"Rapid Fire in 6mm" Topic

Hi all,

Purchased the Rapid Fie 2nd ed rules in PDF yesterday based on recommendations here.

TMP link

I am thinking of doing the game in 6mm. I don't want to 1 man is 1 figure as I don't really like to bathtub large games like that. My plan is to make stands similar in size to the ones in the book and say they are worth so many figures/strength points.

For infantry stands, I was thinking 25mm square with 5 figures per stand. These would be 2 strength stands. I would also make two 25mm by 12.5mm stands with 2-3 figures each to make change for hits on the company. Support weapons (MGs) I'll put on 20mm squares.

For tanks, I was thinking of 40mm square stands with 2 or 3 vehicles on them (not sure which would look better). Field guns would be either 25mm square or 40mm square depending on the size of the gun.

With this, I should be able to keep all of the ranges the same and it will look a little less abstract.

Anyone else doing something similar?

John

I play RF in 6mm using 3 figures or one vehicle on a 20mm square base. Not too sure about the 40mm bases for vehicles – this could be a bit clunky. I record figure losses with teeny tiny D6s. Works fine.

Not too sure about the 40mm bases for vehicles – this could be a bit clunky.

I was thinking of doing this because I estimate that this is about the frontage of a 1/72 scale vehicle base.

Are you changing ranges or another or just leaving all scales the same?

Good idea about the D6 markers.

I would do the 20mm base for inf and the single vehicle thing, not least because it leaves your basing scheme open if you change rules down the line.

You can always use an under base and sabot several smaller ones together to get the base sheme you discuss above.

3 Vehicles to a base is neat and you can even get carried away with ammo haulers and the like. Infantry is whatever, the idea of multiple stands as they degrade sounds great (until you have to paint it). I'd go with the counters/d6.

We're still tinkering with the ranges and movement. Initially we just converted inches to cm but this has tended to make moving infantry through cover near impossible. Next time we play I may suggest halving the number of inches instead.

but this has tended to make moving infantry through cover near impossible.

I'm curious about this. How does it slow you down? Cover subtracts a die roll for cover. So you would subtract D6 cm instead of inches right? Is it because cover is a static size so it would take longer to go through?

I had a brief flirtation with multiple 6mm vehicles on one base, but frankly the cheapskate side of me won out.

You will be hard pressed to get three 6mm vehicles on a 40mm wide base without it looking like a parking lot, particularly the larger ones.

3-4 infantry bases per company sounds like a good idea. Those little cotton wool balls Hobbycraft sell are a good way of tracking hits if you can't be bothered to make 'change'.

Main thing is to avoid locking yourself out of other rule systems, so I tend to go for something fairly generic. If you go with 30mm x 30mm bases with some infantry or a support weapon or a vehicle on them, you can use them with a ton of different rules. Do the OBs based on one stand = one platoon and you are good to go.

"I'm curious about this. How does it slow you down? Cover subtracts a die roll for cover. So you would subtract D6 cm instead of inches right? Is it because cover is a static size so it would take longer to go through?"

I think it was simply because our woods etc were bigger than their 20mm equivalents would've been. Also, subtracting 4" or 5" from 6" for movement still leaves you with appreciable movement, whereas subtracting 4cm or 5cm from 6cm gives the impression that you're just not getting anywhere. Whether this is an accurate scaling down or not, it just isn't much fun.

Scale is relevant.

I played it using 6mm as is. I kept inches, I dont use stands for vehicles (didn't slow me down), and had figures mounted on 2-5 per stand. Used tiny tice as Scissors mentioned. Works great.

Stand sizes never really seem to came into play…

Also, subtracting 4" or 5" from 6" for movement still leaves you with appreciable movement, whereas subtracting 4cm or 5cm from 6cm gives the impression that you're just not getting anywhere. Whether this is an accurate scaling down or not, it just isn't much fun.

Perhaps going with CMs and then a D3 for movement penalty would work better? OR Go with regular movement rates and you will have a real appreciation for better looking ranges?

Re: locking out of other sets…that's a good point. Maybe 1 tank per 25mm stand then. I am one of those that likes a minimal amount of markers on the board. Making change is not a big deal to me. So the revised plan is:

1 stand is two strength points on a 25mm square with about five model figures per stand.

Support weapons (MGs Mortars) on a 20mm square for easy IDs.

Vehicles and field guns are individually mounted on 25mm squares (or bigger if required).

Keep all ranges the same.

Might I suggest you magnetize your (vehicle) stands & vehicles.

I do this for my 6mm 1:1 scale for Fist Full of Tows II. I primarily use it to allow me to change the bases – Winter, Forest, etc., and reuse some of the miniatures for different scenarios.

However you could use it to allow you to pull miniatures off the stand to record your degradation. Easier, and (probably) cheaper than doing multiple bases (maybe not as much fun though). With a little work and some small, thin magnets (like Neodymium) you could easily have bases that don't even show the magnets when the vehicles are removed.

Just a thought,

HostileContact

I think 6mm may allow a visually better representation. So instead of a company being say 8 figures, it could be 8 bases, each representing a squad / section = 8 figs plus per base, incl the LMG.

Likewise individual tanks so that 3 tanks represent what is currently represented by one tank and each hit is a kill