Why 28mm?

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:47 pm

OK, 10mm makes sense. Damn small, but OK.

15mm, sure, no problem.

25mm, yeah, alright, sure.

But why in the name of all that's holy did somebody go and create 28mm? Did not 25mm already exist? The difference is so small, it just makes no sense to me at all.

Or maybe I've got it backwards, but whichever came first, it seems pointless to have created the other.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:10 pm

28mm is what 25mm figures have grown to - in fact many are more like 30mm

rickf · Post by **rickf** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:03 pm

A combination of people demanding more detail and designers wanting to show off more, that extra 3 or 4 mil makes quite a lot of difference in figure quality but hardly any in playing space (frontage) on the table. Just compare Minifigs to Gripping Beast etc.
Rick

Scruff · Post by **Scruff** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:58 am

Same thing is happening to 15mm, its creeping to 18mm, lota big figs out there now compared to my 15mm from 20yrs ago when I started out and its not just ancients. Makes it hard to expand an army sometimes.

cheers

CrazyHarborc · Post by **CrazyHarborc** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:38 am

I see a bright side to having minor differences in miniature's scales. I prefer minies that are NOT totally "uniform" in size. Darn few if any minies I have seen vary in weight, height, in stockiness. I like a mix, a variety. It's been a long time but all sailors I served with were NOT the same body structure.

Just a different view point.