06/08/2015 at 04:38 #28739
As someone seriously contemplating getting into the miniature business, I’m wondering if 32mm is the way to go. It allows for significantly greater detail without a massive rise in cost.
Thoughts?06/08/2015 at 08:53 #28744Alvin MolethrottlerParticipant
It really depends on whose figures you want your figures to match with. When I started up my business I instructed the designer to make my 15mm figures compatible, in size and height, with Essex Miniatures. The rationale behind this being that customers would be more likely to purchase if they knew my product would fit in with their existing collections.06/08/2015 at 10:16 #28751General SladeParticipant
I guess it depends on what kind of miniatures you are contemplating. Fantasy figures for skirmish games seem to be moving in that direction and there does appear to be a market for one-off, highly-detailed miniatures. They don’t work for me though. They take up too much space, they take too long to paint and anyway I can’t paint them well-enough to do them justice.06/08/2015 at 10:51 #28753Guy FarrishParticipant
I hope this is not as unhelpful as it may seem on first reading.
It depends what you mean by 32mm. 32mm from where to where?
Most ’28mm’ figures are at least 30mm foot to top of head and I have a plastic Perry WoR command figure in front of me and he is 35mm from bottom of foot to top of head. So even if we take 28mm as to ‘eye level’ (God knows why that became a place to measure to – yes I know the whole headcover issue, but it strikes me that is just an excuse for poor anatomical understanding by early sculptors) many figures are already way over scale.
If you mean 32mm from base of foot to eye level then unless you have a very rigorous control on the sculpting process you will end up with a near 40mm figure and I think the balkanisation of figure scales has gone far enough. Detail on current 25/28/30 mm figs is excellent. I see no need to creep upscale myself. Others may differ.
I’d be very happy to see good more good 28mm figs but I gave no desire to start building armies (however small in number) in a larger size. At a nominal 32mm your figures would not easily fit in with current 28mm or 40mm figs (and there are relatively few of the latter) and unless you are planning on releasing whole ranges in one go I am reluctant to buy figures in the hope the range (and its enemies) is going to be finished off anytime soon. I have been caught out in the past with unfinished ranges and armies with no enemies so even if I were to be swayed by their brilliance I wouldn’t be buying until there were sufficient figures in a range to allow a game. I am not a collector/painter so the figures must have a gaming purpose for me.
Having said all that, whatever you decide – best wishes. I admire anyone with the commitment to start a new range.06/08/2015 at 10:58 #28754Not Connard SageParticipant
Front Rank think so…
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.06/08/2015 at 12:01 #28755PatriceParticipant
No. Never. 28mm or Death. No Surrender.
https://www.anargader.net/06/08/2015 at 12:11 #28759ShandyParticipant
Everyone knows that 15mm is the new 28mm! 🙂
… and 6mm is the new 15mm (look at the Joy of Six show and how they replace 15mm for mass battles). And, in consequence, 3mm is the new 6mm (the Roman ranges from Magister Militium for those who really want the mass effect).
Hm… have I just discovered a trend towards ever smaller figures? Reverse scale creep?
My blog: http://wargamingraft.wordpress.com06/08/2015 at 12:31 #28763Sane MaxParticipant
Mike, do you work for the Daily Mail or something? That’s a ‘QTWTAIN’ if ever I saw one.
‘Can eating 27 raw Potatoes a day Prevent Cancer?’
‘Is this ‘photo the Loch Ness Monster?’
‘Is 32mm the New 28mm?’
‘Does this document PROVE Aliens Built the Armley Gyratory?’
No. Fight the power. Resist the urge. Go smaller. Scale Creep is one of the few actual real issues facing the industry, I am in this for the long term and the way some of my older stuff look like dwarves whan I put them up against other people’s armies really grinds my gears.06/08/2015 at 12:34 #28765Not Connard SageParticipant
I thought it was rhetorical…
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.06/08/2015 at 13:34 #28779Thaddeus BlanchetteParticipant
And here I thought 25mm was the new 28mm…
We get slapped around, but we have a good time!06/08/2015 at 13:56 #28781Mr. AverageParticipant
I think 15mm is the new 28mm. But 6mm is the new 15mm, and 3mm is the new 6mm.06/08/2015 at 14:57 #28792
Thanks, guys. For me, coming as much from a modeler’s standpoint as a gamer’s, the level of detail is crucial and 32mm seemed a reasonable compromise to the ideal of 40mm. As much as I can see the utility of scales 15mm and below so much is lost to the eye that I’ve never seen the attraction. Not that even large 28’s are a guarantee of quality (Curtey’s somehow manages to cram all the acromegly and dwarfo-squattery of the worst 15mm’s into a substantial figure).06/08/2015 at 17:01 #28799Guy FarrishParticipant
‘Does this document PROVE Aliens Built the Armley Gyratory?’
Who told you that? No one is supposed to know about that. Its secret. Tell me now who told you or else.06/08/2015 at 18:11 #28808Ivan SorensenParticipant
Aren’t a lot of the 28mm stuff today basically 32mm in any event?
I always figured the sizes had crept up and “32” was just a way of catching up in terminology, the way “28” was originally 25.
From a gamer perspective, whatever is compatible with the most popular range in a given scale, is what would get my purchase.06/08/2015 at 18:30 #28812
I’m doing this more or less for fun (and to provide ranges that are poorly served or not available at all) so I’ll be happy to (eventually) break even. If I go with 32mm I’d start with a minimum of two ranges (possibly four if time allows), and then offer a new range every six months or so. That being said I can definitely feel the gravitational tug toward remaining at nominal 28mm.06/08/2015 at 19:41 #28817
Which brings me to another question. My first instinct was to (ideally) start with the following ranges:
Heian to Hojo Regency Japanese
Mayan, Huaxtec, Totonac, Mixtec, Zapotec and other non-Aztec Mesoamericans
Timurid, Timurid Sucessor, Aq/Qara-Koyunlu
Algonquin/Huron/Great Lakes North American Indian
..this in addition to a long running project to cover in depth and accurately the Chinese dynasties, probably rolling backwards with the Qing (Ch’ing) and the Ming.
I’m very open to suggestions about lines that you might want to see.07/08/2015 at 00:34 #28843grizzlymcParticipant
I despair, but I cannot claim that this is just a product of the new fangled world.
Airfix claimed their figs were HO/OO – well, there is a problem as HO and OO are different scales. Then the HO/OO figs from the 60s and early ’70s were teeny compared to those of the mid to late ’70s (Compare the whimpy Curassiers to the thumping great British Hussars). And the damn rot set in.
From 6mm to 8mm, to 10mm to 12mm to 15mm to 18mm to 20mm to 25mm to 28mm to 32mm, we seem to have a damned continuum of “scales”.13/08/2015 at 06:19 #29180
As a matter of practicality I’ve decided to go with 28mm. Look for my first figures here on TWW sometime in mid September.13/08/2015 at 18:57 #29198willzParticipant
As a matter of practicality I’ve decided to go with 28mm. Look for my first figures here on TWW sometime in mid September.
Well done that man a good practical decision. As most figures supposedly of the same scale are all different sizes I just base figures higher or lower on the same base, depending on height.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.