"Converting 28mm rules (inches) to 15mm figures." Topic

This has been discussed previously, but has come up again at home due to my new 15mm Starship Troopers project. Also, becasue I know I found a really simple conversion online that I was going to use but now cannot find!

Options I have considered include:

Using inches for measurements as printed: acceptable but I want to fit more on the table when I use 15mm so prefer the measurements to be scaled down a bit.

Using cm instead of inches: I find this makes measurements just a little too short.

Using some kind of different conversion: So far this is the most promising. I am thinking of doubling the distance in inches and calling it cm, so for example, 8 inches becomes 16cm.

To those of you who do convert in some way, what is your preferred method.

when using a rules for 15mm figures that were written for 28mm figures, I cut the movement and ranges in half. Not a perfect result, but works quickly.

Likewise, when going from 15mm to 28mm, I double the numbers.

I leave the measurements for movement, range, command, and AOE radii the same, since many 28mm individual basing games are really 15mm games with 28mm marketing.

Oddball: Not sure why that didn't cross my mind as an option!

Farstar: I would do that except for the fact that I like the idea of getting more figures on my table in a smaller scale. That said, if I am only playing the same size games (in terms of number of figures) then I may as well…

I use centimeters for inches… in every game system I've used it it has worked just fine for me.

MrHarold: I find measurements of 4cm or less to be too fiddly, especially when it comes to skirmish games. Either that or they feel just a little on the short side for movement, even on a 2x2 foot board. I tried the cm or inches option playing All Things Zombie, and it didn't quite work for me. Obviously, other people may find it to be different.

do it the easy way, 1" becomes 15mm, easy to remember, 15mm game, 15mm per inch measure.

15mm is roughly half scale to 28mm. So halve the distances. That's for skirmish gaming like ST.

I would do that except for the fact that I like the idea of getting more figures on my table in a smaller scale. That said, if I am only playing the same size games (in terms of number of figures) then I may as well…

The one thing that does change is base size and vehicle size. You *can* pack more minis in (and specifically more vehicles), at the risk of template weapons, but you don't need to.

What the movement and range scales really need to relate to in a specific way is table size vs expected game length. To use the common knowledge example, 40k's movement and weapon ranges are calibrated to table width to give a six turn game. Same with Warmachine, at some point levels. Both look silly when gun ranges are compared to miniature sizes, though…

So we cut ranges and movement from inches to cm, a reduction of about 60%. This means the table just got 60% bigger, and a "typical" game will need 60% more turns. In the new edition of 40k, this also blows the PV of the new flyers out of the water, as they are constrained *only* by table size and are now far more mobile compared to the ground units than intended.

By the same token, unit coherency distance and template sizes are linked. Decrease one and you need to decrease the other to match.

When you consider that 1 inches = 2.54 centimeters I don't think many of the above suggestions work very well in my opinion.

Since 15mm is (roughly) half of 28mm (as mentioned already) then just use half the values, assuming you're using half the table size as well. If you're using the same size table, then you will probably be best just sticking with the regular values for a 28mm game.

Given that '15mm' figures are as often 17mm or 18mm then a straight half undesizes badly, as does 1cm = 1". Hence my suggestion of using 15mm, perhaps 20mm is a better measure although it doesn't shrink the table as much.

40k has stupid movement to weapon ranges to start with, and any thought that was designed to make a 6 turn game was errata'ed out somewhere in 2nd Ed.

40k has stupid movement to weapon ranges to start with, and any thought that was designed to make a 6 turn game was errata'ed out somewhere in 2nd Ed.

The ranges and movement look stupid because the minis are twice the scale of the rules.

Take a ruler and Xerox it to whatever percentage you think is best…. You can also paint doweling up in whatever increments you wish….

Dunno about you guys, but when I individually base my 15mm figures they're on roughly 20mm bases… essentially, the base sizes are only 20% smaller, so that shouldn't change the ranges/movement much.

We just half everything. Works perfect if you ask me. If nothing else, try a few games using every option until you find something you like. Sounds like a perfect excuse to get a game in.

I play it straight, don't change a thing.

It really depends on what rules-set that you are using on how you modify them if at all. A lot of rules work just fine without any modification.

But if I feel that a range/move modification is necessary to keep the feel of a game then generally a reduction of about 1/3rd is where I would start. (works out to about 4 inches from a original 6 inch measurement)

I've basically done the same as Infojunky and Oddball – cut infantry movement values by about 1/3. 6" movement becomes 4", 12" jump moves become 8", etc. Then I leave vehicle movement, weapon ranges, and most other distances the same.

-Chris K.

I dontn really want to get into another bash 40K (although it is always fun), but it is not the minis size, but the very short weapons ranges compared to how far a unit can move in one turn.

Even if you use 6mm unit s still zip right through engagement ranges. Either future guys can run really really fast, or future gun designers are idiots, or lasers do go very far in the future. None of those things make much sense.

I've played 2/3 scale, using special range rulers I'd made pre-game.

6" scales to 4" etc, but you don't have to do maths as the conversion's on the ruler.

Think about the visual effect of your base sizes as well. 28mm is usually based on a 25mm base, my 15mm stuff is usually based on 20mm washers.

I echo the "cut it in half" crowd. But, I find that this procedure works alright:

1. cut it in half.
2. Round up to the nearest inch.
3. For weapon ranges, add 2 inches. Keep radius/AoE the same.

In some cases, it'll break the game…but if you keep the command distances the same between the two scales, that generally helps even it out unless it's based on Veterancy like FoW is. In which case, standardize command distances to 2" or allow sub leaders in a squad (Like a Corporal or equivalent) to break off a team to help spread units so grenades/rockets/artillery are still damaging, but not 1-shot=end game weapons.

Hope this helps.

In the Hammer's Slammers: The Crucible rules I cut the ranges roughly in half but not always exactly.

For example Medium range (in 28mm 'scale') is 60 – 240cm but it becomes 30 – 120cm in 15mm.

Close is up to 15cm (in 28mm) but becomes up to 8cm in 15mm
PDF link
PDF link

But I know of at least one gamer (Comstar Matt) who uses the shorter 15mm ranges and moves on a small table but – for bigger actions with more troops – uses 28mm charts with 15mm forces.

John T
hammers-slammers.com

PS For that matter the 6mm scales are – again – smaller (obviously) but about 2/3rds of the 15mm ranges/moves. PDF link
Command radii aren't relevant in The Crucible but Artillery spread and such like are similarly reduced

Thanks for all your responses. Plenty of food for thought there!

I'm with Rapier Miniatures: if with 25mm miniatures you use inches with 15mm miniatures you can use a ruler based on a 15mm subdivision (that's what I would do for myself).
Otherwise you can do as Arty Conliffe suggests for Tactica and, I think, Armati: photocopy a ruler in inches shrinking it to 67%(one inch = 17mm), it works just fine.

Luciano

I use around 60% of the range in 28-32mm (Heroic) for 15/18mm gaming. That would result in 1 inch => 1,5cm.