Rules designed for 10mm models and figures

[Rob]

If you really liked a set of war game rules that was written mainly for 10mm scale what qualities would you be looking for?

E.g.

Scale advantage
Size of army battle
Unit attrition modelling

Would this be different for different periods?
Ancient / medieval
Renaissance, 30years war, ECW
LoA, GNW, Marlburian
7 YW, AWI, Napoleonics
ACW, Austro Prussian, Franco Prussian
Colonial Boer War
WW1 SCW
WW2 Modern
Future war
Fantasy, LOTR

[Shecky]

For me, it depends on the period.

For horse & musket era, it's about getting more troops on the table for a more economical price. The rules with stand removal as opposed to figure removal are ideal for 10mm. For instance, if a rule set calls for 4 figures on a 1x1 stand in 15mm, you can get 6 10mm figures on the same sized stand.

For the modern era, I prefer 10mm as the figure to table scale looks better than 15 or 28mm. Also, I don't mind figure removal in this period. Another benefit, again, is the price. I can field a 10mm WWII company with infantry, tanks, support, etc. for about 1/3 the price of 15mm.

[Hertsblue]

Main advantages of downsizing are: 1. either bigger units or more of them, and 2. a more convenient or more aesthetically pleasing ground-scale. More units demand a simpler and more streamlined set of mechanisms in order to avoid the game bogging down in unnecessary detail. Aside from that, there should be no difficulty applying a set of rules to any scale of figures. 

[Bernie]

Go with all the previous comments plus value for money of 10mm from Pendraken

[gregdman]

I'm an ancients fan, so my comments are limited to the "Ancient" (pre-gunpowder) eras.

I would like to see any new rules written in such a way as to support or encourage more a universal basing of the figures (so that they can easily be played with other rules systems as well).  Nothing worse that having to rebase figures to play under different rules (one sure way to alienate current players), or line up opposite someone who looks like they have more troops just because they are more densely packed on the same number of bases (it just doesn't look right, you can of course still play!).  I also think the 10mm scale looks best with more figures per base vs. simply mounting them using 15mm basing rules, and though not a stickler, I do think that the figures per base ratio should at least try to be somewhat proportional in representing "X" number of troops per figure (plus or minus 25%?), so all of that factors in to my opinion on this as well.

It seems to me that a 40x20mm base is the most common size in this scale.  It is used for WMA, which is a good system, and is flexible in it's figures per base rules, so no problem there for WMA players.  DBA and FOG are also popular rulesets with big fan bases (but not for 10mm) and 40x20 bases are the most common in their 15mm scale rules, but then they dip into odd sizes such as 40x15 for heavy foot and 40x30 for mounts, and 40x40.  Both DBA and FOG define or give a range of figures per base.  Note that DBA recommends doubling the figures per base for scales smaller than 15mm, and has similar variations to base depth (like FOG) depending on troop type.  To play WAB in 10mm, you'll need a few extra 20x20mm based figures for casualty removal and it works just fine.  Lost Battles is another fun game to play with 10mm scale mini's.  I don't have any knowledge of other rules systems, but for players with existing 10mm armies to migrate to a new rules system, you'll want to take all of that in to consideration.

I have been trying to reconcile the different basing requirements of some of the popular rulesets so that my 10mm ancients work will be playable (and look good) under all of them.  Here's a couple links to some posts and replies I've had on the subject...

http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3011.msg26064/topicseen.html#msg26064

I am inclined to stick with 40x20mm as a base for my 10mm minis, and will go with a rough doubling (per sq. mm) of DBA and FOG suggested basing for 15mm scale.  I think it looks great basing 10mm figs in 20mm depth increments, and they definitely can all fit on a base - 2 ranks of foot troops or one rank of horse per 20mm of depth (it looks awesome).   Problems with doubling DBA/FOG at this scale is having a second rank of Foot on 40x15 can be a squeeze with some 10mm figs,  and in my limited experience 40x30 for mounted figs does not give enough space for a 2nd rank of the various horses produced at this scale by different manufacturers, though all of my 10mm scale mounts fit if given 20mm depth per rank regardless of manufacturer.  In essence, for the various 10mm scale mounts I have seen, going from 20 to 30mm (an extra 10mm of depth) does not deliver usable real estate for additional rank of figures, just more space around the ground of the front and back of the figures. 

For some Renaissance era basing related comments (and my own though process and solution for determining how I will be basing my 10mm ancients) check out http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4436.0.html

Just my 2 cents!
-Greg D.

