WFB 3rd ed. How strictly do you stick to base sizes...?

Mason

Member
A quick question before I go about basing anything...

As the title asks: How strict are you all regarding 'official' base sizes?

I ask as I really want to base my intended High Elf army on bases larger than 20mm square, purely for aesthetic reasons.
I am thinking 26mm (two pence piece) rounds but would then drop them into a sabot tray so that they look better and rank up properly.
Would this make them 'too big; in your opinion?

I could use pennies instead but this would still result in a unit frontage being bigger than standard.

Would that be considered wrong if playing 3rd edition WFB?

Of course, this question may simply be academic if I never get to play 3rd edition....
 

Orjetax

Member
This is not WFB-specific, but I suggest using an aesthetically pleasing base.

And if base size causes an unintended consequence in a game, just act as though it had been the technically correct base size




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Mason

Member
Orjetax":4xl84fxt said:
This is not WFB-specific, but I suggest using an aesthetically pleasing base.

And if base size causes an unintended consequence in a game, just act as though it had been the technically correct base size

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is my thinking and, as I am unlikely to get around to playing 3rd edition, I will probably just go down the route of what I think looks best.
I was just wondering if it would cause any serious issues in-game.
I am guessing it would mainly cause me problems manoeuvring units with a larger footprint and with anything that had an area effecttemplate, which again probably only cause me a problem.

Thanks for your input.
:)
 
A workaround I've seen is to mark the base sizes on the front and sides of the movement tray, i.e in your case a set of lines 20mm apart showing the 'official' base size for the unit. It helps with combat resolution etc where base size can be important. Basically the unit footprint is larger than it's official footprint, but you can still see where it should be.
 

Mason

Member
dieselmonkey":mzpxug53 said:
A workaround I've seen is to mark the base sizes on the front and sides of the movement tray, i.e in your case a set of lines 20mm apart showing the 'official' base size for the unit. It helps with combat resolution etc where base size can be important. Basically the unit footprint is larger than it's official footprint, but you can still see where it should be.

That sounds like a excellent solution.
I shall have a think about how to make that work aesthetically.
Cheers!
:)
 

Outsider

Member
I have stuck to base sizes as they should be at the moment, but I'm not fussed if people want to base in other ways. There's better things to worry about then if a battle will be lost or won due to two or so miniatures not being able to fight.
 
i think that the base sizes that you think look best are best. unless you're using weird sized bases to get some sort of gaming advantage, in which case you should not.
 

Mason

Member
I am certainly not looking for any advantage, just a pleasing look for the force.
I may never even play WFB 3rd, but as I am using the High Elf list I thought I may as well see what people thought.

I have already based some Scouts on 25mm rounds (and put into sabot bases for regimental effect) and am most likely to just base the whole army on what looks right to me and also blends into the rest of my collection, which is pretty much all on 25/26mm round bases.

Cavalry, bolt throwers and chariots will again be just what I like the look of, I guess.

dieselmonkey's earlier suggestion should sole any real issues if need be.
 
Back
Top