My issues with scale between miniatures and video games.

[TrashMan]

It rears it's ugly head whenever tabletop is used for referrence or relied on too much. The most negative impact is on the art - anything that draws too much on the tabletop figurines suffers from the terrible proportations that plague it. Tanks having big, thick barrels, extra thick swords, etc - all of those are there so the parts wouldn't break and bend. A limitation of the materials and size that often ends up unaccounted for when producing art.

 

Another good example is the warships. BFG models for example look downright anemic. Thin, with MASSIVE windows (again, tabletop figurine problems) and few visible guns just doesn't let it have the OOMPH it should. BFG the PC game was based on it and is suffers the same problems. The escorts should be MASSIVE - they don't feel massive. Battleships even less so.

A few pieces of art give the battleship due justice, with multiple rows of macrocannons, tiny details and more bulk (like the one with Horus leading the charge), but far too few for my liking.

 

 

Even worse when tabletop is used as justification for lore. In a D6 system with only 4 values to work with, you are really, REALLY limited. No difference between an astartes bolter and a human-sized one. Or astartes power armor and sororritas one (despite astartes one being far thicker) And when those numbers are brought in as representation of lore, it's just a facepalm problem. Granted, this more of an problem with people, les with the tabletop.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Xenith
Changed ambiguous title.

[Xenith]

I don't really see any merit or discussion in your argument beyond a complaint about some artwork. Do you have a thesis or avenue of discussion, or question to the frater?

 

Another good example is the warships. BFG models for example look downright anemic. Thin, with MASSIVE windows (again, tabletop figurine problems) and few visible guns just doesn't let it have the OOMPH it should. BFG the PC game was based on it and is suffers the same problems. The escorts should be MASSIVE - they don't feel massive. Battleships even less so.

A few pieces of art give the battleship due justice, with multiple rows of macrocannons, tiny details and more bulk (like the one with Horus leading the charge), but far too few for my liking.

 

 

I'd argue no. If you're saying escorts should be huge, then you don't have a concept of how big battleships are, and/or are breaking the scale. If you think having a thousand tiny guns visible would make the ship bigger, then you're having issues with the scale - those 4-5 guns you can see are the size of skyscrapers. A cruiser is 4-8 km long. An escort is 1km long.

 

Maybe the lack of external scale is what's causing your issue? BFG is internally scaled well. 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Xenith

[TrashMan]

Aren't escorts supposed to be bigger than 1km? Up to 2km?

 

Also, ships in BFG do look bad IMHO, as they are far too thin to the the durable, tanky imperium ships we know. They need some more meat on those bones.

Also, windows are way, way too big. I've seen models that despite being lower-poly, looked more right due to their texture. Tons of tiny windows.

Like this:

 

If only the models were higher-poly, they would be perfect.

[Charlo]

So.... What's your point?

 

Or are you shouting into the void?

[Xenith]

Do you have an example of what you're complaining about?
 
And BFG imperial light cruisers are pretty spindly. 
 
https://forums.focus-home.com/topic/384/ship-profiles/5
 

 
Are you also, really, truly, arguing that the ships in the video you posted are more detailed than the ones in BFG : Armada?
 

 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

Another good example is the warships. BFG models for example look downright anemic. Thin, with MASSIVE windows (again, tabletop figurine problems) and few visible guns just doesn't let it have the OOMPH it should. BFG the PC game was based on it and is suffers the same problems. The escorts should be MASSIVE - they don't feel massive. Battleships even less so.

A few pieces of art give the battleship due justice, with multiple rows of macrocannons, tiny details and more bulk (like the one with Horus leading the charge), but far too few for my liking.

 

I'll bite, specifically on this part because I love BFG.  It's a bit of meme at this point, but BFG ships -- in particular, Imperial vessels -- are often described as flying cathedrals.  What is one of the defining feature of Gothic cathedrals?  Windows.  Really big, stained glass windows.  Windows that are completely impractical, being so big that they compromised the structural integrity of the walls and so high up that you couldn't really see out of them even if the glass wasn't opaque.  40K being "everything ridiculous turned up to 11," it is actually completely in line with the lore for at least Imperial vessels to have giant cathedral windows in the command & observation decks.