[Hertsblue]

Greg - this has been the holy grail of wargaming since earliest times. Unfortunately wargamers are an independent lot who insist on marching to their own drums. If wargames were as formalised as football or cricket, or it had a strong central authority, standardisation might just be possible, but I don't see any chance of it in the current circumstances. 

[FierceKitty]

I'd say that an approach using elements with multiple rather than individual figures is essential. Those who want to play skirmishes are part of the hobby too, of course, but the point where the smaller scales (up to and possibly including 15mm) are the smart player's choice must be that you can operate as the commander of an army, not a platoon sergeant.
  Not being nasty to those who use the smaller stuff for economy, of course. Been there, done that, looked sadly at stuff I couldn't afford....

[gregdman]

Greg - this has been the holy grail of wargaming since earliest times. Unfortunately wargamers are an independent lot who insist on marching to their own drums. If wargames were as formalised as football or cricket, or it had a strong central authority, standardisation might just be possible, but I don't see any chance of it in the current circumstances. 

Hertzblue, you make a great point.  As a follow up, I would suggest the following for consideration:
For any new ruleset that might come out in the 10mm scale, the author(s) should at least consider what is already out there, so that they do not alienate individuals who currently have 10mm figures based in a particular fashion.  I am most familiar with WMA, WAB, DBA and FOG, so my comments are limited to those rulesets.

In my limited experience (I do have a variety of 10mm manufacturer’s minis), most manufacturers 10mm scale figs seem to mount most uniformly in 20x20mm square increments.  One can easily base 4 foot or 2 mounted troops in a 20x20 square.   However, some 10mm figures are produced in “strips” that exceed 20mm in length, so I am sure there are collections out there that would not be able to be easily converted to a system based on a 20mm by 20mm square. 

It seems to me that at the 10mm scale, 40mm base width is almost universal (except for WMA "shock" troops).  If one desires, WAB can also be played using 10mm scale figs with a combination of 40x20 bases, and some 20x20 bases for troop removal.   Therefore standardizing on 40mm wide bases seems like a no brainer.  Deviating from a 40mm base width I think would potentially alienate the most players with a collection of 10mm scale figures.  Conclusion: recommend utilizing and standardizing on 40mm wide bases.

I think it is important that any new rules should also account for armies that might be based in a variable manner (i.e. variable widths and depths).  The main basing variables of the systems I am aware of are:
1)   WMA’s “shock” mounting of troops (20mm wide x 40mm deep base, which I think looks particularly good on mounted shock troops, but can take or leave appearance-wise for foot shock troops).
2)   DBA and FOG use a standard 40mm wide basing for everything, and primarily use 40x20 bases, but have some troop types with variable depths (i.e. 15mm deep for heavy infantry and 30mm deep for most mounted troops and some light foot).

I personally believe that a 20mm standard depth increment is the way to go at this scale for a variety of reasons.  Physically, depending on the manufacturer, it’s sometimes a squeeze to get a 2nd rank of Foot on a 15mm deep base, but no issues for a 2nd rank if 20mm deep.  Mounted troops from each of the different manufacturers I have all fit in a 20mm deep base, but many cannot can get a 2nd rank in a 30mm deep base, so the extra 10mm of depth is somewhat wasted real estate.  Also, for all but the most serious of tournament players, does recoil really matter that much between a unit on a 15mm or 30mm deep base vs. a 20mm deep base?  Even if it does, this could be easily handled by having rules that account for different recoil distances by troop type (rather than base size), and stick to a standardized (20mm increment) base depth.  Bases that need to be larger (i.e. BUA’s or Camps) could be larger, so long as it is sized in 40x20 increments (i.e. 40x40, 60x40, etc,).  I suppose that perhaps avid DBA or FOG players may insist on sticking to the base depths mentioned in their rules for 15mm scale play (but on the flip side, aren’t most all of the avid tournament players are committed to the 25mm or 15mm scale?).  Either way, new rules should accommodate for armies based according to either convention.

Figures per base.  10mm scale collections (especially if mounted more densely than 15mm rules) visually appear more like a battle vs. a skirmish at the larger 15/25mm scales, which I think is the biggest attraction to the 10mm scale.  DBA suggests using twice the number of figures listed per base in the 15mm scale, and if the same doubling ratio is applied to FOG figs per base, it’s fairly consistent and looks great.  Combine the appearance of mounting double the number of 10mm figures vs. the 15mm scale, along with the relative affordability and increasing quality, and you have what I think are the biggest factors that could drive the growth of the 10mm scale.

