Concern over MU for 25mm

[stevoid]

Hi,

I'd like to re-raise concern over the current scale for 25mm MUs. This is predicated on two main issues:

1. Game play
2. Aesthetics.
3. Potential uptake by existing 25mm gamers in NZ.

Background:

Here in NZ 25mm has become as popular if not more popular than 15mm. At recent major conventions I have played in (3 out 4 of the last National Conventions, last 3 Call-To-Arms, 2006 North Island Championships), 25mm games outnumbered 15mm in all but one - the most recent National Convention, and that because the trans-Tasman trophy was up for grabs in the 15mm scale.

25mm games played in NZ under DBM/DBMM are usually 400 pts (i.e. the same as 15mm) and use 8x5 or 8x6 tables.

Most 15mm gamers that I know of are still played using DBM (or tying with DBMM) while they wait for FOG so they can compare with DBMM. However, a significant amount of 25mm gaming has already moved to DBMM. I hoping that I'll convince many of those to FOG.

I personally like FOG, will be buying it, will be using it for all my 15mm gaming, but I am very worried about whether it will achieve penetration in the 25mm community down here as it stands.

Concern:

I'd like to think that if I played a game with the same armies at the same points under FOG in two different scales, I'd only need to play on a slightly bigger table to get essentially the same game and that the same strategies and generalship would apply. This is not the case as things stand because the relationship of MUs to base widths is not the same. Therefore, not as many troops are within command radius, certain moves are different relative to orientation of the troops etc.

A second concern is aesthetics. If people take their existing sized armies and cram these on to a smaller table it just won't look as impressive. One of the draw cards of 25mm has been the spectacle. Furthermore, as has been pointed out on another thread - the shooting ranges at the small MU have opposing troops in each other's face.

I can imagine the reaction from most 25mm players if the suggestions are that they play with less troops or they play on crowded tables with a substantially different feel to the game (compared to 15mm).

From trolling through all the threads related to this issue it seems that the answer to queries about using the same scale for 25mm and 15mm are answered by 'its a different game' or the disingenuous 'its 3 games in one rule set' type reply.

I humbly suggest that a large portion of 25mm gamers don't want a different game, or to play with less troops, or to have a forward facing pike almost reach shooting range!

Suggestion

Why not establish the base-line 25mm game as an upscaled 15mm game? Base widths and depths are already changed, why not make a 25mm MU 40mm (with the added benefit that existing measuring devices from other rules continue to be useful).

I've approached this topic from the perspective of an ancient gamer who plays for fun and competes in both scales. I want FOG to be a success because it will bring in new blood to the hobby and I'm looking forward to a fresh set of rules - I like what I see so far. I am, however, worried that a number of 25mm gamers that I know will baulk at the MU for 25mm as it stands and that this will be a deterrent to people buying the rules and the many army list books that go with it.

Your humble (15mm) convert,

Steve

PS - sorry for cross-posting this to the other FOG forum, I got confused when the sub-forum shift happened.

[AlbionOak]

I tend to agree with everything you have said.
The 25mm armies are attractive and look especially good at conventions etc.
They can really bring in converts.
Twenty/thirty years ago most armies were 25mm and I am hoping that FoG will let them some of them see the light for the first time in decades. We may get back some who prefer/ preferrred 6th or 7th. Wargamers being what they are I suspect experimentation will take place, and after a few months experience it may well be that organisers of 25m tournaments may stipulate MU = 40mm. If this is found to work better.

[hammy]

I think that the 25mm MU have been driven by the fact that in the UK at least 25mm is only ever played (or at least whenever I see it played in comps) on 6 by 4 tables. DBM in 25mm is a very different game to 15mm on a 6 by 4 table, FoG in 25mm is different but nowhere near as different as DBM. Essentially for 25mm FoG on a 6 by 4 just play with a few less points, say 650 or so.

[AlbionOak]

Which is what the good people of Clevedon are doing in December.
One valid point though is that shooting ranges do seem short, almost toe to toe at this scale.
There are other issues too.

[hammy]

Playing 25mm using 40mm MU on 8 by 5 tables would be great but there just isn't space at UK venues to accomodate it. There would be nothing stopping people playing that way, it is just that an 8 by 5 table is pretty big and not everyone has access to one.

[stevoid]

Hammy,

So your are saying that FOG is proposing a system of play for 25mm that best suits the UK competition scene's preference for small tables! This seems a shame.

