On Scale Creep (in all senses)

[Evil Eye]

I've been talking to a friend of mine lately, who's really into "Oldhammer" and is amassing multiple small forces for WHFB 3rd Edition. He's a really cool guy, and it's very interesting talking to him about the state of Warhammer (both Fantasy and 40K) and tabletop gaming in general. One thing we brought up recently was the escalation in scale of GW games- in terms of not only simple miniature size (Space Marines being bigger than they were many years ago) but also the scale of both armies and also "centrepiece" models.

 

I should preface this by saying I really like how a lot of the big centrepiece models look, at least as display pieces, and I don't object to their very existence- I have a FW Keeper of Secrets and I have a pipe dream of painting one of each of the four plastic Greater Daemons. This rant is with regards to their place in gaming.

The scale of most models has stayed fairly stable over the years, with "human" figures from 20 years ago still working reasonably well with ones released last week. Astartes are a slightly different matter, with non-Primaris Marines being a fair bit larger than their older friends; however, it's hardly egregious, and generally speaking doesn't present a huge problem. Centrepiece models, however, specifically characters and monsters, seem to have ballooned in scale for some reason, to the point where trying to use a previous edition of, say, Greater Daemon could be seen as cheating because of its far smaller size compared to the newer renditions (which naturally is rather frustrating). Putting aside raw price, this to me at least presents a bit of a problem.

 

One issue with having these models be so bloody big is that transporting the things can be a nightmare, especially with the large amounts of pointy bits and small joints on them. What once would have taken up a reasonably small space in the army case now practically needs its own box. However, there's a bigger, more insidious problem here, and that's the expectation that you're going to turn up to a game with at least one huge centrepiece model- less "scale creep" and more "power escalation".

 

Once upon a time, models the size of a Trygon, or even slightly smaller, were massive things reserved as big "boss" monsters for Apocalypse games. Most monsters were of equivalent size to Dreadnoughts, and it was rare that more than a few of those would appear in an army- a Tyranid force with a pair of Carnifexes AND a Hive Tyrant was considered downright scary. And had the Knight kit existed back then, it would have been reserved for campaign climaxes, with a single Knight being a fearsome threat. Now, though, if you're not taking AT LEAST one Knight sized unit in a standard army list, you'll be told your army isn't "competitive" (even if it's not a tourney list, but that's another matter). The size of armies has ballooned, and so with it has the numbers of big "centrepiece" models (which themselves have become gigantic). This not only makes collecting an army much more expensive and time-consuming, but also makes transport a nightmare and has turned the 41st Millennium into an "arms race" to see who can deploy the most huge models.

The root of the problem is manyfold. You have GW partially to blame- if the models are bigger and more expensive, and armies need to be bigger for a standard game, then they're going to make more money. However, I feel the fanbase somewhat brought this upon themselves, or at least a portion of them did. Because whilst it's easy to blame GW entirely for scale escalation with the big shiny models, we still bought those models after all. If the models weren't selling, then GW would have given up with them (or relegated them to FW only).

 

Look at Forge World's output. When they started making Titans and super-heavies, they were more intended as modelling projects/display pieces than gaming miniatures. They wrote rules for them, for certain, but with the expectation that only a few die-hards would be using such units in carefully tailored scenarios. They were certainly not intended as an "everyday" inclusion on a battlefield. However, somehow, people got the idea that because they had rules for 40K, they were as much a part of "the meta" as your average Rhino or Battlewagon. Thus, people began writing entire lists around these super-units, and the rest is history.

 

There's also the issue of the state of the game itself (with the expectation that every game should be a head-to-head basic deathmatch on a largely barren board) which has contributed to the scale escalation somewhat, but that's a discussion for another time.

 

So TLDR: The cause of the scale creep is a combination of capitalism on GW's part, shiny new toy syndrome, powergamers and a misunderstanding of the purpose of centrepiece models in the first place, along with the ever-present issue of fandom myopia (obviously, what is to one person an intriguing campaign is to another person a drawn-out slog).

So we've discussed the problems and the causes of said problems, but what about the cures?

