Epic figures go onto the table

[Norm]

The new warlord Epic figures went onto the table today to play scenario 1 from the set, which is a good starter scenario.

The post is really for the new gamer, encouraging them to dive into the very full box and get stuff onto the table before it is even painted.

I have put up a blog post that gives an impression of how these tightly packed figures look on the table, though I have shortened my bases, to reduce the noticeable gaps between between bases.

LINK
http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2021/04/an-epic-warlord-games-battle-for.html

[jimduncanuk]

Excellent.

That's tomorrows reading settled.

Thanks

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

A fair and honest report Norm. Love the table. Top work sir.

[Techno II]

An excellent report, Norm. 

Cheers - Phil.

[Steve J]

Great post Norm and one that should encourage us more to try rules out as we also paint up units, which might prevent the issue of finding the rules don't work as planned and so you avoid having to re-base for yet another ruleset!

[fred.]

Good post Norm

And good to see these ACW figures on the table - which leads me to some thoughts / questions

I'm really surprised that the expected unit size is 5 bases, so 30cm wide. This is really big, and probably wider than most 28mm BP units. I suppose it does give a good representation of the linear formations of the era - but I'm not sure that the rest of the rules fit with this size of unit.

I can see why you have gone for smaller units. But I'm surprised that having gone for 2 stand units, and trimming the bases from 60 to 55mm you have left the flags and command elements of the unit, over on the one flank. Is it not practical to cut the strips to reposition the flags? Or did I read that you are thinking of going to 3 stand units (back to WM units...) I think 3 stand units would give a good balance between the look of the command unit in the centre, and the size of the unit being reasonable (18cm normally or 16.5cm for your trimmed stands).

And on the painting front, with Warmaster figures (also in strips)  my gaming group often would stick the front rank to the base, then paint that in situ, allowing the unit to be field part painted much earlier than would be possible if everything needed painted.. The back rank would be painted separately (and later) and once it was done it would be added to the front rank on the base, and the base textured up.

[Norm]

Thanks All.

Fred, good idea on using a single painted base until a painted rear rank can be added. I used two bases in my example because practically for me, it allows for a 120mm frontage, which is the same as 3 of my kallistra 40mm bases, which I used on this battlefield the day before putting the Epic stuff out, so it allowed me to keep the same table.

3 bases is a good compromise because you could then have 1 base as a tiny unit, 2 for small, 3 for regular and 4 for large, which is an easy way to represent formation size. In the Epic rules, a large unit is 7 bases! as you say, a strange choice making unit frontages bigger than 28mm equivalents. Mainly though, I blogged about two base units as the intent of the post was for the gamer who on opening the box was over-faced by content and task, just to help them over the hurdle.

I know what you mean by flag position, but it doesn't particularly jar with me once the dice are rolling.

[Raider4]

Using 'Epic' in the name of the game makes me think of tiny sci-fi figures and stompy robots.

[fred.]

I know what you mean by flag position, but it doesn't particularly jar with me once the dice are rolling.

This is often the case! I find we can worry about the look of things a lot, then once the game starts these become barely noticeable. And then when you post photos of the game, these snapshots are seen by others, who then spot the little things again, as they are obvious in a single static moment, but aren't when you are playing!

[fred.]

Using 'Epic' in the name of the game makes me think of tiny sci-fi figures and stompy robots.

Indeed! And the classic GW epic figures are about half the size of these Warlord Epic figures 

[mmcv]

Nice report

Tea towels under the mat give decent hills

That's a great idea, might try that next time as the books and placemats I've used in the past aren't the nicest.

[Orcs]

Great Report Norm.

[Westmarcher]

Good report, as usual. 

Reminds me of my teenage games with a mix of painted and unpainted Airfix figures. 

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Indeed! And the classic GW epic figures are about half the size of these Warlord Epic figures 

The original epic were 6mm rather than 12mm of the Warlord stuff.

[bigjackmac]

Great post, Norm, very interesting, and a nice little fight to boot!

V/R,
Jack

[Redstef]

Great report and nice to see a full deployment.

It seems most people are going for the 2/3/4 base set up and in my opinion its the way to go. You still get the mass effect (even on the 2 base unit) without a large unit footprint.

For my 2 base units, to keep the command in the middle, I cut the command strip and a normal infantry strip in two and moved the flagpole to the left and right of the base. To make this a 4 base unit just add a normal base to either side. Also, as most Confederate units carried a single flag, I put the pole in the middle so I now get 2 units to one command strip with the occasional 2 flag unit using the complete strip.

[Leman]

I agree with the 1/2/3/4 set up (with 1 being tiny) I am using this stuff for my Gettysburg (and afterwards Antietam) games, using the three scenario books by Scott Mingus. As he gives actual unit numbers I have used an arbitrary determinant for bases per unit thus: <100 tiny, 100-299 small, 300-599 regular, >600 large. This is for infantry only. A regular cavalry unit would have 150 plus on two bases. Totally arbitrary but it works for me. Thank goodness Kallistra are a good fit and also, surprisingly, the original Peter Pig ACW, which were often lambasted in the past as being too small for 15mm, but now come into their own if you can find some. Fortunately I have five Confederate artillery crews. One of the odd things about the Warlord range is their choice of the 12lb howitzer as the only gun type. It wasn't even the most common artillery piece seen on the battlefield (although it does look nice painted up, apart from the spoke issue). Often artillery wheels are cast a bit on the small side - photos from the ACW show the top of the wheels reaching a man's shoulders. I like, particularly for their robustness, the current Peter Pig artillery pieces, which are sold without crew.



Current PP gun with old crew figure and unpainted Kallistra figure for comparison.

[Westmarcher]

You're right about the wheel height, Andy. I have a photo somewhere of me leaning against an artillery piece at Gettysburg and the top of the wheels are indeed roughly shoulder height (I'm 5' 8"). *

Until reading your post, I didn't know that there were two versions of the Peter Pig ACW range; an original, smaller stature range and the current range. My collection consists of figures from the current range and these are noticeably larger than the original range figure illustrated above when stood beside a current range PP gun. Also having seen Norm's Battlefields and Warriors blog which compares Epic with current range PP and Kallistra, to my eye, Kallistra is closer to Epic than the current PP range.  It has therefore been a puzzle to me why people keep comparing PP figures to Epic but now that I've seen your photo featuring a figure from PP's original ACW range, it now makes sense. 

* although I would say in your photo that the wheel top is higher than the painted figure's shoulders (but that is presumably because you are comparing an original PP figure with a current range gun?)

[Leman]

Yes. It's a bit of a compromise, but PP do make a really nice 6pdr. I have here another photo comparing a new style PP gun with old style crew with a Warlord gun with the weird spoke arrangement.