I think all my points still stand in that I'm not saying that it shouldn't be played that way if a competition has a space problem but that the baseline game for 25mm should be scaled appropriately to be as close to the 15mm game as possible.

While I agree that DBM 15s and 25s have a different feel, I think you overstate that difference especially when comparing that difference to FOG. The difference in FOG as it stands will be extreme compared to DBM.

I'll repeat that I think playing with less points in 25s is going to win few converts down under.

Still hoping for a considered response from the authors...

Steve

[hazelbark]

Two points.

In general I agree with the why not go for 40mm. (Actually 37.5 mm would be accurate. )

The US scene for DBM etc also plays on the larger tables 350 AP on 5x8 etc. So we don't have the same wrinkle the UK does for space.

But I think Ken one of the US beta 25mm FoG players says the game feels good 650 FoG pts on a table at 25mm. This has the added benefit of being ROUGHLY the same number of bases as DBM at 400 AP.

But I suspet this scale will end up being regional preferences. The bigger issue for me isn't shooting ranges as the decreased ability in 25mm to wheel at 1 MU=25mm is a far bigger impact on manuverablity that may argue for the cramped UK tables.

[rossco]

Many of us Australians aren't limited to small tables either.

I agree that for 25mm figures, using 1 MU = 40mm would be better. That would allow the game to scale up properly for those of us who sometimes like to play with the 'big figures'.

[nikgaukroger]

Nothing stopping you using 40mm for a MU if you have the space IMO.

[stevoid]

Nik,

Acknowledged. My hope was to have the de facto standard for 25mm down under (and in the US) as either the base line or at least in the rule set as an 'official' option. This was so FOG would be as appealing for 25mm as it is for 15mm and to counter any criticism from camps that might say you need to amend FOG to get a good game in 25mm.

Richard has taken this on board and indicated that it will probably be a suggestion/option on the supporting web site.

For beta testing purposes I plan to try some 650 pt games on 6x4 but we'll probably spend more time on 8x5 and use 40mm accordingly. When you've got 25mm toys you want to use all of them!

Cheers,

Steve

[durrati]

Played my first game in 25mm a couple of nights ago. At first surprise was expressed that a MU was the same as 15mm, we then forgot about it and got on with the game. I did not really see any problems myself (albiet with my massive playtesting of er, 1 game).

We used the two sample armies from the rules - Rome V Carthage on a 6 foot table. There was enough of flanks for Crathage to try and work (albiet unsuccesfully) without huge wide open spaces on even end of the line to give the Romans a chance to win in the middle with the foot.

The less room on the flank does favour some armies in 25 rather than 15 (good heavy foot rather than mounted / mobile) so will make the game different to 15mm certainly, not however neccesarily worse. How the game will play out in the two scales is no doubt something we shall see over the next couple of years.

[donm]

Being the man who has organised the 25mm comp in Clevedon and is one of the major 25mm players in the UK can I say that you have missed something here.

If you have a larger table why not play 800 points. Give it a try and let us know how you get on.

I have played about a dozen games in 25mm and have had no problem with 650 points. Part of the reason for the comp at Clevedon is to see how it works and what people think.

Hopefully I will remember my camera and post a report.

Don

[stevoid]

Don,

Were you addressing me and are you suggesting that we try 800 points on an 8x5 table but keep the MU at 25mm?

Steve

[plc]

I agree with Steve regarding the lack of a separate MU for 25/28mm.

If 6' x 4' play is only the norm in the UK I would have thought that the potential in offshore markets more than justified the inclusion of a more, at worst, aesthetically pleasing 25mm MU. All it requires is a single line in the rules (with the rider that if space is an issue use the 15mm MU). I can't see what the strong argument against inclusion is?

What am I missing?

Pete

[terrys]

If 6' x 4' play is only the norm in the UK I would have thought that the potential in offshore markets more than justified the inclusion of a more, at worst, aesthetically pleasing 25mm MU. All it requires is a single line in the rules (with the rider that if space is an issue use the 15mm MU). I can't see what the strong argument against inclusion is?

The entry in the rules says:

One movement unit, or MU for short, is either 25mm or 1 inch, as agreed by the players or decided by tournament organisers.

You could read the 'or decided by tournament organisers' on it's own, statement as meaning that 'tournament organisers' can decide their own ground scale.
I certainly wouldn't have an objection to 25mm players using 40mm or any other ground scale, if they have the table space, and feel that it will make for a better game.