 

Now let's look at the most modern class of battleship in the current timeline, the Iowa-class.  These big beasties had, as originally laid down, four types of gun armament: the main battery of nine 16 inch guns, the secondary battery of twenty 5 inch guns, and then the combined AA batteries of about 130 smaller-caliber guns.  This is because large-caliber guns in big turret mounts have trouble actuating at the close-range or fast-moving targets; if you've ever played World of Warships, you may know the frustration of trying to hit a destroyer with a 16" gun turret.  If you haven't, well, let me say it's not easy.  That's why the secondary battery exists.  These are much smaller guns in more nimble mountings, often with much wider ranges of motion (ie, better elevation/depression than the main guns) capable of engaging small, close-range, and/or fast-moving targets that the big guns cannot effectively target.

 

Converting this to BFG terms, you'd have your main battery of macrocannons, the secondary battery of smaller guns, and the point defense (PD) turrets.  Looking at the model of an Imperial cruiser or a Space Marine battle barge, that single row of -huge gun apertures are the skyscraper-sized macrocannons.  These are you main battery, the primary ship killers that throw HE shells that size of an Iowa-class.  The secondary batteries, which would have a much shorter range, may be too small to be seen on a model at the scale of BFG models.  I say "may" because if you look at the weapon battery bitz used to construct most Chaos cruiser models -- such as the common Murder-class -- you will see that there are a bunch of small gun turrets comprising the broadside.  These are visibly much, much smaller than the Imperial macrocannon apertures, which means they're either long-range secondary-scale guns or they fill a gap between secondaries and primaries (such as the 11" guns of the Graf Spee; bigger than the 6" and 8" guns of most cruisers and destroyers, but smaller than the 12"-16" guns mounted as primaries on most battleships of the day).  In at least one case I remember off the top of my head, the BFG book actually described a particular Chaos cruiser's broadside guns mounts as rare and powerful plasma batteries instead of projectile weapons, which could also account for that particular size difference: bore & aperture size matter much less to an energy weapon than they do to a conventional rifle or smooth-bore cannon.  And then of course we come to the PD turrets which, being even smaller in scale than the secondaries, would never be represented on a tabletop model because they're infinitesimally small at that scale.

 

When it comes to the BFG models in particular, also keep in mind that those molds were cast in the last 1990's.  In order to produce models that were scale-appropriate but actually had visible, identifiable detail, the designers probably had to exaggerate certain characteristics in order to make the models look good on the table; they didn't have the CAD and other tech today to get really fine detail into a mold.  Otherwise we would have ended up with smooth-sided ships without any real detail.  If you'd like an example, grab a Star Destroyer from Star Wars Armada and tell me how many of the supposed 60 turbolaser turrets and 60 ion cannon turrets you can find on that model.

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Iron Father Ferrum

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

 

 

Another good example is the warships. BFG models for example look downright anemic. Thin, with MASSIVE windows (again, tabletop figurine problems) and few visible guns just doesn't let it have the OOMPH it should. BFG the PC game was based on it and is suffers the same problems. The escorts should be MASSIVE - they don't feel massive. Battleships even less so.

A few pieces of art give the battleship due justice, with multiple rows of macrocannons, tiny details and more bulk (like the one with Horus leading the charge), but far too few for my liking.

 

I'll bite, specifically on this part because I love BFG.  It's a bit of meme at this point, but BFG ships -- in particular, Imperial vessels -- are often described as flying cathedrals.  What is one of the defining feature of Gothic cathedrals?  Windows.  Really big, stained glass windows.  Windows that are completely impractical, being so big that they compromised the structural integrity of the walls and so high up that you couldn't really see out of them even if the glass wasn't opaque.  40K being "everything ridiculous turned up to 11," it is actually completely in line with the lore for at least Imperial vessels to have giant cathedral windows in the command & observation decks.

