I could not agree more with you there. I actually have a plan to 3d print up some 40k armies in either 10 or 15mm to be able to take advantage of the larger table space for actual tactics. Let me know if thats something you would be interested in me tracking the progress. Anyway thanks for watching.
I use to do modling years ago and about to get back in. I will say you did a wonderful job exsplaining. My daughter wants to play pathfunder 2e but I am on the fence on going the traditional 1:60 (more like S) scale or going smaller like N or HO. Oh well. Pros and cons to everything.
Hey, Thanks for watching and for your nice words. I guess at least with Pathfinder/dnd you can use the larger scales as you dont need too many mins like you do for a large tabletop battle. Although my personal choice would be to try and get 15mm figures. I have just printed some 15mm figures to play (Call of Cthulu video in about a month) and figured I would try a bit smaller than usual and they seem to look great. Good luck with the decision, does your daughter have a say?
Lot's of reasons to choose scales. I mostly play Chain of Command with 28mm figures because that is what I bought for my first platoon. I Aint Been Shot Mum in the western desert though, looks amazing in 6mm - it really captures the openness of the theatre.
The state of the ground should be taken into account for weapon range calculations too. Real ground is not as flat as our gaming tables; it's full of bushes, tall grass, thickets, and other elements that are not represented in the table, so the actual effective range will be significantly reduced.
How scale is measured and calculated is also interesting. Average height of a man being 1.8m (1800mm). Therefore 1/72 is 25mm. This is measuring bottom of foot to top of head. Not to eye.
I know exactly what you mean, it's strange how they came to the original decision. Although I have heard they chose eye level because of the extra height and variability headwear added.
@@bigbattleslittleworlds While that sounds like a good reason, I personally believe it is to conflate scales between vendors so that consumers are more likely to buy varied scales. For example 28mm and 1/56 are listed together all the time. Even though 1/56 is really 32mm and looks odd, IMHO, next to accurate 28mm. The Italeri kits that WLG sells and claims to be 28mm are really still 1/72 and thus 25mm. Because those are terrain kits, not a huge deal, unless you are actually using 32mm figures. I personally have chosen to use all 1/72 (25mm) kits to build my armies due to selection and cost. I only play skirmish games so this works excellent on a 6x4 down to 3x3 tables. Thank you for bringing up this subject and I think it isn't discussed enough due to sponsorships.
My preference is 6mm for most battles and settings, think they look great. 2mm for some, love Strenght and Honour. I have 28mm figures mainly for TTRPG's and Skirmish games. Which I do mainly with the Northstar fantasy and scifi ranges (Oathmark, Frostgrave, Rangers of Shadowdeep and Stargrave). I do have a 40k Inquisitoresque skirmish game as a project. Love the lore, love the figures but the prices hurt even so. Ranges will nearly always be abstracted. I suppose one way to not have to worry about it is having the battle take place I a convinced space, which would most likely be an urban setting.
I agree with you there I like the smaller scales for big battles and then skirmishing in 28 too. I think Urban games would be fun, but I have never played one. Thanks for watching.
@innerforce7395 GW is all over the place. But the new stuff is 32mm, with Primaris being 36-40mm (don't have a figure that stands fully erect) and the new guardsmen 32mm
Thanks to all for the reponses. Is a bit confusing because when you look at human like factions like adeptus mechanicus they have 25mm bases. Then the problem is there, it makes me question what scale to pick for doing terrain 25 mm or 32 mm?
Unless you play in something like 10mm, or 6mm, most weapons in the 20th Century should be able to range across the entire table, unless your table is absolutely huge. What seems to work best is to take a rule set for 28mm and play it in 15mm or so, but don't change the ranges, movement rate etc. You start to get ground scales and figure scales coming closer to each other.
@@johnsowerby7182 Absolutely- the smaller scales do make much more sense. I used to do quite large tank battles in 6mm- but even then it was a bit of a compromise on the ranges. Lots of terrain etc.
Agreed, they can be fun but are not really a great representation of reality and tactics unless played in the smaller scales as mentioned by @johnsowerby7182. Thanks for watching the video and getting involved in the discussion.
@@johnsowerby7182 Thanks for watching and joining the discussion. I agree with your point on the smaller scales, that's why my preferred scales are smaller,15mm and smaller. I like the idea of 15mm using 28mm ranges.
Great video. Sometimes I wish warhammer 40k was 15mm. Even in large tables it seems like there is no enough space for flanking.
I could not agree more with you there. I actually have a plan to 3d print up some 40k armies in either 10 or 15mm to be able to take advantage of the larger table space for actual tactics.
Let me know if thats something you would be interested in me tracking the progress. Anyway thanks for watching.
I use to do modling years ago and about to get back in. I will say you did a wonderful job exsplaining.
