Representative scale for Warmaster?

[Warlord_Chris]

I have been wondering about how many troops a stand / unit in Warmaster represents... thinking about refighting some of the classic Warhammer battles in 10mm.

There is very little detail in the rulebooks from what I can see.
It says that a unit of infantry is a regiment (foot) or squadron (cavalry).

This implies maybe 1000 foot soldiers by 17th century standards? (I am not sure about earlier periods)

As I missing some thing in the rules or can someone shed some light on this please?

[Stormwind]

I believe each unit of say, halberdiers, spearmen etc. is meant to represent at least a couple of hundred troops.  If you count them, sometimes you can even end up painting 40 or 50 little guys so it has to be that many at least. =P

[Warlord_Chris]

If we have a scale of 1:40 or 1:50 (common in many other wargames I have played), then a stand of infantry = 400-500 men, i.e. a batallion
2-3 Batallions = a regiment of 1200-1500 men - i.e. a unit of 3 stands

If we have a scale of 1:25, then one unit of 3 infantry stands = 750 men
and at that level a Brigade of 4 infantry units would be 3000.

[marell le fou]

I remember Rick Priestley saying in the rules a Warmaster battle was supposed to involve tenth of thousands people.

So it means several thousand per base.

[Warlord_Chris]

Thousands per base seems a lot...

From "The Empire At War, Battle of Talabec"

Stirland forces
8000 Spearmen
4000 Swordsmen
2000 missile troops
1300 cavalry

at 1:25, 300 cavalry = 12 models, which fits into Warmaster quite well...

The illustrations in the book show
12 infantry units
5 cavalry units

So it looks like 1000 - 1200 Infantry per 3 stand unit, 250-300 per cavalry unit
i.e. 1:40 for infantry, and 1:25 for cavalry?

or maybe 1:35 overall - this would mean a 3-stand unit = 1020 infantry or 420 cavalry?

[Aldhick]

The only valid answer to this is that a unit represents as many troops as you like :-)
I personally like to see it as 1:1 along with the scenery.

It's true that WM rules mention units should represent hundereds of troops. However, there is obvious scale-down in WMA where artillery can only shoot to the fornt in stand width and the vision arc of units has been reduced from 180° to 135°.

[marell le fou]

For my part i like it 1:1, as Aldhick. I don't see the need of imagining those approx 40 guys are in fact 400.

It's just useless. And what about the sceneries, then ? Not in scale if one base represents hundreds or thousands of guys.

Naaaah. I'm happy with 1:1 scale.

[Warlord_Chris]

1:1... really?!

Then the grand battles are just small skirmishes!

And we will need to revise the rulebook - each skirmishing force (previously called army) will be led by a Major or Lt Colonel, not a General.

No thanks.

[marell le fou]

Go on your way, no worries.

So reduce all your trees on your table, all your sceneries... To fitt the fact that your bases represents 500 soldiers and not 40.

For my part, i like beautifull tables of our scale too much.

Clearly, wargames have always represented small fights. Never big battles. This is only a little bit less visible with WM than Battle.

I don't mind, for my part. If 200 orcs comme to loot my kislevite village, or if they are 20 000, what is the difference ? my own army is proportionnaly the equivalent.

I just enjoy the game.

[Rowlybot]

*raises hand* I'm a 1:1'er too.

[Stormwind]

Hey, to each their own!

I would scale it in my mind depending on the objective.  If it was only over some little thing then 1:1 makes sense, but if it was for some great fallen treasure or the fate of a city then seeing it as thousands and thousands of troops fits better!