The Big Visual Impact Of 6mm

[Leftblank]

To share: I discovered a funny rant of Peter Berry on an archive part of his website. About how prejudiced wargamers misjudge 6mm figures and prefer giant 28mm mm instead.
I shared the two best parts of his rant and pictures on our club website, here: http://amsterdam6shooters.nl/node/666.

if you prefer Berry's own longer and detailed story, here's the original: https://www.baccus6mm.com/includes/news/28mmmyth.inc.php

I buy 15mm and 6mm. Even against 15mm many gamers hold prejudices! Weird.

[shandy]

I love his comparison photos - the 6mm phalanx really looks the part!

[Sunjester]

As always, it depends on the scale of battle you are trying to represent.

Brigade/Division level actions in 28mm either require huge tables or look a bit "sad" - "Those 12 figures are an entire battalion, seriously?".

On the other hand, a platoon level skirmish in 6mm....? The terrain looks pretty, but where are the men?

It's horses for courses, personally in my own collection I have 54mm, 25mm-32mm (yeah they're 28mm), 20mm, 15mm and 10mm. I used to have a lot of 6mm armies, but "upgraded" to 10mm for all my larger scale games a few years ago.

[shandy]

Oh, I agree, I've got 28mm and 15mm and I've been eyeing 6mm for big battles for a while now… There are pros and cons to each scale, and there are also personal reasons for choosing one. As I have little space and tend to be short on funds, I like 15mm for skirmishes, although I've recently painted some 28mm figures and remembered how cool they look - they are much more individuals than the little guys.

I guess in the end, the most important thing is to make it look cool and fun to play for yourself, whatever scale!

[Daeothar]

A fun read.

I guess I'm not scale-biassed much, evne though about 90% (if not more) of my collection is 28mm(ish). I do have 15, 10 and 6mm stuff as well though.

Interestingly, I started out with GW's offerings in the Fantasy and Scifi realms, so I never had any experience with other scales and historicals before that. yes; I did have some 1/72 (bendy) plastic soldiers like every kid, but for some reason I never counted those as real miniatures back then.

But I always did like the Epic offerings in 40K, and loved the idea of massively large battles, but obviously never got around to those.

A couple of years back I bought into Dropzone Commander (10mm), and I discovered how much fun those smaller scales can be to paint. Seriously; I had a blast.

I've been contemplating getting into 80 Years War gaming, and aside from the obvious 28mm skirmish angle, I've also thought about doing massive sieges in that period though, and I found that 6mm would simply be the natural choice.

And I would rather have miniscule miniatures (sic) to represent a 1 on 1 ratio than the 'representing 12 soldiers per miniature' thing, as I always found those disappointing.

The article really shows this, and when given the choice between 12x 28mm or 144x 6mm, for me, there would simply be no choice...

[gweirda]

My rambling two cents'...

The issue (fig size) as it relates to the number shown on a given base deals only with personal preference from a visual/aesthetic standpoint, ie: a dozen 28mm or a gross 6mm have the same impact on gameplay = none.

When it comes to skirmish/1:1 games, however, figure size affects the game itself, and I find it odd to often hear that a larger figure (relative to ground scale) is not only allowable but preferred.  There are direct conflicts between a figure's size (mostly due to its base) and the size of important game-related features such as movement, weapon range, and terrain that get in the way of play.

In addition, I think there is a detrimental effect (though less quantifiable) of large figures when it comes to players having to translate the model tabletop picture to the reality it represents (eg: "So...that guy who looks to be around 10 paces away is beyond short range?" or "The garden behind that rowhouse -that looks to be 50' deep- is actually 50 yards?" or "I can only fit three guys behind a 40' wall?").

It hinges, I think, on where one decides to stand on the question of what it is that is being modeled: The individual units/pieces within the battle, or the battle itself.

[Sunjester]

In addition, I think there is a detrimental effect (though less quantifiable) of large figures when it comes to players having to translate the model tabletop picture to the reality it represents (eg: "So...that guy who looks to be around 10 paces away is beyond short range?" or "The garden behind that rowhouse -that looks to be 50' deep- is actually 50 yards?" or "I can only fit three guys behind a 40' wall?").

gweirda is right about this, but I think is more of an issue of the rule set used, rather than the figure scale. I think a set of rules that is guilty of any of the points above is  not actually suited to skirmish gaming, especially with larger scales.
For example, the range of a rifle in two popular WW2 skirmish rule sets. In Bolt Action the maximum range of a rifle is just 24". In Chain of Command it is the length of the table, if you have a LOS to the target, you can shoot at it. Now I know which feels better for a skirmish game to me!