 

Now let's look at the most modern class of battleship in the current timeline, the Iowa-class.  These big beasties had, as originally laid down, four types of gun armament: the main battery of nine 16 inch guns, the secondary battery of twenty 5 inch guns, and then the combined AA batteries of about 130 smaller-caliber guns.  This is because large-caliber guns in big turret mounts have trouble actuating at the close-range or fast-moving targets; if you've ever played World of Warships, you may know the frustration of trying to hit a destroyer with a 16" gun turret.  If you haven't, well, let me say it's not easy.  That's why the secondary battery exists.  These are much smaller guns in more nimble mountings, often with much wider ranges of motion (ie, better elevation/depression than the main guns) capable of engaging small, close-range, and/or fast-moving targets that the big guns cannot effectively target.

 

Converting this to BFG terms, you'd have your main battery of macrocannons, the secondary battery of smaller guns, and the point defense (PD) turrets.  Looking at the model of an Imperial cruiser or a Space Marine battle barge, that single row of -huge gun apertures are the skyscraper-sized macrocannons.  These are you main battery, the primary ship killers that throw HE shells that size of an Iowa-class.  The secondary batteries, which would have a much shorter range, may be too small to be seen on a model at the scale of BFG models.  I say "may" because if you look at the weapon battery bitz used to construct most Chaos cruiser models -- such as the common Murder-class -- you will see that there are a bunch of small gun turrets comprising the broadside.  These are visibly much, much smaller than the Imperial macrocannon apertures, which means they're either long-range secondary-scale guns or they fill a gap between secondaries and primaries (such as the 11" guns of the Graf Spee; bigger than the 6" and 8" guns of most cruisers and destroyers, but smaller than the 12"-16" guns mounted as primaries on most battleships of the day).  In at least one case I remember off the top of my head, the BFG book actually described a particular Chaos cruiser's broadside guns mounts as rare and powerful plasma batteries instead of projectile weapons, which could also account for that particular size difference: bore & aperture size matter much less to an energy weapon than they do to a conventional rifle or smooth-bore cannon.  And then of course we come to the PD turrets which, being even smaller in scale than the secondaries, would never be represented on a tabletop model because they're infinitesimally small at that scale.

 

When it comes to the BFG models in particular, also keep in mind that those molds were cast in the last 1990's.  In order to produce models that were scale-appropriate but actually had visible, identifiable detail, the designers probably had to exaggerate certain characteristics in order to make the models look good on the table; they didn't have the CAD and other tech today to get really fine detail into a mold.  Otherwise we would have ended up with smooth-sided ships without any real detail.  If you'd like an example, grab a Star Destroyer from Star Wars Armada and tell me how many of the supposed 60 turbolaser turrets and 60 ion cannon turrets you can find on that model.

 

 

 

 

Your last point is the one OP has been trying to make. He seems to be frustrated that as technology has advanced, the games haven't taken the time to bulk out the silhouette of the ships and make them less stylized. Apparently his taste trends more toward windows that are more in proportion, as well as an update to the computer models/art to include all of the small sensors and side guns that weren't possible to put on the original plastic model.

 

At least, that's what my read of these posts suggests.

[TrashMan]

Apologies for late reply. Had some account issues and password reset didn't work, admins had to step in, but more of them kept re-resetting it. Anyway.. 

 

 

I don't really see any merit or discussion in your argument beyond a complaint about some artwork. Do you have a thesis or avenue of discussion, or question to the frater?

 

A discussion on 40K art and how much tabletop should influence it? I see nothing contraversial about it.

 

 

 

 

Charlo: Or are you shouting into the void?

Aren't we all? Or do you think GW reads what you write here?

 

 

 

Xenith: Are you also, really, truly, arguing that the ships in the video you posted are more detailed than the ones in BFG : Armada?

 

Of course not. The models in the video have a lot lower polycount and don't have the fancy spucular, reflection, normal map and so on. It's also unfair to compare a render of a Gloriana with perfect lighting and angle to that.

 

What I AM saying that the sense of scale is done better on that simpler model. And they look a bit less like a thin stick that can snap.

 

 

 

 

@IronFatherFerrum:

 

I have no problem with cathedral windows, I have a problem with them being hunderds of meters tall.

