Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm not entirely sure that this is the correct forum for this, but this is my first post so I hope I'll be forgiven.
I am currently working on creating (as you may have guessed) 40k in 15mm. I have purchased just over 1000 points worth of 15mm models (2 armies of 500-600 points) and am ready to set myself to the task of converting them to look more warhammer-y. I am basing them on US pennies which are only a couple of millimeters smaller in diameter than standard GW bases. This is the source of my question. I had considered halving all of the distances and shrinking the templates to account for the smaller scale. Shrinking everything by half seemed to be the best option considering that the 15mm people are just over half as tall as 28mm people (this also has the advantage of being more space-efficient as a 2x2 gaming surface is much easier to find than a 4x4 gaming surface), but the negligible difference in base size makes me wonder if reducing the distances so drastically would screw up the rules somehow. It would certainly make flamers less effective, but beyond that I'm not so sure as I have only read through the rules a couple of times and still don't know all of the ins and outs as well as you folks. Any thoughts?

ps. I have already done this with GW's LOTR game. I created two forces (Rohan and Isengard) and halving the distances worked just fine in that case, but the LOTR rules seem less problematic for scale changes and frankly I didn't even consider to measure the bases during that project (it was really just the template weapons that made me think of it.


TL;DR What is more important: the scale of the figure or the scale of the base?

Here is a great thread to answer a lot of your questions. Also, don't hesitate to send a PM. He is a really nice guy.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/454655.page

Inspired by this thread, I had the same idea as you. Here's my thread on that:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/584132.page

I saw his blog too! It really is amazing stuff. We had a lot of the same ideas as well. I found many of the same miniatures that he used when I was looking for good proxies. Finding his blog l, though, inspired me to go beyond proxying and actually do some serious conversions. I'll be sure to ask questions if I need to. Thanks for the resource.

As for your post, I suppose it would be out of sorts to go resuscitate the thread so I'll just say this here.
I like a lot of your ideas (although the "take aim" concept is hugely overpowered. Maybe just re-roll 1s?)
I think what I would do, however, is leave the rules and templates as they are (this will make templates slightly more effective) but change the distance scale such that 1 inch equals 2 centimeters (roughly .75 inches). I think this reduces the scale appropriately without any real effect on game balance as base size is the most important factor where rules are concerned. This, I think, will allow the game to be played as intended with only a small difference in base sizes resulting in a very small increase in template effectiveness while also reducing the scale so that, stylistically, it fits the smaller figures.

Grimp wrote:
I like a lot of your ideas (although the "take aim" concept is hugely overpowered. Maybe just re-roll 1s?)

Yeah, I agree. I don't know why I thought rerolling everything would be a good idea. I must have been influenced by some sneaky Tau

I think what I would do, however, is leave the rules and templates as they are (this will make templates slightly more effective) but change the distance scale such that 1 inch equals 2 centimeters (roughly .75 inches). I think this reduces the scale appropriately without any real effect on game balance as base size is the most important factor where rules are concerned. This, I think, will allow the game to be played as intended with only a small difference in base sizes resulting in a very small increase in template effectiveness while also reducing the scale so that, stylistically, it fits the smaller figures.

A couple of questions. Why .75 cm specifically? What made you choose that exchange?
Also, why do you think templates should be buffed? Just curious, as I haven't heard anyone say that before.

What do you think about changing the AV to only front and side? I know you want to keep it as close to normal 40k as possible, but do you think keeping front, side, and rear separate would still be viable?

I chose 2 cm (.75 inches) to be the equivalent of 1 inch because it is a relatively slight reduction in length just as the base size difference(GW to penny) is also slight and because the math is really simple. Six inch movement becomes 12 cm (4.72 in) movement.
Its not that I think the templates should be buffed. Rather, I think the buff will be slight enough that it doesn't really justify me taking the time to make my own templates. Buying them would be much easier.
As for AV, it will depend. I can see your point and think that your idea certainly would help with simplicity but, at the same time, I don't think the scale is so small that it will be difficult to make the distinction between rear and side armor (6mm or 10mm would be a different story!). This is especially true because I will be using 1:72 scale vehicles (which are larger than 15mm scale) due to the huge number of 1:72 model kits available (looking at you airfix!)

Why base them individually?
If I were downscaling 40k I'd strip the individual LOS and positioning rules and mount them on stands like epic.

I think the game would actually make more sense played EXACTLY like it is now only in 15mm. the ranges would make more sense.

As for the basing: just a personal preference of mine. I like skirmish style games. I plan on playing lots of kill teams with my fiance to introduce her to the rules. 40k is quite a bit more complicated than any other table top games that we play together (song of blades and heroes usually).

