Tru Scale Marines

[Rider-75]

Having just assembled the bits in my DV box set I noticed yet more discrepancies. Well, one in particular.

 

Mr. Bog standard close combat cultist, standing upright is 33mm from foot to brow.

Chaplin whatshispuss, stepping forward, measures along straight leg from foot to brow, 34mm.

 

Damn those cultists must be big n fierce.....

[Yodhrin]

I'm guessing your 39mm tall models are the crouched standard pose and the tallest is an upright pose?

 

I've been thinking on measuring a guardsman and I've decided against it as it's got nothing to do with the hight a marine should be in this setting/scale. As all that would prove is that you need to make the guardsmen shorter not the marines bigger. And as this is a thread about "true scaling" marines it's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

If people (I've not seen your work so this isn't directed at you personally and is meant in general) where truly bothered about the true size a marine should be you'd make models just that hair taller with smaller, hands, feet and heads making sure that limbs maintained a true proportional balance. All this has already been said by much more eloquent people than me in this thread already though.

 

I tried, I really really tried, but this I just can't let go, because it's a silly argument.

 

I would like you to tell me, exactly, how it makes any sort of sense to hand-sculpt from the armature-up several hundred slightly-smaller human models, while also converting all the space marine models to be just one or two mm taller, as opposed to doing substantially less conversion work on substantially fewer models by just assuming that the human models are the correct height and scaling the Marines up appropriately?

 

Because that is what would be entailed in "making the guardsmen smaller" if you ever plan to use your force at any kind of GW-affiliated location, since 3rd party sci-fi miniatures would be a no-go, and there's no way to reduce the height of an heroic-scale miniature which is already only 5-6 heads tall without making it look even more stupid than just leaving everything stock.

 

If I stand one of my almost-upright artscale marines in front of an almost-upright Forgeworld guardsman(same height, slightly better proprotions than the ancient Cadian plastics), I get the sketch posted by Necris based on Shaq; case closed IMO.

[Darklighter]

@Rider-75 Chaos tainted cultists have already been covered in this thread.

 

@Yodhrin If at this scale a marine is the correct hight or extremely close to it for the scale given for 28mm then the only logical conclusion is that the marine is the right size and that it is as many "true scalers" have said that it's the guardsmen that are the wrong scale, regardless of practicality. Arguing that it's just easier your way doesn't prove that you are correct on the issue of "true scale"! And isn't an acceptable argument for skewing the game scale and changing the dynamic or internal balance.

 

Also "true scale" is just as tournament unfriendly as third party models.

[J!MM!L!C!OUS]

Haha the Tru-Scale thread returns! :P

[Darklighter]

Unfortunately it's mostly just treading the same ground that's already been covered.

[BrotherCaptainArkhan]

Truescale marines (generally) look awesome. So do unaltered marines. /thread, surely?

[Yodhrin]

Truescale marines (generally) look awesome. So do unaltered marines. /thread, surely?

 

 

Apparently not, some people evidently think it's absolutely vital that we know that, while we can technically do what we like with our models, we're doing it wrong.

[Darklighter]

@Yodhrin

Hey no one has told you to stop doing what you are doing!

 

You CAN do what you like with your models.

 

The main thing I don't agree with is the use of such models in a competitive environment not the production of them. Also if people are modeling with a view to using them in tournaments then I'm going to have to call hogwash on the shouts of "we aren't modeling for advantage".

 

Me not liking the reasons for the scale changes (or the bad implementation of) and the terminology are all secondary concerns.

[J!MM!L!C!OUS]

Apparently not, some people evidently think it's absolutely vital that we know that, while we can technically do what we like with our models, we're doing it wrong.

 

That's a bit unfair Yodhrin (you seem to make lots of unfair comments by the way, cries of 'troll' spring to mind).

 

No one has said you're doing it wrong, and from the get go we've agreed that no one doubts the skill and effort gone into it.

 

This thread is about my (and others) feeling that True Scale marines don't look right, and skew the rules a bit. It's been interesting to see what people think, and it's certainly been enlightening to hear people's reasoning both for and against.