 

And speaking of guns, the size of the cannons and the thinness of the ships is in itself something that raises question. If we're using BFG scale, there would be really big issue with internal volume and ammo storage

 

 

@MetalMammoth

 

Ohh..purdy. What game?

[TrawlingCleaner]

I don't really see any merit or discussion in your argument beyond a complaint about some artwork. Do you have a thesis or avenue of discussion, or question to the frater?

 

A discussion on 40K art and how much tabletop should influence it? I see nothing contraversial about it.

 

There isn't a problem with the Discussion itself, I think it is an interesting conversation to have, it's just the way that you approached it. Your original post is close ended so it comes across as a rant and is difficult for other people to engage with. A better way of doing it may have been something like: "How do you feel about the influence that the Tabletop has on Art, media etc" and then "in my opinion..."

 

Whether Art is effected by tabletop is a really interesting conversation to have, if you frame it as a conversation/discussion rather than what reads as "shouting into the void"

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Ohhhhh, so now the issue is equivalent to "you can't fit ten Marines in a Rhino." You know what also has volume issues? Bolters. Looking at the size of the muzzle, breach, and visible rounds on belt-feeds, your standard bolter magazine has room for about five rounds. The box mags on stormbolters? Maaaaaybe a dozen.

 

The designers made compromises in the scaling in order to create models that look good and are easy to paint. Even Infinity, which has much more realistic scaling of weapons, isn't perfect because at 28mm there's only so small you can go before it becomes impossible to mold the piece. I understand part of your point in the OP was that people base lore discussions on these models and to the extent that people forget these are "as close as we can get them" representations as opposed to true 1-for-1 avatars, I agree. But they are still representations so gross detail still applies: massive cathedral windows on starships? That's a thing in the lore, sorry. Guns that fire shells the size of a Walmart? That's a thing in the lore, sorry.

[Gederas]

To be fair, scale models for gaming purposes tend to be wonky anyway.  As IFF mentions, Bolters are way too tiny, especially since it's canon the standard mag for a bolter holds 30 .75 caliber (read: they have a width of three quarters of an inch) bolts, and a storm bolter is 60.

 

The scale is all over the place. Iirc, if the Land Raider was the right scale it'd be the size of a Baneblade....

 

 

Side note:

Now let's look at the most modern class of battleship in the current timeline, the Iowa-class.  These big beasties had, as originally laid down, four types of gun armament: the main battery of nine 16 inch guns, the secondary battery of twenty 5 inch guns, and then the combined AA batteries of about 130 smaller-caliber guns.  This is because large-caliber guns in big turret mounts have trouble actuating at the close-range or fast-moving targets; if you've ever played World of Warships, you may know the frustration of trying to hit a destroyer with a 16" gun turret.  If you haven't, well, let me say it's not easy.  That's why the secondary battery exists.  These are much smaller guns in more nimble mountings, often with much wider ranges of motion (ie, better elevation/depression than the main guns) capable of engaging small, close-range, and/or fast-moving targets that the big guns cannot effectively target.

-laughs in Bismarck secondary armament build*-

 

 

 

*for those wondering what this means: In World of Warships, the Tier 8 German Battleship Bismarck, as well as the Tier 9 and 10, has some ridiculous secondary armaments, that with the correct Commander skillset allows the Bismarck's secondaries to reach out and touch something between 8 to 12km away. With said build, you Control Click a destroyer that's visible and it'll die within a few seconds while your bigger guns focus on more important things

[Xenith]

Apologies for late reply. Had some account issues and password reset didn't work, admins had to step in, but more of them kept re-resetting it. Anyway.. 

 

 

I don't really see any merit or discussion in your argument beyond a complaint about some artwork. Do you have a thesis or avenue of discussion, or question to the frater?

 

A discussion on 40K art and how much tabletop should influence it? I see nothing contraversial about it.

 

The discussion is something that has developed over several other posts that came after yours. If that was the original goal of this thread, it wasn't immediately obvious from your post. I'm of the opinion that art of something which is a 40k model should look vaguely like the model. For each person that thinks the BFGA ships are weird, there's probably a hundred who think they look like the TT models. 