In general these rules - and any other set for that matter - are to be used by the players in any way that best suits them. Changing them to suit yourself, your club, or your competition is perfectly reasonable.

In the past all 25 DBM competitions (at least all the ones I've seen) have beeen played on a 6x4 table, with movement firing distances different from 15mm - and hence making it a totally different game.
By stating a preferred ground scale which is the same for both, makes (we feel) the 25mm game as close to the 15mm game as possible.

[plc]

Thanks for the reply but I think you might have missed the point.

I would have thought you would have wanted to make your rules as easy as possible for the largest possible market....and I suspect Rest of the World 25mm is larger a market than UK 25mm. The problem is that players and TOs are sticklers, stick in the muds, sloths or whatever. They will default to the written rule rather than what necessarily suits as that is most likely to be accepted as the norm.

I'd like to challenge you on your wider explanation.

If you aim is to make the 25mm game as close to the 15mm then surely you would have the same base sizes for 15mm and 25mm figures. Otherwise you are keeping one part of the ground scale constant while increasing the other by 50%

As soon as you scale up the bases you change their ground scale and I would have thought that the MU would need to change accordingly. Yes this means bigger tables to keep the game the same.

I can't see how you can say the game is the same if base size changes while MU and table size is constant.

Again, what am I missing?

Thanks

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

As soon as you scale up the bases you change their ground scale.

Ah, but this does not automatically follow. If you change the troop representation, the ground scale remains the same. That is what we have done in FoG, although we have not explicitly stated so because we want people to get away from bottom-up thinking about troop representation and think of the "shape" of the army as a whole. Thus in FoG the ground scale stays the same, but 25mm bases represent 50% more men than 15mm bases. (The depth being irrelevant as not to scale in either case).

That is the innovation - the recognition that ground scale does not have to change when you change figure scale.

We are not saying that the 25mm game is the same as the 15mm game. What we are saying is that if played on the same sized table, it is more similar than if the ground scales were different.

We are happy for people to use a larger MU if playing on larger tables if they so choose and we will probably add this to the FAQ on the (forthcoming) web site.

[daveallen]

You could read the 'or decided by tournament organisers' on it's own, statement as meaning that 'tournament organisers' can decide their own ground scale.
...
In general these rules - and any other set for that matter - are to be used by the players in any way that best suits them. Changing them to suit yourself, your club, or your competition is perfectly reasonable.

Terry, I think you've missed the point here - all that is being asked for is one line in the rules to make the 25mm game work on the larger tables used outside the UK. I genuinely can't see why that would cause a problem, surely making the rules more inclusive can only help sales. To just say people can play the rules any way they want is a cop out if there's a good reason for not making a change you should give it.

In the past all 25 DBM competitions (at least all the ones I've seen) have beeen played on a 6x4 table, with movement firing distances different from 15mm - and hence making it a totally different game.

In the UK maybe but it seems that in less crowded countries 8' x 5' is the norm. What makes the 25mm game different in the UK is the size of table not the ground scale.

And what is wrong with people wanting to be able to play the same game using 25mm figures? Don't 25mm Mongols have the same right to roam as the diminutive brethren?

Dave

[rbodleyscott]

You could read the 'or decided by tournament organisers' on it's own, statement as meaning that 'tournament organisers' can decide their own ground scale.
...
In general these rules - and any other set for that matter - are to be used by the players in any way that best suits them. Changing them to suit yourself, your club, or your competition is perfectly reasonable.

Terry, I think you've missed the point here - all that is being asked for is one line in the rules to make the 25mm game work on the larger tables used outside the UK. I genuinely can't see why that would cause a problem, surely making the rules more inclusive can only help sales. To just say people can play the rules any way they want is a cop out if there's a good reason for not making a change you should give it.

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

[terrys]

In the UK maybe but it seems that in less crowded countries 8' x 5' is the norm. What makes the 25mm game different in the UK is the size of table not the ground scale.

I didn't say that the norm for the UK is 6x4 (my own table is 8x5). I said the norm for competition games is 6x4.
This constraint is one of size/cost of venue rather than of preferred table size.

Question: How many 25mm ancient competitions are there that use 8x5 as the standard table size?
So far - none that I've seen in the UK. Is it different for 25mm competitions in other countries?