 

If you're bored of the topic though, why revive it as you did? You can always just leave it be, and if others who still consider it fresh want to continue the discussion, let them, you can unsubscribe or whatever :)

 

Jim

[BrotherCaptainArkhan]

The main thing I don't agree with is the use of such models in a competitive environment not the production of them. Also if people are modeling with a view to using them in tournaments then I'm going to have to call hogwash on the shouts of "we aren't modeling for advantage".

 

I game with an army that's called 'truescale' by some of my opponents, and bizarrely some of the really competitive ones have also told me I'm modelling for advantage. When all of my Marines are based on dynamic bases standing on rocks, dead bodies, etc., and are then modelled to be a head taller than a stock Marine anyway, that gives the opponent a huge LoS advantage. Yes, you could argue it gives me the same advantage, but then it's a mutual tradeoff and no one should be complaining. To be honest I kind of feel that that label - 'modelling for advantage' - should be slapped on the players who build enormously long barrels on their tanks which add 2"-4" onto their effective range. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Why? It's a game and we should all be having fun playing it. Dice are there to be rolled, tape measures are there to facilitate the rolling of dice, and the most important thing is to create a freakin' awesome spectacle. At least, IMHO. Become more than a little dismayed recently that people in my gaming group seem to view 40K as a valid outlet for pent up frustration and petty oneupmanship. I'm lucky in that I have other outlets for that, so maybe I'm being unfair, but I'll never understand how some people think that this hobby should be anything other than a good laugh for all involved. Just have fun, doesn't matter who wins or loses as long as it'd make a good story.

 

Anyway, everyone's entitled to their opinion. If you're a Marine player and you're worrying about truescaling giving you a disadvantage, pay heed to Brother-Captain Titus of the Ultramarines and man up! ;)

 

http://www.xboxwallpapers.net/1680x1050/warhammer-40k-space-marine-cover-is-for-the-weak.jpg

 

edit: and just to reiterate, this is of course all IMHO, and no one should interpret any of the above as a slight on how they play the game. Just my own personal views :D

[Seahawk]

Remember, it's not just the infantry. If you don't upscale your vehicles too, it is much easier to give them cover saves or even block LOS completely with basic up-sized marines. That is modelling for advantage, unfortunately. Either don't do it at all, or take it all the way! Make gigantic land raiders! :)

[Darklighter]

@BrotherCaptainArkhan

I've already stated much earlier in this thread that I would play a "true scaled" army in a friendly, warm up or practice match. I'm talking strictly about competitive tournaments GW or otherwise.

 

It's not just the upscaling of the infantry that unbalances the game it's vehicles as well. Make them bigger and they can have a huge line of sight blocking advantage depending on how big they are made (I've seen bane blade sized rhinos!) or Like Seahawk said leave them standard and your getting more cover from your larger troops. Even the base size of a model changes the foot print of a squad and how it moves and interacts considerably. Again though this has already been covered in this thread.

 

I also totally agree with you that making gun barrels longer is game breaking as is putting models on huge hero rocks , but it's no worse than the impact of making models larger.

[BrotherCaptainArkhan]

@BrotherCaptainArkhan

I've already stated much earlier in this thread that I would play a "true scaled" army in a friendly, warm up or practice match. I'm talking strictly about competitive tournaments GW or otherwise.

 

It's not just the upscaling of the infantry that unbalances the game it's vehicles as well. Make them bigger and they can have a huge line of sight blocking advantage depending on how big they are made (I've seen bane blade sized rhinos!) or Like Seahawk said leave them standard and your getting more cover from your larger troops. Even the base size of a model changes the foot print of a squad and how it moves and interacts considerably. Again though this has already been covered in this thread.

 

I also totally agree with you that making gun barrels longer is game breaking as is putting models on huge hero rocks , but it's no worse than the impact of making models larger.

 

 

Fair enough - wasn't having a go at you or anybody in this thread in particular, just throwing my two credits into the mix - I don't play competitive tournaments (or any tournaments at all, at least not yet) so that's a scene I'm unfamiliar with. Very much the casual gamer, more interested in making a battle look cool and have a story to it than be a 'win at all costs' scenario. That's what life outside the hobby is for IMHO.

