Help support TMP


POLL: Is 40mm Feasible for Large Battles?


155 votes were cast.


Back to POLLS home page


nycjadie Inactive Member writes:

I've got 40mm miniatures. I think they paint up nearly as fast and as easily as 28's. Of course, a large battle takes up a bigger table and you can't paint an army in a weekend like 6mm. But I've always found the aesthetics of large armies much more gratifying. I also like to think that with anything, it takes time to get something worthwhile. It's a marathon, not a race, to obtain that army.


Back to the Homepage



1,488 hits since 19 Sep 2008
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

VOTING RESULTS
AnswerVotes%Chart
yes
42
27%
bar of chart
no
90
58%
bar of chart
no opinion
23
15%
bar of chart
POLL IS CLOSED
POLL DESCRIPTION

Writing in Wargames Soldiers & Strategy #25, an anonymous member of the magazine staff opines:

A friend of mine, a painter of large-scale figures (54mm and up), is surprised every time I show him 40mm minis. He doesn't understand why we prefer this scale to the miniatures manufactured by Andrea or Pegaso, among others. I think this is the ongoing argument between wargamers and collectors. But is using this scale for battles really feasible for most wargamers? Sincerely, I have my doubts about this. The amount of room one needs for storing and gaming becomes a problem, not to mention the time required to paint a large army in this scale.

Now, time and space constraints aside, I completely agree that the result of gaming with large-scale figures is absolutely spectacular. Whenever I see those huge gaming tables, I'm always amazed. But I have to admit not everyone can afford to have such impressive layouts. That's why I think 40mm is the perfect scale for representing periods in which smaller scale battles are more common.

So, are 40mm figures feasible for large wargames?