 

For tournaments, short of indie tourneys introducing army list restrictions (probably a bad idea) or setting up scenarios for people to play with "game modes" other than simple deathmatches (a good idea but probably impractical) there's not much that can be done. Personally I'm of the opinion that tourneys, whilst they have their place, should not be considered the "optimal" or "standard" way to play 40K but again, that's a different topic.

 

For regular play though, there's a few things we can do to try and combat excessive scale creep. The first and most simple is just to play smaller games; at lower points levels, you can't include a horde of Wraithknights. The second, more time-consuming (but IMO more rewarding) solution is to try playing different scenarios than just "generic deathmatch on an open plain". Objective based games are a good way of doing this, especially if you add rules for who can take said objectives which encourage more "boots on the ground". Likewise, using more terrain can completely change the way a battle is played- a force of Tyranid Warriors and Raveners against a Tau gunline on an open desert is a foregone conclusion, but in dense jungle it's a whole different story.

Now personally, for models where updates have greatly increased their size, I'd like (but don't expect) GW to make separate rules for the smaller, older models. So for example, an RT era Keeper of Secrets would be a "Lesser" Keeper- still quite powerful but not hugely so. The mid-era model could be a "Greater" Keeper, about the power of a Daemon Prince (which they are similar size to as well). The new plastic kit, meanwhile, would be an "Exalted" Keeper, which would be the most powerful of the three, though obviously also a very large target.

 

Anyway, enough of my rambling. What do you guys think? Is the scale escalation even a bad thing to you? Do you prefer smaller or bigger models? Am I an idiot with no grasp on what people enjoy in a game? Discuss away!

[PeteySödes]

I'm certainly not a fan, I never really like Apoc games. The strategy was always too point and click for me. It does definitely seems like regular 40k is basically the Apoc of old. I'm really not liking having to build around facing a knight every damn game.

 

I also remember when special character required your opponents permission to use which was interesting. We shouldn't go back to that i don't think but i also don't like how "cheap" they feel. In my own army is crazy how much better Njal is to a standard RP for ~33 points.

[Marshal Rohr]

I prefer to play intentionally reduced levels of large units and monsters. Like you said, the Titans should come out for Apocalypse, or the final battle of a campaign. Not whenever I walk into a store to kill a few hours on a Saturday.

[MARK0SIAN]

I think it would be welcome help if they released new rules similar to the old zone mortalis that intentionally limited the types of models that could be used.

 

It wouldn’t always need to be set in a labyrinth style setup like classic zone mortalis but it would give you the option to reduce the scale of models used.

[FlamingDeth]

Its very rare for me to play a game above 1k points at this point. That nets about the same amount of models as a 4th-5th edition 1500-1750 point army and reduces the amount of huge bonkers models you can include. It also means that every game doesn't take a weekend to complete.

 

I don't use special characters myself and the people I play typically don't abuse them. I think that part is just making sure everyone has clear expectations of the types of games they're playing. I also haven't played a game in my local store in probably years, it's all at someone's house, so that drastically alters the meta as well, as I don't have to worry about players who think every game is tournament practice.

[Doghouse]

Given the impact knights like the Castellan have had I'd say yes. They not indestructible, but large monsters/tanks have made their mark I think. Most I have spoken to of late regarding list building seem to ask "can it kill a Castellan?" or "you could do that or a Knight can do it better for the points." 

 

In some respects it can be a good thing to let more use the models they bought though. 

[Magos Takatus]

I know how this feels from the old GW participation games where I brought my converted Stompa into town. I was practically cradling the thing like a baby on the bus. I probably got a few odd looks. I go back to 2nd edition where the Dreadnought was the towering war machine at the time. The Land Raider had been out of production so the Predator was about the biggest tank a Space Marine player was likely to field. I thought it was a bit sad when the Carnifex got overshadowed by larger and larger models filling basically the same role. 

 

I think this is the greatest example of scale creep I can think of. This picture shows the Rogue Trader Avatar of Khaine, the 2nd edition onward version and the Forge World incarnation in one picture (with the epic scale one added in for funsies). While the Forge World avatar isn't as large as some of the FW greater daemons, the original Avatar is smaller than the original Chaos Daemons but quite a large amount.