[space wolf]

I don't regularly go to tournaments. But if I did, I would not bring my truescale army with me, for just such reasons as you gents mentioned. I want to make clear, I disagree with most of these arguments, as any LOS or cover advantage I would get, you would also get in that my vehicles and models are easier to see and therefore shoot. (And there is NO rule saying you can't make the bases bigger on your models, except for canis, so the bigger base argument is moot.) I would much rather go to a tourney and have fun, then deal with people complaining or refusing to play over a reason that, while valid, in MY mind, is overly nitpicky. (hence, why I would bring my guard). To me the how tall a marine is supposed to be in actual feet doesn't matter. If all the marine models feel the right height, when compared to guard, and are the same height to each other, that's ultimately what's important--consistency is key.

[Darklighter]

@BrotherCaptainArkhan

It's not about winning at all cots it's about maintaining a level of fairness in an effort to avoid ill feelings and resentment in a competitive environment. I didn't mean my post to sound so abrupt it's just that I have to type quickly and often one handed while looking after a very small child so I like to keep things short and to the point.

 

@space wolf

The rules for models base sizes are on page 3 of the main rules in a box titled "Models and Base Sizes" the first line of which is "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with." Also to state it's fine for models to be on larger bases then make an exception is a bit of a double standard and very hypocritical. I agree that it could very easily been seen as nitpicky, but when you play at the top tier these things matter and can quickly test a persons sportsmanship.

 

As to how tall a marine is supposed to be you are totally right consistency is very important and I guess I just hoped that there would be more of it between different modelers beyond copying a tutorial here and there. I think if there was one consistent thought and or method it'd make more sense to me. I guess if there was one train of thought I'd be more open to the idea that I've overlooked something.

[Subtle Discord]

Yep, I have to agree. Base size is critical to the game, and changing it vastly alters the space a model occupies. Remember, the base is the space the model occupies for tests against area-of-effect and ability to block paths. Example 1: If they are packed in tight I can get more 25mm bases under my Flamer template than I can 40mm bases. To use 40mm bases gives the user an advantage to minimize the effects of blasts/templates. Example 2: You will need more 25mm bases to 'close off' a choke point then you will need 40mm bases. This can work both for and against a person, but if you're the one trying to 'close a gap' and you're using larger bases, you have a massive advantage.

 

To argue that it works for and against you is a bit of a limp argument as you try and change core baseline rules meant to give the game a reasonably even playing field. I can think of many more situations where the large base will work as an advantage than a handicap. Larger vehicles seem the same way to me. Odds are good that if a vehicle is a valid target it would be so regardless of how large it is, unless the change is huge. Maybe it will reduce your 'Hull Down' opportunities some, but not enough to counter how useful the extra LOS blocking seems to me.

 

I personally have no problem with 'Hero Rocks'. You can easily drop the point that you 'look through' a model (to the chest or waist) for point-of-view test, to take the added height out of a model due to said rock. I also have no problem with 'true-scale' Marines as long as it's only adding a few millimeters to the model. If the model is a full head or more taller... well... it's hard not to argue it's an advantage. Example: A Marine behind cover that normally would not have LOS without that extra head of height can take the shot, and still stay in cover. Can they be shot at? Yes, but they get to stay in cover and shoot where normally they would need to leave cover to take the shot. Clear advantage.

 

All of this said, I still say there is nothing wrong with wanting to 'true-scale' your Marines, within reason. If you are going o play anything more than casual games you should do the changes with a level of tact and sportsmanship that you would expect from your opponent. Adding a few millimeters or the pose of Marine to make them look more intimidating and bad-ass? No problem by me. Put a 25mm base Power Armour Marine on a 40mm base? Err... I call shenanigans.

 

This also doesn't change the fact that Marines really are 'about right' in size, and Imperial Guard models really are a bit too big for the intended scale. This isn't a call of foul, saying that you should ask/force every Guard player to somehow shrink their miniatures. It's absurdly silly to say that was implied, and next to impossible to consider. Obviously it makes more sense to scale-up the fewer numbered Marines if that is what you want. But, it doesn't change the fact that it is a true observation.

