54,000 figures anyone?!

[sunjester]

Looks impressive, but that table looks too small! 

[d_Guy]

Looks impressive, but that table looks too small! 

Like being in a book store with 54,000 separate titles on the selves - it makes my head hurt.
Can't deny the massive effort that went into this (and what's good for Pendraken is good for us).

[Terry37]

And to think I can have eh same amount of fun, playing the same battle with 12 elements (bases) of 2,3,or 4 figures per base with a game of DBN! I think I'll stay with DBN! But that is sure a lot of painting to do - I am pretty sure they spray painted them to get that many figures done!!!!

Terry

[petercooman]

This to me shows the beauty of our hobby.I represent a unit with 4 bases of 8 models. Others use 30 per base, others make units of 500.

And guess what: We can all have a great time!

And although It's not the way I organise my games, I can still say it's a stunning view!

[paulr]

Seconded

[John Cook]

Far too many troops/units for the space available and the terrain is very second rate by today's standards.  Unimpressed.

[petercooman]

Show us how it's done then...

[Zippee]

Why should he have to?

You don't have to be Constable to appreciate good art.

The volume of work here is impressive, very impressive, but the overall effect and look of the game is rather uninspiring - that said it's not a display game it's just some mates having a game, so I don't think it needs be measured against anything more than the general (rather shabby) quality of your average club game. In that regard it's perfectly fine and probably slightly above par.

[quasar42]

I suspect that the photos do not really do justice to such a grand endeavor

[petercooman]

Why should he have to?

He said it was second rate by today's standard. I didn't know we had predefined standards in our hobby. That's why I ask. I'd like to see what that standard is.

Everyone can set standards, but if 90% is 'under' the standard, it is by definition not a "standard".

I for one can say that I like the scenery. The buildings look great.so I want to know if I'm under the standard.

[paulr]

From what I've seen of your efforts Peter, definitely not below 'standard'

I don't recall seeing any of John's efforts

The group seem to enjoy their really large games so good on them

[Dave Fielder]

The effort is impressive, lots to commend and the sheer scale is worthy of praise. However, for me I am left a little cold by the thought of playing this at first look. There is no manoeuvre and it looks like a Games Workshop Car Park game with the most dice winning. This is the Battle of Marmite.

[John Cook]

From what I've seen of your efforts Peter, definitely not below 'standard'

I don't recall seeing any of John's efforts :-

The group seem to enjoy their really large games so good on them

I'd be surprised if you had.  I have never posted any pics of my games on the forum or anywhere else.  There are, nevertheless, hundreds of pictures posted by individuals of their games, and taken at shows, of terrain that is streets ahead of this.   A quick Google, or with the search engine of your choice, and you will see for yourself.

[Redstef]

wow, that's a seriously impressive figure painting effort (although i think they have the wrong button colour on the lead battalion  )

I agree about the table size, but if that's all that is available then the desire to get all that effort on to the table would be over whelming.

Terrain wise, its okay and serves its purpose. With the sheer scale of the figure painting task I doubt there was much scope for 'show' level scenery.

Also......looks like Mad Lemmey's crown of most prolific painter is challenged.... don't let us down mate

[Terry37]

Redstef, I thought I was the only one that noticed that. Did you also notice that some of the figures have the numbers on their buttons for regiments that were not at that battle! Man, that's just shameful. I always make sure my regiments button numbers match to regiments that actually fought at the battle I am doing.



Terry