[grant]

I'm a 6mm fan, I have always been, but I also have some 15mm and a handful of 28mm.

For 6mm I collect only GHQ, they are the best by far. Other 6mm just don't compare - I've tried them, but I cringe at how bad they are. So WW2 and moderns it is in 6mm.

For other periods, I would go to 15mm.

[eilif]

First disclosure, I game mostly 28mm.

I do see the visual impact of a 6mm game at conventions.  Masses of figures all laid out on the table, etc, etc.  Walking by such a table is awe inspiring and impactful.  However, sitting at table level I'm consistently unimpressed with the appearance of 6mm units.  The first picture in the linked blog pretty much illustrates this to me.



I occasionally game in 10mm which is better, but even then I'm mostly fielding vehicles and mecha and most infantry at that point still don't appeal to me.   If I wasn't fully invested and really enjoying 28mm I'd strongly consider 15mm, but that's about as small as I can go and find a critical mass of minis sculpted to a level of detail that I find acceptable.   As for the financial comparison given in the post, 6mm is certainly cheaper, but when it comes to Sci-Fi and fantasy, there is such a wealth of 2nd hadn product that I can get used 28mm figs for about the same price as new 15mm figs.

Also, I realize that it's not an option available to everyone, but I'm something of a believer of if the scale is too big then just get a bigger table. I run mech attack in 28mm at conventions by using an 8x8 table.

Now that's a visual impact!

[FramFramson]

For me, the crucial thing is a bit odd: 28mm is the smallest scale at which you can properly paint and see a man's eyes.

[Elbows]

For me scale is simply determined by what I want to play.

I predominantly play skirmish games.  28mm provides a nicer visual product for this, and it's extremely easy to find any miniatures you want in 28mm as well as loads of terrain.  In addition almost all of my gaming friends have a wealth of 28mm figures.  This all begins to compound the ease-of-use that 28mm provides me.  Now, add in another game or two, particularly if I can share terrain, gaming mats, or even just bases - and occasionally figures = even more impetus to remain with this scale.

Now, for battle robots, I have a single table's worth of terrain in 6mm.  I have my own skirmish version of Battletech and will eventually tackle Robotech.  This is a side-project at the moment so the terrain is cheap and easy to assemble/paint.  It takes up two single bins and a couple boxes for the figures.  As the robot games are also "skirmish" level (a handful per side) they work fine on my 6'x5' table where I run my 28mm skirmish games.

I'm not limited by a small amount of gaming space or anything else that would necessitate a smaller scale - nor do I game any genres that need rank-n-file figures of any sort.  If I had an attachment to the Napoleonic Wars or ancient battles I'd likely game those in a smaller scale (even then I may not).  For me, sharing terrain etc. between a number of games is pretty paramount.

I'm an avid firearms shooter - but the same premise applies.  I keep my handguns to one caliber, and rifles to one caliber.  Ease of use, maintenance etc.  Much easier to buy two types of ammunition than a dozen. 

[eilif]

I would add a bit to my budget comment.

There is such a wealth of used 28mm stuff on the market that sometimes a cheapskate like me is spoiled for choice.  Of course the "big" games like 40k have huge 2nd hand markets. However, so many excellent figure lines have come and gone that for those willing to play with "defunct" figures, there are myriad options for ridiculous discounts on excellent sculpts.

For me scale is simply determined by what I want to play.

...Now, add in another game or two, particularly if I can share terrain, gaming mats, or even just bases - and occasionally figures = even more impetus to remain with this scale.

Sharing is actually a pretty big benefit and it even goes beyond my own collection.  When in a group or club situation being able to pool or borrow terrain or miniatures for a given night's gaming makes great looking games even easier to accomplish. 

That is not to say that a group of gamers in a different scale can't do the same, but it seems like just about every gamer has something in 28mm to bring to the table.