AAArgh! The bees in my bonnet are getting noisy again- the "foot to eye"
definition of figure height annoys me more than it should. I'm firmly of the
belief that it arose as an excuse for inflating the absolute size of figures,
with a dash of sloppy anatomy to boot. When I was wee, 25mm was mostly held to
represent the height of a man six feet tall (in those far off
days, the height of women had yet to be established) in 1/72 scale.
There were heretics who believed in the abominable "foot to eye" notion, which
they supported by saying that the wearing of hats made the accurate
establishment of a figure's height impossible. It was pointed out to these
persons that the eyes are near as damn it half way up the head, so its no real
problem. Those who persisted in their beliefs were struck with rolled up
newspapers or prodded with sticks.
Modern 15mm figures were first produced by Peter Laing, the scale being
invented by accident when he discovered that the pilot figures he was
scratch-building for 1/144 aircraft were overscale.
54mm we regarded with fear and suspicion- this was the height of the
reviled
_toy_ soldier, rather than our far more worthy _models_. It was
understood however that this represented the height of an average man at the
time, 5
foot 8 inches in 1/32 scale. Historical or regional variations in height
were of course ignored.
In summary, "foot to eye" is prejudiced against the upper half of the head,
which in my own case is daily becoming more visible but which I wouldn't be
without. It leads to size inflation in figures and equipment, making the whole
hobby more costly.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:17:50 -0000 "Robin Paul" <Robin.Paul@tesco.net>
writes:
> AAArgh! The bees in my bonnet are getting noisy again- the "foot to
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:17:50 -0000 "Robin Paul" <Robin.Paul@tesco.net>
writes: <snip>
> however that this represented the height of an average man at the
Student: But, but, but... if you mix "54mm" with [quote mark] 5' 8"
[quote mark] in "1/32nd" scale don't you risk the formula exploding?
Teacher: "Normally yes, Bobby, but this is just a cartoon..."
"Besides, we adjust the ether acidity, as shown on this astral litmus paper,
by diving the whole thing by the square root of Pi squared. And we take it to
the Unique Power mathematically. And as we all know, the Unique power is the
third root of the Speed of Light. This is a very powerful element of secret
formula of Captain Midnight."
"Children, do not attempt this at home."
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:17:50 -0000, "Robin Paul" <Robin.Paul@tesco.net>
wrote:
> I'm firmly of
Rob, do you have any kind of reference for this? I've seen only anecdotal
evidence of this. I've tried to hunt down a source for the scale size thing,
but I haven't been able to find it.
The reason I ask is that I'm pretty certain I heard the "foot to eyes" thing
in the early 80s, and quite possibly in the late 70s. But I can't find
anything definitive. I haven't found a passage in old rules, or anything in
any books. Martin Hackett's "Fantasy Wargaming" lists the measurement as,
"...measured from foot to forehead..." That book has a copyright of 1990. If
you figure it was written a year before that, then we're talking about that
concept being in place during the big "upsizing" blitz by GW. That seems a
little quick for the development of the meme in popular wargaming.
But I can't find older books with the reference.
[quoted original message omitted]
> ----- Original Message -----
There's an easy way out of all this....
"If it looks OK, use it......"
;-)
<grin> Capitalist Pragmatist! But this contravenes the dialectic!
25mm for the Elite and 6mm for the masses. Or was that skirmish and battle??
Gracias, Glenn/Triphibious
You don't have to be French to be a 'frog', or even human!
Nektons - Real Marines!
Starguard, Dirtside 2, Ratner's Space Marines, Stellar Conflicts
and Uprisings, and Full Thrust/2nd. Resistance is everything!
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:57:19 +0000 Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
I agree with Jon. I have just started to get into Dirtside and I have quite
looking at "scale" and now look at how they look with what I already have. I
bought Jon's troops and am using them as my "base" to judge other items.
Daniel
[quoted original message omitted]
> <grin> Capitalist Pragmatist! But this contravenes the dialectic!
I thought that was something to do with thermostats....? ;-)
'Introduction to Battle Gaming' by Terence Wise, 1969, p.29 'Recruiting your
Army': "Model soldiers come in a variety of sizes and prices. The sizes can be
divided into three - 54 mm, 30 mm and 20 mm [...]. All measurements are
taken from the crown of the head, excluding the hat, to the top of the
footstand"
Greetings Karl Heinz
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> ----- Original Message -----
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:51:32 -0800, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Napoleon's Campaign in Miniatures, copyright 1977 by Bruce Quarrie,
Thank you! I'm hoping that at some point I'll be able to research this and get
a "definitive" historical answer for how scales were actually measured. There
is enough question in the hobby that it would be cool if someone could answer
this once and for all.
