Is Truescaling... Rude?

[deathspectersgt7]

I say Bring it !!! My dice rolls have been hot of late.

[Kaedes Nex]

I don't need truescale models to give a truescale ass-whooping.

[Hellios]

It's only a problem when you've true-scaled your marines to look the right size when compared to normal imperial guard models, but then your opponent turns up with true-scaled IG to make them the right size compared to normal space marine models :>

 

---

 

Also, people don't like it when you bring true-scale templates :P

[the jeske]

 

Jeske why do you play 40k?

I played it because A inertia[started in the 90s] B always liked table top games not just w40k C I liked the people I could play against in tournaments. I don't play w40k right now, because due to how GW delt with FLGS here they all closed and now I don't have a place to play.

Heh. I remember when people tried to use "fluff bunnies" as an insult. Its funny how fast that turned around and stopped being one.

 

I think that depends on part of the world. Power gamer here is someone people want to be called.

 

 

True scale is all "well" and "good' till people start doing true scale vehicles to fit those true scale marines. And suddenly those rhinos and drop pods are the size of Land Raiders and when their bikers have bases so big a blast hits max 1 dude.

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

 

1. Your truescale army might look great on its own, but it's going to look really weird on the table next to my army and potentially detract from the overall experience of the game.

 

It might detract from your overall experience of the game, but that's a personal value judgment and a bit presumptuous on your part to speak for everyone else who plays the game.

 

My only real concern when I was still actively playing the game was winning while not being a complete douche about it. The state of my opponent's army never detracted from my experience, but something like cramming 3 Wraithlords into a 1500 point game might.

[Dam13n]

As has been said before, it's a personal preference.  I've done a couple of True Scale marines in the past, purely as a hobby (conversion) exercise.  Mainly because, well, Doghouse inspired me to try it.

 

I can't see how it would be "rude" to use a True Scale army.  It might look strange to see True Scale marines against non-True Scale marines.  But Militarum, Tyranids, Tau etc... the True Scale marines would actually look right in comparison.  We're told that Marines are towering individuals that make the average human look like a pigmy by comparison, the standard range of models does not accomplish this.

 

In terms of rules, there's nothing stopping someone True-scaling their models at all.  The line of sight / cover issue balances itself out pretty evenly as well.

 

I'm not saying anyone has to like True Scale, you can even hate it if you are so inclined.  But if someone else wants to do it because they think it adds to their models visual appeal on the table, then that's their decision, not yours.  You don't have to play them of course, but if they ask why and you reply "because your army is True Scale", they might be (understandably) aggrieved by that response.

 

I regularly see the "army of bare grey plastic" used at my local club, and that irritates me no end, but it's not my army... so I let it go.  It's fine to have standards, I just only ever apply them to myself.

[BrotherCaptainArkhan]

 

 

True scale is all "well" and "good' till people start doing true scale vehicles to fit those true scale marines. And suddenly those rhinos and drop pods are the size of Land Raiders and when their bikers have bases so big a blast hits max 1 dude.

 

 

Not picking on you here - but has anyone actually done a truescale bike army? I dimly remember an Inquisitor scale Battle Brother Artemis astride a bike many many years ago in UK WD, and can't think of anything else since. I'd love to see one.

[Bloodstorm]

I suppose the asnwer to the question may differ for different mindsets.

 

Power Gamers/Competitive tryhards may look on it and mainly see how it could negatively adverse their gaming experience,

Fluffßunnys could look on it and applaud the owner of such an army because to some competitive gaming takes a backseat to immersion within the 40k universe.

 

From my own PoV. I would never judge such a player who's gone out and shown some REAL CREATIVITY in a negative light.

[miteyheroes]

I guess a battle of truescale vs normalscale marines looks a bit weird.

 

In 5th I had a truescale Inquisition Kill Team army that I played using the Space Wolf codex, with everyone as Logan/Wolf Guard Battle Leaders/Wolf Guard, all using terminator rules but truescale models. 10 man army. When I played against other marines and had to justify fluff-wise why my dudes were so much bigger and using better weapons, we said that it was a special varient of terminator armour only available (in limited numbers) to the Deathwatch.

