Ok, I’ll be “That Guy” and say that if it were easy, it wouldn’t be a “$21 Challenge.”
I have found it quite doable. It’s not 100% cost-efficient but less-than packs let you build about a brigade/regiment with supporting units. And as it’s only $21 an army, I think trying to make it out of whole packs isn’t necessarily the goal I originally had in mind when I proposed it – it’s making budget and aiming for an FFOT-sized force.
If you only use full packs you’ll radically overshoot your mark, and end up with a lot of extras. Again it’s not what an experienced 3mm scale collector would do, but for purposes of the project the goals are slightly different from what you might do if you were just bulking out your own already-established forces.
I think the spirit is pretty flexible though – if you want to multibase your units, I say go for it! Part of the fun will be seeing what people come up with as they interpret the challenge!
I have no problem with the $21 limit but you seem to have missed a key part of my post. My point was that the points value of the game should be specified, to provide some sort of guide for the participants’ purchases.
As I said, if single-basing you could buy the equivalent of a Division’s worth of stuff for $21. But that doesn’t mean you should (how would you know?). If the actual game is going to be points limited so that you can’t field your whole division, what’s the point? You’d just end up with a whole bunch of minis you can’t field, which to me doesn’t seem like the point of the exercise. If I’m going to buy and paint them I want to know I’ll be fielding the majority of the minis?!
If the game is going to be of a points value that encourages about battalion to brigade size (and that’s what I’d personally recommend for FFT), then it would change my purchase and force composition drastically. Just because I could buy a couple of Brigades worth of stuff doesn’t mean I should. If you’re playing that level of game with FFT, be prepared for a looooong (and to me, less enjoyable) game, which I don’t think is the aim of this challenge?
The size of the game is crucial to knowing what to buy that is likely to be actually fielded on the tabletop. Instead of purchasing 6 full packs to mass out a large (Division size) force for higher points game, I’d probably go for a purchase of, say, 3 full packs and some part-packs. This would give me more variety for a smaller game, but wouldn’t be how I would go if I don’t know whether the actual game size will pit my battalion sized force against a tank Division! Bottom line is: if I don’t know the size of the game, I don’t know the size of force I’m likely to field, and I don’t know what I should buy.
The multi-basing thing was for my specific challenge opponent only. I wouldn’t expect everyone else to do it. And I wouldn’t expect anyone to spend more than the allocated $21 on a force they are going to hand over if they happen to lose in the challenge game. The single basing concept for the challenge is fine for those who normally play that way, and for beginners to show them how cheap and easy it is to start with 3mm minis (I agree, it is!). But for existing players with multi-based troops it doesn’t make much sense. My opponent had previously expressed a desire for multi-basing so I was suggesting an arrangement that might work for the two of us. But I’m not going to field my multi-based troops against single-based ones. For a start the base sizing would be very different, and secondly it would offend my sense of aesthetics. So I think we either both multi-base or neither of us does.