Mr Wilson said
> ><grin> Capitalist Pragmatist! But this contravenes the dialectic!
St Jon said
> I thought that was something to do with thermostats....? ;-)
No no, "dialectic" has to do with the various pecularities of speech
G'day guys,
> There's an easy way out of all this....
Which is why I don't mind the current "rather lax attitude" to "true scales",
I like the mix of body types all the different manufacturer's
interpretations of 25mm (etc) give - after all life would be pretty
boring if we were all the same;)
But I wouldn't object if a single manufacturer started putting out multiple
body types not just multiple stances... better shut up now before all the fig
sculptors out there come and pummel me to death;)
Cheers
Beth
I've no source, so I'm grateful to Karl Heinz for a quote. Two bits of
evidence before I shut up:
> From a UK wargamer's Vietnam site, "Grunt!":
NEW FIGURES REVIEW Britannia miniatures 20mm Vietnam figures and vehicles
"The Britannia miniatures are not as 'tall' as FAA and Britannia appear to
have gone for a uniform figure size (20mm foot-to-eye regardless of the
relative real-life size) so that the VC / NVA are of the same size as
the US figures. Personally I prefer this and see little reason for making the
VC /
NVA / ARVN appear as diminutive."
Indeed. While we're at it, lets make the MiG-17s and B-52s the same
size.
> From the Society of Ancients page:
Figure Reviews CHARIOT MINIATURES 10mm Punic Wars range.
"Overall the figures are about 11mm from foot to eye but crests etc can add a
couple of mm extra; they are anatomically correct and all weapons and so forth
are in scale."
So, that means that 10s, a new scale, are _already_ 12s!
I have a bunch of Scotia WW2 British infantry that I've never taken out of
the packs, as they'd tower over my 1/300 armour and make it look silly.
It makes me so angry I could strangle a manatee in the nude.
> I was going to ask why you'd have a nude manatee around but I think
Actually I was wondering if he was nude or the manatee... I suppose I
should've kept my mouth shut and pretended that I was holding back to try and
save my battered reputation;)
Beth
[quoted original message omitted]
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:52:08 -0000 "Robin Paul" <Robin.Paul@tesco.net>
writes: <snip>
> I have a bunch of Scotia WW2 British infantry that I've never taken
AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!
I just started painting some H&R French and GHQ Brits to use as infantry
with my Scotia WW2/Modern "Science Fiction" vehicles. Drat, there goes
"Shermans in Space" aka "StarShip Shermans."
Seriously was Scotia 1/85th or are they just simply too dern large for
the Scotia vehicles too?
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:04:48 -0800 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes: <snip>
> Be better if we got a definitive *current* agreement of how to measure
Si, Senor. Right after Peace in our time. Oops, copyright violation!
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:49:53 +0000 Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
writes:
> <grin> Capitalist Pragmatist! But this contravenes the dialectic!
The whole subject makes me hot! Feverish actually!
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:51:32 -0800, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net>
> wrote:
Allah Goodall said:
> Thank you! I'm hoping that at some point I'll be able to research
Be better if we got a definitive *current* agreement of how to measure it.
Hey, if I can dream about FTL drive, I can dream about other
From: Robin Paul
> I have a bunch of Scotia WW2 British infantry that I've never taken
I was going to ask why you'd have a nude manatee around but I think
> >I was going to ask why you'd have a nude manatee around but I think
Beth shot herself in the foot, as usual:
> Actually I was wondering if he was nude or the manatee...
Actually, Beth, asking that kind of question *confirms* your
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:11:26 EST Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> writes:
> [quoted text omitted]
<snip>
Make that 1/285th!
> Seriously was Scotia 1/85th or are they just simply too dern large for
Besides, in FMASk, don't you use actual figure size for cover, etc.? Go ahead,
bring on those 28mm Warhammer steriod freaks! They can't hide behind any of
the cover on the table!
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Laserlight wrote:
> Beth shot herself in the foot, as usual:
Just what are you implying?!
***
> Actually, Beth, asking that kind of question *confirms* your
Just what are you implying?!
***
'I fear that we have wakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible
resolve.'
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
> Laserlight wrote:
Derek demanded:
> Just what are you implying?!
> 'I fear that we have wakened a sleeping
Oh don't mind him, the grumble from his caveman mode is much worse than his
bite;)
Beth