 

Another issue of late is that of "detail creep". A space marine force consisting of a few marine squads and some Rhino chassis tanks are pretty easy to carry around, but new models like Adeptus Mechanicus models have so many spindly bits on them that moving them to a gaming table without breaking them can be an unnerving prospect. Due to the size and complexity of modern models carrying an army to a Games Workshop branch or a local games store is starting to feel a bit like this:

 

 

"That's it, lad, put it on the table over there"

[Xwingt65]

I am loving the larger models. And the general scale creep.

 

And honestly even the FW Avatar is too small for my tastes, and in general too bleh.

[chapter master 454]

So standing here, I am clearly among a group who prefer smaller games within this thread but I will stand and say I enjoy games of 2k 40k because more units get to come out and play.

 

So yea, there will be THAT guy who always brings a castellan every game but to be honest, if you were to fully build and paint a castellan and were super proud of it and it looked really nice, I think we can all agree it is understandable. It is when they keep doing it is when you ask them to bring something else instead. If he doesn't then you start not playing him, I know that can suck but better that than constantly dealing with that every game.

 

However I will state the lower the points you play the less choice you have in army building. Clearly there is many camps within 40k, some will raise their banner to being against CP while others for it with both sides bringing valid points to the table.

 

So lets talk about the "scale" problem. First off the original models aren't exactly pleasant to look at, lets be straight up honest here. Bar the charm of the older style of sculpts they aren't that good looking not to mention some models were only that size due to GW not having the ability to create larger models. Original marines could only be told apart if you painted them correctly and often even then there would be cases of "which one is it again -lifts models- ah this one, he has the gold medal on him that isn't that obvious". Now we have models with a massive range of poses and don't look like they are ready for their turn to get a carbonite bath! (seriously, those models would make great statues on terrain pieces).

 

Models have only improved. Size was something that was never at what they wanted to begin with due to beginning needed to be small. It meant tanks couldn't ever be present in the game of 40k in those early days and I would say the game would suffer for it (remember, we were all complaining about infantry spam once in 8th?). Heck, GW were so adamant on wanting tanks in the game they had the cute guide for making the plastic bottle tank! So the scale of 40k from the dawn of the game was always going to be larger than what it "started" as. Even look at the art work, clearly they had visions of large scale battles.

 

In terms of games, lower points actually in my opinion and experience tends to hurt options instead of opening them. Naturally, I am bias because I love myself big armoured tanks like land raiders and knights and thus I prefer bigger games but I actually find fielding infantry distasteful. Even though my current list I run uses nearly all infantry (only 1 rhino primaris but the rest is infantry) I actually hate the list in all senses of what it stands for because it proves how pathetic tanks are in 40k. I WANT to use my land raiders and Knights more, I want to field them and have the lists I want, Armoured Spearheads of Land Raiders and Predators steaming forward laying out heavy firepower with nought a care for the enemies light fire-arms. However I digress heavily but wanted to clear up that I do have bias so read at your own care.

In smaller games you often get down to a very cut and dry sense of how the game will go much MUCH faster than a larger game. I find that droll and often find many small scale lists fairly samey with nothing really to stand out. Maybe one list is faster than the other by a margin or one list packs a little more armour but largely it comes down to a block a infantry with support elements getting into a slapping contest. In fact, it is the only scale where tactical marines are good! (because their ability to bring anti-tank on a troop choice is a fairly compact method and the amount needed is just a couple of heavy weapons, not the full squads).

 

Is there creep? Yes. I can agree to that and is a thing that needs to be kept on top of. In all opinions  I believe 40k should be balanced and tested at around the 1.5-2k mark, as that is the level at which we start bringing out the unique stuff (no timmy...put the castellan back...I know you are proud of it!) instead of us all trying to wave troop choices at each other. If 40k were to begin to creep above 2k points as a standard game then I would start calling it out as over the top. To be honest the points creep of 5th through 7th were a little asinine (1500 went to 1750 because of Apoc, basically a 1500 army + land raider. Then we were to 1850 inbetween 6th and 7th for some reason...don't know why) so having round points values that even new players can understand and even account for (getting 500 point blocs of the army they want is fairly nice and even way to do things).