 

The most important thing to remember about 40k, is that "it's a game, not a simulation". Some artistic licence is used at the expense of 'realism'. Some features of models have to be exaggerated in order to tell at a glance what they are c.f. 'heroic scale'.

 

Another flaw is that your logic is based on M2 physics, technology and proclivities. There's a certain irony to be found in complaining that a spaceship designed 28,000 years into the future is 'unrealistic' or similar. If you dont think 100m high stained glass windows on a battleship are practical, then you'd better design some form of shield. From the void. If you don't like them aesthetically...then no ones forcing you to look at the models. 

 

On that note, what do you think about this artwork? Classic or awful?

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Xenith

[Brother Tyler]

The main problem I see with this discussion is that the topic title is misleading. The discussion appears to focus on the limitations of modelling at the scales that GW uses. The 28-32mm heroic scale that GW uses for the main WH40K game and its offshoots doesn't allow for a certain level of detail to be shown. In addition, the sculptors have chosen to incorporate odd proportions for various things. Switching to the Battlefleet Gothic game, which is essentially a naval surface warfare game in space, scale is much different. Here's a quote from the rulebook:

 

SCALE

First of all - space is big! Very, very big. [note: someone has been reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.] Take your conception of a long way (ie, down to the shops, when it's raining hard) and multiply it by a million, then by another million... and then by another million and you're still not even close to how far apart things are in space. In order to include interesting and exciting features such as planets and moons on the battlefield and have ship models which are not the size of molecules, Battlefleet Gothic takes some liberties with scale. In short, the ship models are designed to look good and be nice to paint, but they are not intended to be in scale with planets. To prevent this becoming a problem in the game it is assumed that the ships actually occupy the point in space shown by the stem of their base.

 

The ships of the Imperium that are used in Battlefleet Gothic are very large - multiple kilometers in length. Compare that to a real world naval vessel such as the  Batillus class, which is 414.22 meters in length (the link takes you to an image at Wikipedia). It's difficult to make out the details on that real world photograph, and that's for a ship that is substantially smaller than the ships portrayed in BFG. The sculpting/casting process simply doesn't allow for a realistic level of detail to be shown, so the models are simplified.

 

This is a "problem" with modeling and is felt across the range of tabletop miniature games (and any other game that uses miniatures/models). The closer in scale the model becomes to reality, the more detail there is that can be shown. For example, a 54mm miniature (Inquisitor game scale) can show a lot more detail than a 28mm miniature (WH40K game scale). In addition, there are the differences in materials - resin can be sculpted with considerably more detail than hard plastic or pewter, but it is much more flimsy. As technology improves, we'll see the models improve. Those BFG models are 20 years old. If GW were to revisit Battlefleet Gothic, there's a good chance that new models will be improved considerably compared to their venerable cousins.

 

As for differences within a certain scale, there are certainly problems. The Adeptus Astartes are perfect example. Even the legacy Adeptus Astartes should be at least a head taller than their unaugmented counterparts in the Astra Militarum or Necromunda ranges, with their Primaris brethren being even taller. The vehicles, too, should all be much larger. For whatever their reason, Games Workshop has chosen to not incorporate these lore-based differences in the miniatures. The models, too, are much thicker than they should be if they followed normal proportions. This is a typical feature of the "heroic" scale, helping to keep our bellicose miniatures from appearing too spindly.

 

Are these really "problems" though? I imagine that getting comparative sizes more accurate would result in more price increases (and we certainly have enough of those already). Consider how big an actual Rhino model would have to be in order to realistically carry a full squad of (realistically proportioned) Adeptus Astartes in the rear compartment. We'd probably see the models increase in size, with a corresponding increase in cost.

 

One statement needs to be explained:

 

...In a D6 system with only 4 values to work with...

Huh? A D6 system would intuitively have 6 values with which to work. Presumably there is a logic behind you saying there are only 4, though, so please explain.