 

To be honest, I find it harder to justify the amount of Space Marine-on-Space Marine battles I had to play. Why are my guys (who include a Blood Angel) fighting against this force of Blood Angels? You can only use the "it's a training exercise" or "they both think the others are heretics" excuses so many times...

[ElectricPaladin]

That's part of why I play Knights of Blood. They're enegades, so I can justify fighting other imperials, but loyal, so I can fight chaos.

[knife&fork]

It's obviously battle drills with nerf-chainswords and paint-ball bolters.

[apologist]

*Muses* Thought-provoking question, ElectricPaladin. I think the conversation has moved a little away from your opening post, which I thought was perfectly reasonable and thought-provoking. I'll quote the bits I'd like to reply to, if that's okay.

In this hobby, the visual experience is clearly a part of the appeal.

Agreed. I think the vast majority of people – whether they describe themselves as hobbyists, painters, gamers, modellers etc. – would agree with that.

That's part of why we all try to get our models painted, envy and admire the guys who show up with 100% painted armies, and try to play with cool (and also painted) terrain.

Yes, I'd personally agree with that – my ideal gaming experience is to play across a fully-modelled battlefield, with two nicely finished armies, and both players coming away in a good mood after sharing a great game.

However, I think there's definitely people who genuinely don't mind (I hesitate to say care) whether an army is painted, or even built. At the extreme, such players are quite happy to use the figures as tokens, much like a traditional boardgame. That's perfectly fine by me, too, even if it's not to my taste.

It's why many narrative events and campaigns either ban grey plastic or give special benefits to painted armies.

This is where I think we creep into slightly contentious territory. I think there's an implied sense in the hobby as a whole that painted models 'trump' unpainted ones for a number of reasons. Where these reasons are purely neutral – aesthetic preferences, for example – that's perfectly fine. Where they stray into slightly elitist attitudes, such as those that make assumptions about the owner – 'he's lazy', for example – that's not cricket.

Different players have different opinions about this trend, and these practices, and that's fine, but I don't think anyone can deny that painting your models is a part of the hobby, and having visually interesting models creates an awesomer, more cinematic experience.

To reiterate, I agree with this general point. Creating nicely finished armies – carefully converted, painted and based – is my personal hobby goal, and I think leads to better, more involved, and friendlier games.

Now, here's the question: if painting your models is part of giving your opponent a better experience [...]is it rude to alter your models in such a way as to make the visual experience of the tabletop less coherent?

I can see where you're coming from here, and have been concerned about this. One of my friends once mentioned that he wasn't really enthused to field his Chaos marines against my 'true-scale' marines – though I hasten to say he didn't make a big song and dance about it; it was a pretty off-hand comment – but it hasn't stopped us playing and enjoying gaming together since with those and different armies.

That did make me feel a little uncomfortable – after all, this is a cooperative hobby, and the last thing I want to do is make anyone feel bad about the choices they make with their army, owing to me doing something slightly unusual with mine. Ultimately, however, I came to the hesitant conclusion that while the opinions of others are a consideration, ultimately this part of the hobby (making my 'true-scale' marines) is for my personal, singular enjoyment – I enjoy the process of making them look as I imagine them – and not the social, shared enjoyment with others.

His truescale models might look great in his cabinet, but they're going to look weird next to your normal scale models. Is that rude? Are you enhancing your experience of your own models at the cost of your opponents' experience of the game?

Well, I think this is the crux of the question. Generally speaking, people have positive things to say about my army; and that's obviously lovely to hear. Some people dislike the concept, and that's equally fine. Where I object to criticism is where it stops being about the models, and becomes something personal.

Again, that's a general note. The same question applies to the eternal questions of 40k discussion groups: gaming style (tournament vs friendly), approach to the background (canon vs freedom), and – as here – painting and modelling (unpainted vs converted and finished). My point is simply that if one player makes the other player feel bad about any of these choices – whether in army selection, paint choice or anything else – that's rude, and bad form.