 

However I will agree on the spindly stuff...getting a little tired of that :cuss because it makes the model a pain in the crotch plate to carry without damaging...seriously GW we get it you can mould new cool stuff but stop the spindly stuff for spindly stuff sake (mechanicus characters are ok, but the new shadowspear captain...WHY?)

[The Yncarne]

I find scale creep to be a strong foundation of GW’s business model. The only real alternative is to keep punching out more rules.

 

In general, I prefer playing with more units than I do larger models in games with more points. I’ll buy the occasional large model as a paint project but never get motivated to paint as it won’t appear in more than one annual game.

[Magos Takatus]

I don't currently play games of 40k for a few reasons so I am mainly a collector and painter and I have to say from a sheer modelling point of view the scale of GW models is astounding. I felt my earlier post came across as too negative mainly because I was focusing on the practicality of storing and moving miniatures. I really appreciate the centrepiece models we now have but I've not crossed paths with an army composed of them yet.

[Marshal Rohr]

I don't currently play games of 40k for a few reasons so I am mainly a collector and painter and I have to say from a sheer modelling point of view the scale of GW models is astounding. I felt my earlier post came across as too negative mainly because I was focusing on the practicality of storing and moving miniatures. I really appreciate the centrepiece models we now have but I've not crossed paths with an army composed of them yet.

 

The inevitable Angron, Fulgrim, Mortarion, and Magnus all on one side games will be freaking sweet, if overdone after a few weeks. 

[Rik Lightstar]

Fortunately the writing has been on the wall with regards to "small scale engagements" and "oldhammer" for quite some time, and GW have given us the option to scratch that itch with KillTeam.

 

It takes away vehicles, but the Commander expansion bumped the points value for a game up from the initial 100 points, I suspect Elites will take it further, maybe even to 500, I feel that would be a really good spot for it. There will inevitably be either individual Heavy Support and Fast Attack expansions or a combined one.

 

Kill Teams at 500 points, especially with the Command Roster concept (maybe at 1000 points total) could work really well and if done properly could make a really interesting tournament system too.

 

Also, my bet is on Kill Team 2.0 at some point in 2020.

 

Rik

[Claws and Effect]

I'm of two minds on it.

 

On one hand, I love some of the new models that are being released.

 

On the other, I dislike that I need to consider how I'm going to kill Magnus or a Knight or random Baneblade chassis tanks every time I build a list.

 

I'm going sort of middle of the road. I got myself a Knight Warden kit and I'm building and painting it as the Obsidian Knight (because it's super fluffy to have the Obsidian Knight fighting alongside the Raven Guard). I'm also magnetizing his weapons so I can play his lore-accurate loadout in fluffy games and switch it up when I want to field him in a more competitive environment.

 

At the end of the day, there's nothing we can do about larger and larger models appearing on the tabletop aside from artificially limiting what can be used.

 

I'm planning on going to Adepticon next year to play in the "friendly" tournament they have. 1500 points, no super-heavies allowed, one detachment maximum.

[MegaVolt87]

 

So TLDR: The cause of the scale creep is a combination of capitalism on GW's part, shiny new toy syndrome, powergamers and a misunderstanding of the purpose of centrepiece models in the first place, along with the ever-present issue of fandom myopia (obviously, what is to one person an intriguing campaign is to another person a drawn-out slog).

So we've discussed the problems and the causes of said problems, but what about the cures?

 

 

All wargames have an evolution, you could easily minus GW here to add Privateer Press, Bolt Action etc. Wargaming has always done this to poach the existing market, new wargamers in general are a coveted resource to these companies, though I believe existing/ old timer/ vets are just as important if not more so. There is no misunderstanding, it is all by design. Speaking for myself, GW won me back as I found my former wargames systems to be a sunk cost as they developed not to my tastes any longer with new rules, lore, models etc. Also having more of a disposable income than previously, has let me buy in with GW more via all that FW stuff I couldn't afford prior, now I can and its usable (mostly) in the main game or I can take it to the HH system for increased value. I think GW is mostly headed in the right direction with the creep they are doing in their systems to entice people like me back and get new wargamers. 

