Base Ring Colour Coding

[Lucien Swift]

no, pawns might be be a bit extreme, but the point is that the counter argument to base-colors of "i want to hide my good players" is quite disturbing to me and i happen to consider that type of play bad gamesmanship and bad sportsmanship....

but aside from that, i don't see anything wrong with it...

i can understand the painters not liking the look, but if you want to gain an advantage from having your team's appearance on the field as confusing as possible, then i'm glad i don't have to meet you accross the table... winning isn't everything.

[christer]

You know.. I've never been a fan of the base ring system. I mean sure, it's a good enough concept, but it gets kludgy with all those weird positions messing it all up.

Personally, I just paint the sides of the bases green or black and paint the player number four times around the base. This way people can always see the number of the player. And even if they couldn't, there's always the option of asking... You do talk to eachother when you play, don't you

-- Christer

[Ghost of Pariah]

Yes, the players in my league talk to each other. We always ask to see each other's rosters and ask who has what etc.

I don't try to confuse my opponent though. Do you think a coach of any team walks across the field and says to the other coach, "Ya know last game that rookie WR of ours really came online and we figured out some good plays for him. Keep your eye on him cuz we're gonne be going to him almost every time."

No. Is that bad sportsmanship? No. What do you do? Just run the standard plays over and over? boring!

[Mestari]

it's a good enough concept, but it gets kludgy with all those weird positions messing it all up.

nah, what weird positions? We just need to give up the stupid position names taken from WHFB. And use purple for the two positions that don't fit into the normal positions, namely Troll Slayers and Witch Elves.

[christer]

.. And Skinks.

Either way, I don't really see people agreeing on a single standard and sticking to it. I for one don't want my team looking like they are running on a rainbow pitch.. I will probably stick with green or black myself.

All to their own though, so go right ahead and use whatever you want

-- Christer

[Colin]

Actually. i think there should be a standardised colour coding, for those who want to paint their base rings. I know GW (fanatic) won't bother with that, so maybe the NAF should come up with a standard for base ring colours. Then you won't have to keep asking the people you are playing, "What colour are your blitzers, are they the red ones or purple ones? The brown ones?!!" You get what I mean.

[Deathwing]

The colour coded bases in 2e existed simply because in the box set all players on each team were identical.
If people can't get a grip on which players are which positions then how on earth are they going to remember which player has which skills?
There are very few figs that need differenciating in this way (an Amazon Blitzer and linewoman are very similar, I've colour coded the feathers, plus the background to the number on the base.) Look at any of the 3e teams. Are there any similar figs on other teams that could cause confusion?

[neverdodge]

i think color ring base is just good if you didn t got the right fig (ie you only got 2 dark elf blitzer fig but 3 in your roster, that happen sometimes) and then you can say "the red based lineman is my third blitzer". Other way i think fig speak on their own saying who s what.

And i m agree with the one saying it s most important to know who got wich skill. Just write it down to a paper near you if you can t remember it. Or just do like i did, write it down but try to remember it without looking at the paper ... Know your enemies ....

[Colin]

DW, I agree totally, but I was just stating that those who still want to use the colour coding, that there should be some sort of standard set.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Like I said, my league used to tell me that they couldn't tell my dwarf blitzers from my longbeards. I don't get it but that's what they said. lol. Feathers are not horns. lol

I admit I get confused with the High Elves a little bit in the end they all crunch the same.

[Haar]

I've said this sort of thing elsewhere. We don't need base ring color coding for position, we need color coding for skills on the player. Put a little stripe (vertical) on the base for each skill the player has, so you can tell beforehand and without asking (or looking it up on your roster) which one of those dudes has tackle and diving tackle or passblock or whatever.

I am doing it to my dark elves, and besides the problem of having to bust out my paint after every game to add a little splotch of color to my newly skilled up players, it is working pretty well for me. It saves time for me, because I know with a glance which of my guys to move first (the ones with dodge stand out).

This way you don't have to categorize strange players and you also can show how players advance (this little witch elf has block, and this little witch elf has dauntless).

[Longshot]

Base color is only a memory from 2nd Ed.
I t is not needed nowadays, but it reminds this Ed, so it's still fun when i see somebody using it.
I dont use it anymore but i am not against. 2 nd Ed ruled our memories.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Haar must die!
No way! I'll take positional color coding if I have to but I will not red flag my dirty players, pass blockers, or my catchers.

If they want to know what I'm up to they can look at the copy of my roster that I give them or they can ask me what skills a player has. I refuse to help my opponent avoid my traps.

[Snew]

I've said before that i had a longbeard with AG 3 and catch. Now why would I want my opponent to know who he was? It's more fun when only I know and I can do fake plays. Ya know...just like the real boyz do!

That's great but you're never going to be able hide a Farve/Csonka/Dorsett...insert great here on the field. Everyone knows where the playmakers are.

[Haar]

Haar must die!
No way! I'll take positional color coding if I have to but I will not red flag my dirty players, pass blockers, or my catchers.

Yikes, that's a little harsh, don't you think? But seriously folks, I am not advocating that this be required. I just think it is more useful overall than positional color coding. And if more than one coach does it, there should be a standard. I'll start some other thread with it.

You have to pick out your muties on the pitch already (remember, each mutation must be represented on your fig, according to the rules, IIRC). Why not do it with other skills too?

I did this for myself, originally, so I could get more stuff done in four minutes.

If my opponent doesn't color code in some way, then I'm perfectly within my rights to repeatedly ask questions about the skills on the opposing players, frequently. Having you point to all your dirty players before each turn is far more effective in picking them out than daubing a little red dot on their base.

But I do understand about the sneaky bits, I don't want to point out that my opponent is dodging away from my tackler until after they roll. I submit to you, they will fail to notice the color coding about as often as they fail to ask about it. Meaning, frequently if they're newbie and next to never if they're experienced.