25mm game size

[CharlesDAlbret]

I'd like to start by apologizing in advance if this question has already been asked & answered. If anyone could direct me to the relevant post(s), it would be much appreciated.

My friend (Henry V on the forum) and I started FoG about a year ago and decided at that point we were going to go with 25mm rather than 15mm because we prefer the visual spectacle of the bigger figs.

We've noted most 25mm tourney games are at 650 pts using 40mm MU, but they seem to still be on 6'x4' tables. The problem we've run into is that during terrain set-up we've found a number of pieces are "tossed" because there's no room to place them because of their larger 40 MU size. I noted that at some upcoming tourneys (Cold Wars, e.g.) they're going with 8'x5'. We tried that with our last game and it seemed to work well.

My question(s): Should we continue with the 8'x5'? Or should we go back to 6'x4' with 40 MU terrain? Or should we go back to 6'x4' with 25 MU terrain?

Also, I'm curious if anyone thinks we could go to 800 pts of 25mm figs on an 8'x5' table?

Many Thanks,
George

[fgilson]

You can certainly use 800 pts on an 8x5 table with 25mm and a 40mm MU if you like.

An 8x5 table is roughly 40 bases wide with each base 60mm wide in the 25mm scale.

A 6x4 table is roughly 45 bases wide with each base 40mm wide in the 15mm scale.

That causes a play difference between the scales with regard to frontage.

The original intent, I believe, of 650 points in 25mm on a 6x4 table with one inch MU is to try to keep the gameplay very similar to 15mm.

Note also that a 40mm MU is roughly 8/5ths the depth of a one inch MU. Your troops using a 40mm MU will cover a great deal more table, faster, which some would say is good (gets them in contact with the enemy sooner)...unless you went with something like a 6 foot or so deep table...which is not 'wargaming standard'.

I personally do like the feel of 800 pts with 40mm MU on an 8x5 table in 25mm.

[Blathergut]

Here we've been sticking w the 25mm MUs using 25mm figures. We've run 600pts on 4 x 6, 800pts on 4 x 8, and up to 1000pts on 4 or 5 x 8, and thoroughly enjoyed. Makes for very tight command ranges though!!

We've never tried the 40mm MUs. Maybe someday if I get down to one of the conventions.

[CLAVDIVS]

hi All,
in the UK if the 25 mm comeptition use 650 pts per army, then the size of the tables are 6ft by 4ft and the movement is 1" = 1 MU same as 15 mm and this workes OK.

The only 25 mm competition in the Uk wcich uses over 650 pts is Roll Call "800 pts armies" and the tables size is 8ft by 5ft or just under 5ft and stil using the 1" = 1 MU rule and workes OK.

Tables 8ft wide and depth deeper than 5ft should uses 40mm = 1MU for movement for the games.

This workes out round about the same as 15 mm games deployment.

[pyruse]

We've found that 30mm=1MU works well for 25mm.
You don't get the fast movement you get with 40mm (which tends to need a bigger table), but it's a bit more than 25mm.
Importantly, it also makes the MU a multiple of the base size, so the 2MU restricted zone is 1 base width.

[pcelella]

I don't know where you are located, but for what it's worth, the 25mm tournament at Historicon last year was run with 40mm MU's and with 8 foot x 5 foot tables.

Peter C

[pcelella]

I don't know where you are located, but for what it's worth, the 25mm tournament at Historicon last year was run with 40mm MU's and with 8 foot x 5 foot tables.

Peter C

Oh, I forgot to mention - this was an 800 point tournament also.

Peter C

[CharlesDAlbret]

Gentlemen,
Thank you for your helpful and timely replies.

My friend Henry V and I are going to go with the 1"=1 MU with our 650 pt armies on the 6' x 4' table.

Our next step may be to go to 800 pts with 40mm = 1 MU on an 8' x 5' to get in line with events like Historicon here in the U.S.

We're planning on a "finished armies" game including camps (!) on March 18th. I'm going to borrow the wife's digital camera and post pictures with an AAR soon after.

Regards,
George

[durrati]

Everyone that starts FOG in 25mm starts by thinking 'same table size and move distance as 15mm - that can't be right'. I will grant you that it seems odd, however I play both 15mm and 25mm, both with 25mm=1MU on 6x4 tables. To be honest, I think this gives a better game in 25mm than 15s. There seem to me to be 2 main effects.

1. In 25mm the command ranges are smaller compared to the width of the army, this is a good thing as it forces you to make decisions as to where you place your generals. Also makes it harder for an IC to protect over half your army with his magic shield of shooty pretectyness, this is also a good thing.
2. The table width is constrainred but the depth is the same. This means that if a foot army is fightng a LH army they still have to work hard to push them of the table or pin them on the rear table edge. However, as there is less table overall it means it is harder for the LH to idenfinatley to run into empty table space so the foot has no chance of beating them. Gives a far better balanceto this match up.

[IMC]

Hi,

I can see the objective is to keep things simple in FoG and standardize. Ok good idea. However, I believe (as do most of our players) 25mm / 1 inch scale for 25mm figs is too small. When you look at measuring distances compared to figure size and base dimensions you have to be literally on top of each other to do anything.

Personally I would favour 40mm as per the DBM 25mm game for ground scale and in Competitions reduce the number of points if table size is a restriction. Otherwise I agree 8ft table by 6 foot is best.

Just a view from trying to cope with 1 inch moves in last nights game....

[hammy]

40mm MU on a 9 by 6 table will give almost exactly the same game in 25mm as 25mm MU on a 6 by 4 does with 15s. The issue is getting 9 by 6 tables, they are large, hard to reach the centre of and in the UK at least are almost unheard of for tournament games.

I have seen 25mm FoG played on 8 by 4 tables with 800 points and 25mm MUs, that worked OK and was I think repeated.

For me 650 on a 6 by 4 seems just fine.

[mbsparta]

Everyone that starts FOG in 25mm starts by thinking 'same table size and move distance as 15mm - that can't be right'. I will grant you that it seems odd, however I play both 15mm and 25mm, both with 25mm=1MU on 6x4 tables. To be honest, I think this gives a better game in 25mm than 15s. There seem to me to be 2 main effects.

1. In 25mm the command ranges are smaller compared to the width of the army, this is a good thing as it forces you to make decisions as to where you place your generals. Also makes it harder for an IC to protect over half your army with his magic shield of shooty pretectyness, this is also a good thing.
2. The table width is constrainred but the depth is the same. This means that if a foot army is fightng a LH army they still have to work hard to push them of the table or pin them on the rear table edge. However, as there is less table overall it means it is harder for the LH to idenfinatley to run into empty table space so the foot has no chance of beating them. Gives a far better balanceto this match up.

............ I agree 100%!! As long as the army size (in 28mm) is limited to 650 points. This gives a great game but it also can be played in a reaonable period of time. We almost never have a game end without an army being defeated.

Mike B

[deadtorius]

When we first started playing FOG in 25mm I had an issue with the short ranges on javelins and slow moves, but after a few games it all worked out and I quite enjoy using the 25mm/ 1 inch move as given in the rules. WE play up to 1000 point games on a 4X8 foot table no problems. In the big games you don't have any flanks to move around normally, but it all works out well for us. I think its a matter of personal taste, try a few games with the smaller MU's see if it feels any better then take it from there. We have never tried the 40mm MU ourselves and I am not sure I want to bother as I like the game as it is.