So, the initial question leads to this: 'The choices I make about my army/hobby impact other players. How much should I compromise my enjoyment?' The answer to that is that you need to discuss the subject with those other people – whether it's about how the army looks, how it's composed or whatever. The hobby is a collective experience – but it's also a personal one; and we all need to be respectful of both aspects, particularly when they potentially come into conflict.

I'm not trying to attack anyone - I'm just really curious what the community's response to this idea is going to be.

Apologies for the wall-o'-text! Thank you for the thought-provoking question

+++Edit SCRAPSHUNT typos +++

[Slave to Darkness]

I don't need truescale models to give a truescale ass-whooping.

True scale ass-whooping?? From an Ultramarine?? My Word Bearers would like to show you a thing or five about ass-whooping's my friend ;)

 

Back on topic though, I don't see a problem with True scaling at all, nor do I see it as modelling for advantage, if you had an Eldar Wrathknight kneeling down so its nearly half the size then we will be having words after the game (note I said after the game, I will never say no to a game even if I know I will get tabled on turn two, its more enjoyable when my Fluff Bunny list (eventually) beats the local WAAC Power Gamer list). 

 

One day I'd love to play against Apologists Ultrasmurfs, that is how a marine army should look imho, even if they are blue and smell funny... 

[Blissful Brushes]

So far all I've ever got from my true scale marines are questions of how I did them and what advice I could offer to the other people in store. Oh, and how crazy I am for cutting up Forgeworld stuff..

When I play, I play for fun, and as has been said before there are no real advantages to truescale over, to paraphrase Veteran Sergeant, puny-scale.

The people that I find may have a problem with it in the store I avoid like the plague because they're no fun to play with and they play in a corner of the room, slightly shunned with their broken lists.

[Teetengee]

I don't mind playing against truescale as long as the bases are the right size. In all honesty I will play against any level of modification up until proxies as long as the bases are the right size and the models have approximately the right silhouettes.

I would prefer to finish painting my army and play against fully painted armies on fully modeled and painted boards because that looks amazing, but I a. don't have access to enough players for that kind of luxury, b. can't honestly say I am at that level myself, and c. don't really care that much as long as the other guy is a good sport.

[Kraytirous]

In order for someone to feel displeased about a game of Warhammer, one of three things must happen.

 

The guilty party's modelling is rude.

 

The guilty party's paint job is rude.

 

The guilty party's play-style is rude.

 

The point is that if one examines true-scale miniatures in relation to these three forms of "rudeness," one would find that it manages to avoid all three.

 

Rude modelling either involves blatantly inappropriate imagery (hard to find in a universe filled with skinners, murderers and boob-worms). True-scaling is none of the above.

 

Obviously the modelling of the mini's scale has nothing to do with the paint job.

 

Finally, the play-style. If someone models a true-scale miniature specifically to gain an edge in the game, then that would be grounds for rudeness. But what possible advantage would true-scaling give? Increased height, larger base size and strange cover rules.

 

As far as increased height is concerned, despite the debate that there is a trade-off because the extra line of sight goes both ways, the truth of the matter is that it is no different from modelling your Space Marines on taller bases. And I don't mean it's a house rule that technically doesn't apply, I mean that Games Workshop blatantly agrees that raised bases are not rule-breaking (just look at the Chaos Terminator Lord!).

 

The increased base size is sadly a matter of contention because it does technically trade up safety in close-combat for safety from blasts, but it is an easy fix depending on the scope of the true-scaling. If the scaling is too large to appropriately fit on a Space Marine base, then perhaps it's scaling is more diorama appropriate.

 

At that, it seems like a ludicrously large marine would be needed to be able to skew terrain and cover saves. If the "if debated agree on a 5+ cover" rule doesn't come into effect between the players, then simply have on-hand a few to-scale marines. Pop 'em in whenever you need the situation fixed.

 

Are true-scale marines rude? No. They can be a little clunky, but the situations seem ridiculously rare where that is actually an advantage. Losing a cover-save, taking up more space and being easier to see are all losses to me which far out-weigh the advantages of the rule of cool. I don't think a player should be penalized for penalizing themselves.