Bigger Figures has it changed the game ?

[Electric Coach]

Originally Posted by TheTweakFreak

Ask 100 people for an opinion and you'll get just about 100 different opinions just about 100% of the time. Most of us are more prone to visual stimulation (shinny things) versus mental stimulation. I also prefer OL and DL to look bulkier than LB's, TE's, WR's, etc. But none of that has a thing to do w/the point I was making... size, scale, how it affects the hobby.

My point was scale. My point was IF we use a mainstream scaled player, irregardless of weight, on a scaled field, then we have a player that is 1.75-1.76 inches (tallest) on a field that is just shy of 8.6 feet long. So BEFORE introducing any taller players you need to get the board at that length JUST to achieve proper scale. Any board that is smaller is not to scale. Any taller player throws the scale off exponentially. Like I said, we are already playing in a phone booth, w/respect to scale. Even w/a board that is made at 1/2 inch = a yard, it's only about 3/4 scale. STILL not to scale of the 1.76 inch tall mainstream players.

So, please tell me, how is reducing the room to operate by introducing yet taller players on unscaled boards any sort of an evolutionary act? Evolution is generally thought of as a progression - Moving forward. Putting yet taller players on a board that is well short of 8.6 feet long is moving backwards. I.E., we never actually achieved a scaled board for the 1.76 inch figures. Taller figures on boards already too small is somehow an advancement? Advancement to better simulate football would require (a) same size players on bigger boards or (b) smaller players on existing and/or bigger boards.

I respect everyone's opinions. And I'm fine w/whatever people decide. It's not going to change my life either way. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. People are going to do what they want. I am just trying to inject some basic logic. Scaled players on a scaled field.. basic math.... how it affects the hobby.... trying to simulate football.

At any rate, if bigger is better then let's just cut to the chase. I propose 12 inch figures on the field. Just like the old G.I. Joes, Captain Actions, Barbies/Ken, etc. The paint jobs will look better, they'll be much easier to detail, much less controversy on tackles, completed passes, etc. We can use a scaled field to simulate football for these IF our backyards are big enough. Now that is BIG. And that, to me, would be worth ditching all of my invested hobby goodies to start fresh. Lemme know when they're available. Until then, 1.76 inch tall players are already too tall until 8.6 foot boards are mainstream. I'm all in for bigger boards. So, at least we completely agree on that issue.

-Mike Pratt

I am speaking hypothetically. I am not saying that Tweak Freak is suggesting that the hobby goes to this level. I am only speaking in regards to what he said.

Tweak Freak when I pick up a magazine, I don’t read it. I only look at the pictures. When we talk about customizing our equipment in the hobby, we must be careful to keep it all in perspective. That is my approach to the hobby.

Tweak Freak talked about the actual scale a board must be to truly accommodate a figure of a certain size. In regards to the hobby, it would be unnecessary to go to that level. Furthermore, there isn’t enough space for a tournament to house multiple boards that are 8 feet long. I personally, don’t have enough space in my house to accommodate such a board.

I like the hobby where it is now. I don’t see a need to go bigger than what we are in regards to the size of figures and boards. The total size of my board is 45 inches long by 35 inches wide. The actual playing surface is 39 inches long by 21.5 inches wide. The rest of the field is sidelines and space behind the goal post.

In my ideal world, I believe that a board should be no bigger than 5 feet long by 3 feet wide. Within that a playing surface can be set. The figures need not be bigger.

Maurice

The Electric Coach