW (1½ inches),
but not an opponent that has recoiled a full BW (3 inches), just as they do now.
However, having elements with a 1.17 BW frontage (3½ inches) will make wheeling more difficult.
And you’re still going to need a larger table to avoid your deployment area becoming too cramped.
|
|
|
|
Post by j on Aug 27, 2020 10:59:11 GMT
Hello there, This is a weird question. What if BW was not exactly BW for measurements. I got these lovely 3.5" movement trays for my individual based 15mm armies. Yes I said 15mm. Now fractions annoy me and I keep thinking...What If for measurements I use 3" vs 3.5" I know this is pity but I was wondering if it would break the game in anyway? So I asked the wise crowd. Thanks and yes I will show the bases and army soon. You could always just make up measurement sticks in 3.5" increments. e.g. due to space limitations I often have to use 2/3" = 1" with other rulesets (I call 'em short inches) which can effectively increase a 5' wide table size to 7.5' so I can play really large games. regards, j |
|
|
|
Post by louien on Aug 27, 2020 15:33:42 GMT
Thanks you for replies and thoughts. I will give it a go.
I do have the table space that can go as big as 5' x 5', but I plan to keep it to 4' x 4'.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 30, 2020 7:55:06 GMT
Only just seen this. Perhaps I don't understand the scenario, but unless that is the case, I'm afraid I disagree with the general sentiment that it makes no difference.
The geometry of the game is disturbed if the 1 BW movement distance is different from the actual base width. As Stevie says, with the small difference you are talking about, it still allows "closing the door" as he describes, but for example if an element is recoiled and there is an element to its flank but not in contact, the recoil element might still be in that element's threat zone after recoil, whereas in the rules as written it would not be.
Scott
|
|