@Jancoran: so don't scale it at all? Wouldn't that cause problems?

well thats my thought. I think the ranges are so short in comparison to the size of the model, that if you left the ranges as is, and made the game 15mm, the ranges would make more sense in my world.

For example, consider that a tank is like 6" long. My Rifle fires 24"? whuuuuu...

So my weapon only fires four tank lengths.

Thats the kind of disconnect that might go away if the game was 15mm.

Oh I see your point. That makes a lot of sense. As long as you leave everything the same, game balance would remain the same as well (except for a slight buff to template weapons). Alrighty then. I had hoped to reduce the space needed to play but keeping the ranges the same sounds pretty good.

 Jancoran wrote:
well thats my thought. I think the ranges are so short in comparison to the size of the model, that if you left the ranges as is, and made the game 15mm, the ranges would make more sense in my world.

For example, consider that a tank is like 6" long. My Rifle fires 24"? whuuuuu...

So my weapon only fires four tank lengths.

Thats the kind of disconnect that might go away if the game was 15mm.

Unfortunately it gets replaced by scale issues with movement, unless you scale down movement rates. It's already absurd how far you can move before an enemy unit can react, the same distances relative to 15mm models would completely destroy any sense of plausibility.

Grimp wrote:
Oh I see your point. That makes a lot of sense. As long as you leave everything the same, game balance would remain the same as well (except for a slight buff to template weapons). Alrighty then. I had hoped to reduce the space needed to play but keeping the ranges the same sounds pretty good.

to be clear, i dont hate that the scale is off. But one cannot help but observe that it is.

EFFECTIVE weapon ranges are different than ranges, but four tank lengths? yeah.

I first kind fo became aware of it playing Flames of War, which is itself 15mm. Fantastic game and GREAt for tournament play. In those games ranges were about the same, maybe a little less in many cases, and you were kind of like "okay...now this kinda makes sense"

Same board size but more sensical scale. I dont need ti to be sensical to have fun though. =)

the Game DBA runs on an even more beleivable scale and is played on a 2x2 board. But thats foot/mounted midevil warfare so...

 Peregrine wrote:


Unfortunately it gets replaced by scale issues with movement, unless you scale down movement rates. It's already absurd how far you can move before an enemy unit can react, the same distances relative to 15mm models would completely destroy any sense of plausibility.

Well I think that I have to choose one or the other. Either I have to scale everything down or nothing. If I leave the weapon ranges as they are but reduce movement ranges, CQC units are going to get nerfed as they'll be taking much more fire than they probably would otherwise. I don't necessarily see this as a terrible thing though. It will just require more clever use of cover to protect the advance of assault units and an emphasis on ranged units makes sense in the future anyway. I'll play-test it both ways I think.

 Jancoran wrote:

Grimp wrote:
Oh I see your point. That makes a lot of sense. As long as you leave everything the same, game balance would remain the same as well (except for a slight buff to template weapons). Alrighty then. I had hoped to reduce the space needed to play but keeping the ranges the same sounds pretty good.

to be clear, i dont hate that the scale is off. But one cannot help but observe that it is.

EFFECTIVE weapon ranges are different than ranges, but four tank lengths? yeah.

I first kind fo became aware of it playing Flames of War, which is itself 15mm. Fantastic game and GREAt for tournament play. In those games ranges were about the same, maybe a little less in many cases, and you were kind of like "okay...now this kinda makes sense"

Same board size but more sensical scale. I dont need ti to be sensical to have fun though. =)

the Game DBA runs on an even more beleivable scale and is played on a 2x2 board. But thats foot/mounted midevil warfare so...

Flames of War is definitely on my list! I've seen people playing at my local gaming store and there are tons of cheap WW2 units out there.

yeah the Flames of War system is PHENOMENAL.

Its defining quality is that every machine gun...is a machine gun. the mechanic is the same for eveery machine gun, every SMG etc...

So I really like the game. And the way it scores in tournaments is ingenius as well.

I cant say enough good things about Flames of War, honestly. It's my "second game" really.

 Jancoran wrote:
yeah the Flames of War system is PHENOMENAL.

Its defining quality is that every machine gun...is a machine gun. the mechanic is the same for eveery machine gun, every SMG etc...

That's a lot easier to pull off when you are representing real world weapons all of which are at a very similar level of technology.

I'm not disagreeing with you, FoW is a fun game. I have a decent sized army but bizarrely, even living 20 mins from BF HQ, I can't find a game.

that...is bizarre. Vassal?