Slitherine

All the comps here in NZ for 25mm are either 8x5 or 8x6. For the last few years numbers in 25mm comps have exceeded those in the 15mm.

Cheers,

Steve

We played our 1st 25mm game last night 650pts 6x4 table Palmyran against Free Company.
It looked very good ,the movement and shooting distances weren't an issue ,there was room for manouver,may have been because of the relative size of the armies ,they arn't the cheapest around,however it played very well.
Oh and Lynda diced Tom to death,2 dead generals,the cataphracts ground down the knights.
The Romans lost in the end against the men at arms,it did show that numbers will usually tell when all else is equal
David

daveallen wrote:

Not true. What has changed is the troop representation, the ground scale remains the same. Thus 25mm bases represent 50% more men than 15mm bases.

Not a good argument - are the army lists going to reduce the number of bases accordingly?

Army lists are based on proportions, not absolute numbers. The proportions don't change just because the troop representation does.

--------------------------------

Very sorry Dave, I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it. I have now deleted it as it made no sense with my editing.

Perhaps you could bring yourself to type it in again, as I did not get past reading the first item.

terrys wrote: So far - none that I've seen in the UK. Is it different for 25mm competitions in other countries?

I beleive that in the US 8x5 is common for 25mm.

I still think that on the bigger tables it would be better to up the size of the army to 800 points rather than increase the move distances.

As to what gives the best look, I will post pictures after the weekend.

Looks as if I am the only one with the courage to field a cavalry army

Or is it juts a mad age thing

Don

I still think that on the bigger tables it would be better to up the size of the army to 800 points rather than increase the move distances.

As to what gives the best look, I will post pictures after the weekend.

Looks as if I am the only one with the courage to field a cavalry army

Or is it just a mad age thing

Don

On the bigger table it makes sense to do both - so you get the same points density and the same maneuverability/control.

Agree Sagji. That is what happens with current other rule sets - which is why the FOG approach seems so surprising given that this has worked well in the past. Games are same points as 15mm on bigger tables with a bigger standard move distance. Aesthetically this is very good.

Donm - there are a few mounted armies in 25mm here in NZ so you're not entirely alone.

To be fair to the FOG team, Richard has indicated that my original points have been taken on board. If the production schedule is so advanced (a good thing for those of us waiting to get hands on colour copies with diagrams) and not even minor changes can be countenanced, then we'll have to live with a web site amendment.

Given that one of the appeals of FOG (to me anyway) has been the transparent approach and drive for clarity in the rules, I don't think Terry's suggestion about inferring 'or decided by tournament organisers' as an implicit license for changes in ground scale is a good thing. Besides being a grammatically incorrect interpretation, it doesn't fit with the FOG ethos. We all realise that we can play with the rules in anyway we like, there just seems to be surprise that a convention of upscaling ground scale to fit troop scale has been (officially) abandoned as the base line approach.

Steve

nikgaukroger wrote:

terrys wrote: So far - none that I've seen in the UK. Is it different for 25mm competitions in other countries?

I beleive that in the US 8x5 is common for 25mm.

Absolutely true. For doubles they get even larger!

hazelbark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

terrys wrote: So far - none that I've seen in the UK. Is it different for 25mm competitions in other countries?

I beleive that in the US 8x5 is common for 25mm.

Absolutely true. For doubles they get even larger!

If 25mm gamers in the US are anything like many of their NZ counterparts then the larger tables are to accommodate two players, not more points

My broadband's been down for a couple of days so hence the delay in getting back on the forum.

Think about where we are in the production schedule....

If what you're saying Richard is that it's too late to make the changes then that seems to me a pretty strong argument... not much point wittering on now.

Very sorry Dave, I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it. I have now deleted it as it made no sense with my editing.

Kind of you to imply it might have been different before

See you in Clevedon.

Dave (the Novice) Allen

I play 25mm in a variety of rules--Warrior and DBM, and now FoG--and they ALL use 8x5 tables. I haven't played 25mm on a 6x4 table since roughly 1987. And that's in Canada and the US.

Just FYI,
C.

I am taking interest in this thread - since I will be using 25mm to try out FoG (My 15mm armies have already been rebased away from DBM standard).

I am most tempted to go with the 1MU = 25mm.
I am happy to accept that game will play differently with effectively with reduced movement, command, and missile range.

I already play a medieval game (Bloody Barons) with 25mm using 15mm distances because it is easy. That works well so I am optomistic for FoG.

FWIW, I will be playing with 25mm minis regularly on a 6' x 10' table and intend to use a 40mm MU.

As always,
Mark Clover

I suspect all we have here is a difference in tradition between the UK and the America's and New Zealand. Here we have traditionally used 6 x 4 tables, whilst the others have moved to 8 x 5 tables. Possibly this is because in the UK we don't usually play larger games ?

regards
Paul

Here near Boston, MA, most of the players who are looking at FoG have 15mm DBA or 25mm based and measures on the 25mm (1 inch) scale, including base size.
Table size aside, what would the proper base size for 2 inch (50mm) front for the troops?
Granted the books are flying off the shelf, I believe more players will join.

Steve W.

Steve, I'm not sure I fully understand your question. Base size for 50mm? Come again?

At the hobby shop, most of the stands the players are using are 1 inch (about 25mm) square. 2 x 1 inch for calvary.
Being able to play FoG without rebasing hundreds of stands of multiple armies would really be cool. So, if we use a scale where the face of the front ranks 2 inches (about 50mm), how deep would we need to make the BGs?
What other adjustments might we have to make?

I've played 3 games.
I thought 650pts of 28mm scale on a 6x4 board was a good size.
We've had empty flanks each time.

Yes, the men are close together at shooting ranges but really who cares? It bothered me at first but I don't see any reason to worry about it. The figure scale to shooting range is still waaaaaaaaaay off at 40mm MUs. Max bow range is 150mm vs 240mm ... looks like a lot on paper but that's the difference of 3 figure heights. Hardly better "looking" or closer to realistic.
I think it bothered me at first because I was so used to another game.

If we were playing larger games of 800pts, I know my Cav opponents would want more board, and we'd probably play 8x5. But not at my house, since there is no room. We are going to try this tomorrow, so I'll report back.

I have found 650pt test games to be fine on a 6 x 4 but must admit I prefer to get my 8 x 5 table tennis table out for bigger games and would then use a 40mm MU.

Th problem is most people don't have access to a bigger table and most comps are 6 x 4 or the space needs go out of hand for 25mm making it rather uneconmic to stage vis a vis other games.

We have the challenge this weekend so i will keep a good eye on the games there in between firing my mass longbows at everyone!

Si