 

Like anything, there is a very grey area that is very subjective. It is a mix of artistic license, personal perspective, and the true intent of the changes. It is very possible to take an attempt to take something artistic/creative a bit too far and create an advantage for yourself. It's at that point that you should be a good sport and not take offense if someone feels it crosses the line. Most would expect the same in return.

[space wolf]

I'm sorry maybe I should clarify. First of all lets start with the whole larger base thing. It says the rules assume it comes with the base its supplied with. Now I will grant you that the spirit of the phrase probably means "use the base its supplied with." But since we are talking about competitive tourney play, there is nothing that says you MUST use the bases its supplied with. Otherwise, my chaos termy lord, would have to use the crappy rock base he is supplied with. Which simply is not the case. Additionally, it has been legal in past editions to increase the base size (just never decrease it---and that was a GW policy, not written explicitly in the rules). And while past editions usually mean nothing, since there is nothing saying that it still doesn't apply, there is kind of a grey area, where I will concede you can make an argument stating that you cannot increase base size.

 

But that being said, don't tell me that there isn't an argument to be made the other way. If you continue to read that paragraph, when talking about models that have "unusual bases" or ones that don't have bases at all, it says "you should always feel free to mount the model on appropriate size, if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance." So you're telling me that its optional for a model with "unusual" base, to have one of the so called "standard" sizes (BTW, what constitutes an unusual base?). But all the other models HAVE to use the bases they are supplied with (Which it doesn't say). I realize I'm being very "nitpicky" here, but again, that is what we are really talking about. In a competitive environment, its very easy to be nitpicky about something and overlook others, but almost anything can be argued (especially with GW's grey area rules writing -_- ) I guess my point is, the game is written with a certain "spirit" or intention in mind, and that is what we should be following. And while base sizes may or may not be optional, I don't think an infantry model that is a few mm taller will unbalance the game or that spirit for which the rules were written.

 

Also, I was not making an exception to canus wolfborn just "because I don't like the guy." Its because it explicitly says in the SW codex, that his base cannot be increased in size. The assumption made by the writers, and rightly so, being that players would have done just that in 5th, because you could increase your base size. If it did not say that, I'd have no problem with someone increasing his base size.

[Darklighter]

Also, I was not making an exception to canus wolfborn just "because I don't like the guy." Its because it explicitly says in the SW codex, that his base cannot be increased in size. The assumption made by the writers, and rightly so, being that players would have done just that in 5th, because you could increase your base size. If it did not say that, I'd have no problem with someone increasing his base size.

 

Wow easy there Skippy In 4th edition you where allowed to increase base sizes, not in 5th. Page 3 again in the old BRB under Models & units subheading Bases, it reads:

 

"Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so it must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game.

 

Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different-sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this."

 

Note it states scenic base not larger and even if you do read impressive to mean bigger you still needed permission from your opponent!

 

Also Seth in the BA dex has a very similar ability to Mr Wolfborn but no rule stating you can't change his base size, so would that be fair? And if I can't make these bases bigger then facing an army with larger bases further hinders these characters potential.

 

Honestly the changes in scale and bases has a huge amount of repercussions in the game that at a glance don't seem to big a deal but really do alter a lot when you really get in the thick of it all.

 

@Subtle Discord

One or two HQ's on bases is fine and easy to deal with it's when whole armies are on things like this you get problems.

 

http://armorcast.com/store/popup_image.php?pID=1068

[Subtle Discord]

@Subtle Discord

One or two HQ's on bases is fine and easy to deal with it's when whole armies are on things like this you get problems.

 

http://armorcast.com/store/popup_image.php?pID=1068

 

I would flat out debate that the extra height must be accounted for, and removed, when taking LOS checks. Period. If you can't take cover with you on a base (explicitly stated in the rules) how can you take a half inch of height? The base is a 'heroic snapshot' of the troop it is meant to represent; not a literal constant pose. When playing you are meant to remove them from the base (in your minds-eye) and see them in the actual surroundings. I personally visualize my Marines crouching and kneeling, providing interlocking, staggered, and covering fire, going to ground, etc., etc., etc.. I will need to read the new rules a few times to get them to really sink in, but this concept is usually outlined somewhere in the rules, and implied there after, if memory serves. Is this common sense courtesy really that lacking in competitive play? Then again, as pointed out, some wil look to find a weak and/or poorly documented rule and see if they can fracture it... just a bit.

