I'm planning on running some games using Stargrunt II and a lot of my W40K,
Grenadier Dark Future, and a few Champions miniatures. I already have them,
and I've accumulated a lot of buildings, vehicles, and terrain in the same
scale.
The problem is that scale is about 28mm ('O' scale for train people),
not the 20-25mm that Stargrunt II is intended for. That might not seem
like a big difference, but I think the 'official' Stargrunt minis are
closer to 1/72 scale than 1/54 (25mm), and most of my minis are 1/43.
The upshot of all this is that with such large miniatures, a range band of 6"
for Green troops is going to result in troops that are almost standing next to
each other who can't hit each other.
Does anyone have any suggestions on re-scaling the movement rates and
range bands to account for this? I'm thinking maybe multiplying everything by
about 1.5 would fix it, but I was wondering whether anyone else had tried
anything like this and could lend me the benefit of their experience.
> The problem is that scale is about 28mm ('O' scale for train people),
I use the Grenadier Future warrior range and I find them slightly larger than
the true 25mm figs but smaller than GW figs. In that respect the distoted
ground scale (1"=10m), is not too much of a problem as at 6" even greens will
hit or suppress the target so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I find
the figures not too bad on table, unless you are using the newer GW stuff
which IS huge.
> Stuart Murray wrote:
even
> greens will hit or suppress the target so it shouldn't be too much of
My copy of Stargrunt II is still on order from the store. Their distributor
(don't know who) didn't have it, so they're trying a different one in
California next week. Sigh. Discount Games didn't get it, either, when my wife
tried to order it for me for Christmas.
That paragraph just means that I have not yet seen the rules. I didn't know
that the ground scale was that different from the figure scale. I'm planning
to play with 6mm figures, and was planning to switch inches to cm. Maybe I'll
just stay at inches, and have the scales be nearly the same. (Except the
second thing that appeals to me about the project (first thing is that I've
already got the
figures and they're cheap at this scale) is having a good-sized
battle on a small table area. Being able to play while sitting down at the
table. Wow, what a concept.
> I'm planning on running some games using Stargrunt II and a lot of my
As a rule-of-thumb, we usually reckon on our figures being approx. 1/60
scale; "25mm" has become a rather flexible designation in recent
years....
:)
> The upshot of all this is that with such large miniatures, a range band
Remember that the ground scale is very different to the figure scale in any
case, by a factor of approx. 5:1. By all means try a 1.5x multiplier and see
how it works, though this may give rather long ranges unless you have a big
table (or use plenty of cover and terrain to limit sight lines). That aside,
we quite often base figures (ours and other makes) on approx. 1" diameter
bases anyway, so their "effective" size (ie: space taken on the
table) is the same as GW-style stuff anyway. Most of the figs in the
SGII rulebook photos are on 1" bases.
Our current drafts of FMA (the man-to-man skirmish system using the same
mechanisms as SGII) use a groundscale of 1" to 2 metres, which is as near
> At 04:28 PM 1/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
6mm! Man, them some small little dudes. If you don't mind the size you are
correct in that it will open your battlefield WAY up. SG2 moves fast enough
were you can certainly fight larger battles. At 6mm you could easily get two
platoons or more on a side. Personally I wouldn't want to play with figures
smaller than 15mm but 6mm will work.
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:13:57 -0500
> I'm planning on running some games using Stargrunt II and a lot of my
No, they are true 25mm. There is a LOT of confusion about scale (always has
been actually) and 28mm isn't even close to 'O' gauge.
> The upshot of all this is that with such large miniatures, a range
SGII uses the same base size as Warhammer - 25mm bases. The ground
scale is the same. There is no need to rescale!!
KR
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Jonathan Jarrard <jjarrard@ford.com> wrote:
Hmm.. 25mm scale means that 25mm (1 inch) represents 6 feet (72 inches),
so 25mm scale really is 1/72 scale.
Not 'zacly... the most common definition of 25mm scale iws the average
hieght of a man or around 5'8" or so. The upshot is _TRUE_ 25mm ends up
being around 1/68 or 1/69. But 1/72 is definately the most common model
size available nearest 25mm. It works well for the smaller castings (e.g.
Starguard! figs &c.) but looks bogus next to the Giganto Workshop stuff.
> ----------
> Not 'zacly... the most common definition of 25mm scale iws the average
[snip]
As I've always understood it, a figure scale (eg: 25mm) is traditionally
supposed to refer to the height of an average human male from soles of feet to
EYE LEVEL, not to top of head. I think this is because the eyes are visible on
most figures (historical ones anyway, from which the scale system arose),
whereas the actual top of head is usually hidden under headgear of various
heights (especially on Napoleonics!!) making it hard to measure accurately.
Thus "true 25mm" should really refer to around 5'4" or
so, making it around 1/64. We work to about 1/60 for the vehicles and
such,
to give them a chunky look and allow them to be used with GW-size stuff
as well as our own.
> Geo-Hex wrote:
I understand your point, but the fact remains that many of my GW,
Heartbreaker, and Grenadier minis ARE very close to 'O' scale, if you compare
vehicles and buildings.
Well 72" (6' 0") divided by 69 is something like 1.04" and 68" (5' 8")
runs just under 1" so 1/69
is 'height-right' although I also agree that 1/64 would probably work.
The difference is between
a man of 5' 4" and 5' 8" on a 25mm scale is 0.06 or so if using 1/64
and 0.05 if using 1/69. I
based my calculations but not my memories (which are faulty) on Bill
Armintrout's excellent
THE MINIATURES PAGE at http://www.eden.com/~tmp/ref/scales.html, which
does indeed state that scale is traditionally measured from foot to eye. I sit
corrected.
Besides, is this thread getting Anorak-y or is it just me ?
FWIW, I build my bulidings to a scale that aloows ease of figure use even if
the scale is slightly larger that 'reality' O gauge bulidings would be a bit
big IIRC (my last Lionel Train Set was in the
early 70's) and would probably be more 1/35 scale than 1/6X scale.
Gene
> ----------
> measure accurately. Thus "true 25mm" should really refer to around 5'4"
or
> so, making it around 1/64. We work to about 1/60 for the vehicles and
Speaking from my own preference - whom else can I speak for? - I would
_definitely_ prefer the vehicles to be in better scale (closer to 1/64).
I'm searching high and low for vehicles that come closer. No offence intended,
but the only vehicles of the GZG "25mm" line that interest me are those that
are closer to that scale, and those that can be modified to be so. I realise
the marketing potential in having vehicles that fit in with the GW stuff, but
I'd much prefer vehicles that scaled closer to the GZG figures.
> measure accurately. Thus "true 25mm" should really refer to around
I think this really only applies to things like the Paladin and Phalanx, which
are supposed to be BIG vehicles anyway; most of the range is much
smaller stuff, and the difference between 1/64 and 1/60 really is not
enough to notice unless you get the micrometer out.... What I meant (and
perhaps should have explained clearer) is that we chose to model quite large
vehicles in some cases, not that they are overscale for the figures.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
I didn't mean to implay that GZG's vehicle were off-scale. The vehicles
I am using come from a variety of sources, and were chosen to be as close to
the recommended (long ago and far away when GW actually
recommended outside vehicles) 1/43 scale.
KR Said:
> SGII uses the same base size as Warhammer - 25mm bases. The ground
Except for the fact that all 40k figures are of Arnold Swarzzenager and
company...