If a number of figures per base is listed in the new rules, I would suggest that it should take into consideration the base sizes (at least width, if not depth) and figures per base ranges of popular rulesets that are already out there (as I detailed in a previous post), otherwise they are potentially less likely to get a foothold on the market. 

I think a smart way to go would be to suggest a range of figs per base according to troop type, but allow for whatever is presented on the table to be played (so long as the aforementioned basing issues are addressed).  The number of figures per base is mostly a matter of appearance, and so should remain flexible so that those players with limited resources could still acquire and field a playable army, which would promote the continued growth of 10mm scale gaming.

If well done, I believe this would continue to edge the 10mm gaming community closer to the so called “Holy Grail”, while still allowing for the flexible playability of collections based differently than the authors of a new ruleset might suggest.  I know a number of experienced wargamers who already have their 25mm or 15mm armies, so they are "committed" to those sizes, and those are the only 2 scales out there that have a big tournament player following.  However, leaving out the issue of limited 10mm tournament play opportunities, local players have mentioned to me that if they were starting their collection today, they would choose to build their new collection in the 10mm scale, primarily due to the appearance and affordability of the scale.

Another 2 cents worth.  I guess I'm in for 4 cents now. 
-Greg D.

[cudders]

Excellent Greg,

I agree that 40x20 is the way to go.. I am soon to move all my figures over to 10mm Pendraken, with the exception of Naps as I have so many Adlers, again on 40x20s.

It looks right and plays right..

Cudders

[Luddite]

I agree, 40x20mm is my standard for pretty much all basing, but then i played DBx in competition for years so its sort of ingrained in me now!  In fact most of my masing is in multiples of 20x20mm.  As others have said it just 'looks and feeles right'.

I do find it odd that different rules using different basing conventions since they're all basically modelling the same 'dimensions'.

Men have always moved the same basic distances over given time frames and taken up the same basic space...


As to the OP:

If you really liked a set of war game rules that was written mainly for 10mm scale what qualities would you be looking for?

Interesting question!  I'll limit things to the specifics of 10mm you've asked for so generic issues like playability, accurate period friction, etc.

In 10mm the things i look for in rules are:

Army size
10mm gives the capacity to field very large armies on standard tables.  Rules should therefore be pitched at 'grand tactical' scale engagements.

Combined arms
In 10mm you can fill the army with all the bells and whistles that are normally restricted by the practicalities of cost and operational range.

Multiple protagonists
Keeping army size to a managable scale means you can reasonably buy more than one army or faction, so rules covering periods where there are lots of army options become more viable.  You also have the option of filling out all the 'optional troops' that army lists seem to like including.

Um...there's more i'm sure...

[cudders]

Excellent Greg,

I agree that 40x20 is the way to go.. I am soon to move all my figures over to 10mm Pendraken, with the exception of Naps as I have so many Adlers, again on 40x20s.

It looks right and plays right..

Cudders

Oh crap...just thought.. that means I have to buy and them paint them all 

Cudders

[Hertsblue]

Oh crap...just thought.. that means I have to buy and them paint them all 

Cudders

Yeah, but that's the pleasure, surely. And your painting will be improved anyway after the experience gained with the previous lot. Hence better figures and also better painting. Simples! 

[DanJ]

Um...there's more i'm sure...

For me one of the great advantages of 10mm is that ability to field quite large numbers of troops and that they look better than larger scales because sit "in" the terrain rather than dominating it.

By that I mean that the figures aren't taller than the hills and woods and the bases can fit within a terrain feature without looking silly or out of place.

Another advantage is that with multiple figures on a base the figures aren't seen as individuals and become units.  For me units made of 25mm figures are distracting, I keep thing of the figures as being individuals and there is a tendancy for 25mm units to look like "a dozen blokes taking a flag for a walk".

[cameronian]

If your period is 1866 or 1870 IMHO its got to be 6mm or 10mm. The drawback with 6mm is that, especially in advanced years, its just a colourless blur. 10mm allows the figure to be seen, the colour to come through but at the same time, permits the player to field BIG armies.
Re rules, I'm very enamoured of Brent Oman's Field of Battle; card driven which allows for period vagiaries without endless, tedious modifier tables. We've almost finished our house rules for 1866, I'll post them this week, the cards are in another RULES thread.  

[Luddite]

there is a tendancy for 25mm units to look like "a dozen blokes taking a flag for a walk".

Aye, that scale is fine for skirmishing. 
Oddly the larger the battles, the smaller the figures need to be. 
I guess our brains just expect that and can process things better that way.  Except in dungeons of course...