[Subtleknife]

I like the scale creep. Especially if it allows marines and humans to be better sized. But that is the good thing about 40k, if you dont like the knights etc you can just agree with your opponent not to use them. And then there is kill team too.

[Panzer]

40k has always been an arms race to be fair and it's not necessarily a case of who puts the most centerpiece models wins or we'd see pure Knight lists on the top tables all the time. Instead we see imperial soup lists with only one or two Knights and the rest basic infantry, we see Eldar without real centerpiece models, we see T'au lists with only one Riptide and the rest being Firewarriors, Commanders, Drones (instead of Stormsurges and just as many Riptides as possible) and one list even with lots of Piranhas, we see unexpected lists like a Thousand Sons lists with lots of Rubric Marines and the biggest thing being two Daemon Princes and so on and on.

 

Transportation is an issue depending on the army. The new Slaanesh stuff (and some of the old like the Exalted Chariot)? I'm downright scared to ever transport them to a friends place. Primaris with their Repulsors and Redemptor Dreads etc? Yeah no, I don't even need a proper transport case for those.

 

I like the scale creep though. For Marines it made sense because they were alway supposed to be this much taller than regular humans. Centerpieces are awesome and I feel like GW wants to give us multiple options instead of wanting us to use all those options in the very same list. Knights are a problem not because of the scale creep but because of the balancing. If they'd cost accordingly to their damage output and durability or if those would get toned down to be in line with their costs they'd be much less of a problem.

[Robbienw]

I'm not a fan of the most recent 40K scale creep of the last few years, to your basic infantry models.  For the last 10 years or so before that it was quite stable, and i feel the general size of infantry for the various factions achieved at this point was good and did not need to get bigger.  If anything i would have preferred overly large normal human models to be scaled down and made smaller.  Its getting to the point now where some infantry models are getting too big for me.  At some point scale creep will have to stop or we will not have miniatures anymore, just large models :lol:

 

Large centrepiece models and large vehicles I am fine with.

[Ishagu]

I love the new models. To me it's less scale creep and more a case of better proportions and more correctly sized vehicles.

 

Whilst heroic scale is still in place, vehicles like Rhinos have really, really aged.

 

I don't agree that the models are too big as the new Primaris fit in the same infantry trays as my MkIV plastic Marines.

[Robbienw]

I love many of the new models too, i'd just prefer if the scale creep stopped now.  Its not about proportions, you can re-proportion a model without needing to increase its size dramatically, or by decreasing size.  Its just i feel the sizes are starting to get too big.  I want miniatures.

[Marshal Rohr]

I love many of the new models too, i'd just prefer if the scale creep stopped now. Its not about proportions, you can re-proportion a model without needing to increase its size dramatically, or by decreasing size. Its just i feel the sizes are starting to get too big. I want miniatures.

The new chaos marines are perfect to me. I just finished casting up extended oldmarine legs for my next project to make them the size of the new chaos legionaries. It’s the big centerpiece models like knights and baneblades that should be restricted by points percentage limitations, personally. That will keep the game infantry focused.

[sarabando]

i like painting big minis now that i have an airbrush but gaming wise imo GWs scale is perfect for KT but 40k is going towards a size game wise that would suit a smaller scale such as 20mm or 15mm. ive seen games at my local club where on a 6ft table there is almost no terrain and just a wall of plastic minis and that was the norm.

[Marshal Rohr]

I’m hoping titanicus leads to a revitalization of Epic so I can finally drop an entire imperial battlegroup on the table.

[Ishagu]

I would love a proper epic, and not just Titan battles.

 

Give me tiny tanks, infantry lines, etc

[MegaVolt87]

15mm plastic HH Epic would be absolutely amazing, GW would get a lot of interest with Epic HH as you could consider it as "Historical sci-fi" game.