 

This looks to be the birth of a good FAQ for Games Workshop; Please clarify the official stance on how both base size changing (what can and/or can't be done), and if significant added height should be treated like cover, and removed from LOS checks?

 

The height seems straight forward considering the cover president, but having a 'proper' rule for bases would be nice to clarify.

[space wolf]

Also, I was not making an exception to canus wolfborn just "because I don't like the guy." Its because it explicitly says in the SW codex, that his base cannot be increased in size. The assumption made by the writers, and rightly so, being that players would have done just that in 5th, because you could increase your base size. If it did not say that, I'd have no problem with someone increasing his base size.

 

Wow easy there Skippy

 

I may be wrong, we may have to agree to disagree, but the above comes off as condiscending. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but just for future reference.

[J!MM!L!C!OUS]

Also, I was not making an exception to canus wolfborn just "because I don't like the guy." Its because it explicitly says in the SW codex, that his base cannot be increased in size. The assumption made by the writers, and rightly so, being that players would have done just that in 5th, because you could increase your base size. If it did not say that, I'd have no problem with someone increasing his base size.

 

Wow easy there Skippy

 

I may be wrong, we may have to agree to disagree, but the above comes off as condiscending. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but just for future reference.

 

I dont' want to take the thread off topic, but I don't think Darklighter's comment is condecending at all, I'd probably catagorise it as a 'playful rebuke', certainly nothing that a person should take offense at. But saying that, we all know how easy it is to read something and assume to the worst intentions, hell it happened to me at the start of the thread!

[Darklighter]

@Subtle Discord

One or two HQ's on bases is fine and easy to deal with it's when whole armies are on things like this you get problems.

 

http://armorcast.com/store/popup_image.php?pID=1068

 

I would flat out debate that the extra height must be accounted for, and removed, when taking LOS checks. Period. If you can't take cover with you on a base (explicitly stated in the rules) how can you take a half inch of height? The base is a 'heroic snapshot' of the troop it is meant to represent; not a literal constant pose. When playing you are meant to remove them from the base (in your minds-eye) and see them in the actual surroundings. I personally visualize my Marines crouching and kneeling, providing interlocking, staggered, and covering fire, going to ground, etc., etc., etc.. I will need to read the new rules a few times to get them to really sink in, but this concept is usually outlined somewhere in the rules, and implied there after, if memory serves. Is this common sense courtesy really that lacking in competitive play? Then again, as pointed out, some wil look to find a weak and/or poorly documented rule and see if they can fracture it... just a bit.

 

This looks to be the birth of a good FAQ for Games Workshop; Please clarify the official stance on how both base size changing (what can and/or can't be done), and if significant added height should be treated like cover, and removed from LOS checks?

 

The height seems straight forward considering the cover president, but having a 'proper' rule for bases would be nice to clarify.

 

I totally agree it should be simple to talk these issues through with your opponent. But you have to accept that not everyone has a congenial level of courtesy. Yes an official ruling will go a long way to helping this particular issue. I was only trying to point out that's what people try to get away with when given leeway with rules interpretations and not disagreeing with your well thought out post. I feel we got our wires crossed a Little, might be wrong, lol.

 

 

@space wolf

My comment wasn't meant to do anything other then lighten the mood of the thread a little as it was getting a little heavy. I'm sorry you have taken offense to it.

 

@J!mm!l!c!ous

Man you just get me!

[space wolf]

Oh haven't, I'm just pointing out that others might have viewed it in that light...you never know with the internet :P

[Subtle Discord]

As with everyone I'm sure; I would like to note that I am neither trying or taking any offense during this debate. I'm sure some things are being said with some conviction and maybe a bit of sarcasm, but there is no true animosity in any of this talk.

[J!MM!L!C!OUS]

Agreed. I think it's a good discussion