My daughter wants to play pathfunder 2e but I am on the fence on going the traditional 1:60 (more like S) scale or going smaller like N or HO. Oh well. Pros and cons to everything.
Hey, Thanks for watching and for your nice words.
I guess at least with Pathfinder/dnd you can use the larger scales as you dont need too many mins like you do for a large tabletop battle.
Although my personal choice would be to try and get 15mm figures. I have just printed some 15mm figures to play (Call of Cthulu video in about a month) and figured I would try a bit smaller than usual and they seem to look great.
Good luck with the decision, does your daughter have a say?
Lot's of reasons to choose scales. I mostly play Chain of Command with 28mm figures because that is what I bought for my first platoon. I Aint Been Shot Mum in the western desert though, looks amazing in 6mm - it really captures the openness of the theatre.
I know what you mean about all the choices and the pros and cons of each. Do you do the Western desert in 6MM?
The state of the ground should be taken into account for weapon range calculations too. Real ground is not as flat as our gaming tables; it's full of bushes, tall grass, thickets, and other elements that are not represented in the table, so the actual effective range will be significantly reduced.
Great point. as will the weather.
How scale is measured and calculated is also interesting. Average height of a man being 1.8m (1800mm). Therefore 1/72 is 25mm. This is measuring bottom of foot to top of head. Not to eye.
I know exactly what you mean, it's strange how they came to the original decision. Although I have heard they chose eye level because of the extra height and variability headwear added.
@@bigbattleslittleworlds
While that sounds like a good reason, I personally believe it is to conflate scales between vendors so that consumers are more likely to buy varied scales.
For example 28mm and 1/56 are listed together all the time. Even though 1/56 is really 32mm and looks odd, IMHO, next to accurate 28mm.
The Italeri kits that WLG sells and claims to be 28mm are really still 1/72 and thus 25mm. Because those are terrain kits, not a huge deal, unless you are actually using 32mm figures.
I personally have chosen to use all 1/72 (25mm) kits to build my armies due to selection and cost. I only play skirmish games so this works excellent on a 6x4 down to 3x3 tables.
Thank you for bringing up this subject and I think it isn't discussed enough due to sponsorships.
Interesting discussion. 👍
Thanks for watching.
My preference is 6mm for most battles and settings, think they look great. 2mm for some, love Strenght and Honour. I have 28mm figures mainly for TTRPG's and Skirmish games. Which I do mainly with the Northstar fantasy and scifi ranges (Oathmark, Frostgrave, Rangers of Shadowdeep and Stargrave). I do have a 40k Inquisitoresque skirmish game as a project. Love the lore, love the figures but the prices hurt even so.
Ranges will nearly always be abstracted. I suppose one way to not have to worry about it is having the battle take place I a convinced space, which would most likely be an urban setting.
I agree with you there I like the smaller scales for big battles and then skirmishing in 28 too. I think Urban games would be fun, but I have never played one.
Thanks for watching.
Which scale is used for warhammer 40k minis. 25, 28 o 32mm?
It used to be 28mm but I'm pretty sure the newer Primaris and comparable Zenos minis are now closer to 32mm. @@innerforce7395
@innerforce7395 GW is all over the place. But the new stuff is 32mm, with Primaris being 36-40mm (don't have a figure that stands fully erect) and the new guardsmen 32mm
Thanks to all for the reponses. Is a bit confusing because when you look at human like factions like adeptus mechanicus they have 25mm bases. Then the problem is there, it makes me question what scale to pick for doing terrain 25 mm or 32 mm?
Were you making popcorn?
I'm not sure lol, why?
@@bigbattleslittleworlds sounded like it at the start of the video! ;)
Haha, I don't eat popcorn so I wouldn't think so.lol Thanks again.@@CaldonianDude
To me ranges are what kills 20th. C. games (if not earlier). Most WW2 games I see aren't much more than glorified hand to hand combat.
Unless you play in something like 10mm, or 6mm, most weapons in the 20th Century should be able to range across the entire table, unless your table is absolutely huge.
What seems to work best is to take a rule set for 28mm and play it in 15mm or so, but don't change the ranges, movement rate etc. You start to get ground scales and figure scales coming closer to each other.
@@johnsowerby7182 Absolutely- the smaller scales do make much more sense. I used to do quite large tank battles in 6mm- but even then it was a bit of a compromise on the ranges. Lots of terrain etc.
Agreed, they can be fun but are not really a great representation of reality and tactics unless played in the smaller scales as mentioned by @johnsowerby7182. Thanks for watching the video and getting involved in the discussion.
@@johnsowerby7182 Thanks for watching and joining the discussion. I agree with your point on the smaller scales, that's why my preferred scales are smaller,15mm and smaller. I like the idea of 15mm using 28mm ranges.
Chain of Command (Too Fat Ladies) has a groundscale of 12 inches = about 40 yards, which translates perfectly for 15mm figures.