"Conquest Commanche and Boot Hill minis?" Topic
3 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to The Old West Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
nnascati  | 30 May 2015 4:17 p.m. PST |
All,
Can anyone comment on whether the Conquest Commanche will match up well with the Boot Hill miniatures? I'd like an option for an opponent other than Mexicans.
Nick |
| doc mcb | 30 May 2015 5:05 p.m. PST |
Yes. I have both, and will use them together when I get them painted. The Boot Hill are better fed, a bit chunkier or thicker through the limbs and body. Heights are the same. But 1) humans come in different sizes (I have read that the average Texan in 1836 was 5' 7" and the average Mexican was 5' 2" No idea what the average Comanch ran.) 2) I'll be using them in skirmish games, so they will not be standing side by side to be compared anyway. |
| malamute | 30 May 2015 11:38 p.m. PST |
Here you go, boot Hill Texians Vs Conquest Comanche: link As Doc says the Boot Hill figures come up chunkier than the Comanche. I based the Comanche on slightly thicker bases to boost their height. As the Comanche are mostly stripped of clothes the difference in bulk is easily explained. |
| doc mcb | 31 May 2015 4:48 a.m. PST |
Great pics! Great painting! I have most of those figures and need to get going on a similar project. Best pics to contrast sizes are on p. 5 |
| walkabout | 31 May 2015 3:15 p.m. PST |
The Comanche were tall and thin at least compared to their allies the Kiowas who were short and stocky. |
| doc mcb | 31 May 2015 4:52 p.m. PST |
In that case Conquest is perfect! |
|