 

In addition to the modeling limitations, there has been a long-standing divide between those that want their tabletop miniature games to be much closer to reality, with considerably more detail and calculations (the "simulation" camp) and those that prefer are more stylized representation of conflict that is less detailed (the "game" camp). Any perceived "problem" is going to depend upon where one sits on this spectrum and where a game generally sits. This issue is discussed in two books I've reviewed at this site (and pretty much any forum/magazine about tabletop miniature wargaming): Ttabletop Wargames: A Designer's & Writers Handbook and The Wargaming Compendium. Getting the rules to match the lore is problematic, too. Anyone who remembers the Hollywood Marines rules recalls how a single Tactical squad of Space Marines was sufficient to take on an army of any other faction. Were that ever to be incorporated into the official rules, there would be far fewer models sold. For one thing, many players would simply switch to an "army" of a single squad of Space Marines because it would be far more cost-effective than buying any other faction. True diehards would stick with their other factions, of course, but there would be a lot grumbling. There would doubtless be some players that would leave the hobby. The mismatch between the rules and the lore are about game balance across factions, making each faction attractive for its own reasons and trying to keep costs comparable (there are exceptions, of course, especially for those that like Forge World products).

 

The topic title suggests that it is a discussion about the "bad side" of tabletop [miniature wargaming]. That is far too broad and subjective, allowing for anyone to get up on their soapbox and rant about anything from level of model detail to rules to cheating to uber competitiveness to gamer hygiene to imperfect dice to whatever. I suggest that the actual scope of the discussion be necked down a bit by editing the first post to clearly define that scope and editing the topic title to give casual viewers a more accurate idea of what they're in for if they open the discussion.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

On the topic of whether the scale to lore mismatch is a choice. I distinctly remember an interview with Jes Goodwin once where he remarked that it was a choice, because if the rhino were to scale with the marines, it would take a whole movement phase to get from the front to the back, so it was deliberate.

[Rik Lightstar]

On the topic of whether the scale to lore mismatch is a choice. I distinctly remember an interview with Jes Goodwin once where he remarked that it was a choice, because if the rhino were to scale with the marines, it would take a whole movement phase to get from the front to the back, so it was deliberate.

I feel the "big stuff" in the way of Vehicles, Monsters, Dreadnoughts and Greater Daemons are all pretty much in scale with each other.

 

For infantry, the easiest way I find to reconcile their sizes compared to the big stuff and the weapon ranges is to consider the base to be the "zone of influence" for that individual and the model is a scaled up representation of how big they should be purely for aesthetic and gaming purposes.

 

Rik

[Sword Brother Adelard]

That seems reasonable. The model being more of a representation of its abilities. Kind of like how in that BFG quote from Tyler above, the model is representative of the ship actually found at the tip of the base.

[Gederas]

On the topic of whether the scale to lore mismatch is a choice. I distinctly remember an interview with Jes Goodwin once where he remarked that it was a choice, because if the rhino were to scale with the marines, it would take a whole movement phase to get from the front to the back, so it was deliberate.

Pretty much. Like, here's some numbers so everyone can understand/

 

The canon, in-universe dimensions of a Rhino are: 6.6 metres long, 4.5 metres wide and 3.6 metres tall

 

If that was properly scaled down to the 28mm scale it'd be: 9.3 inches long, 6.3 inches wide and 5 inches tall.

 

A Land Raider (the Phobos pattern) for example as well in case people still can't understand:

 

In universe size: 10.3 metres long, 6.1 metres wide and 4.11 metres tall

Actual 28mm scale size: 14.5 inches long, 8.6 inches wide, 6.7 inches tall

 

Which is, uhh.... Just a bit silly. The Rhino would be the length of the Baneblade model, but wider and taller.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Gederas

[Fajita Fan]

I'd be totally in favor of keeping the cartoonish AoS and 40k miniatures the way they are but use truescale models for video games.  

[Fajita Fan]

To follow up on this I've been saying for YEARS that the perfect video game for the 40k setting is EA's Battlefield series where players play on big maps with 32+ players on each side taking control points with vehicles and aircraft.  This is PERFECT for the 40k universe, hell you could even introduce something where dying to enemy fire so many times lets player spawn as a dreadnought or demon, players could get Marine characters while waves of NPC guardsmen or cultists fight around them.  Landspeeders flying around?  Driving a Landraider up over a trench while a terminator tries to cut it open with a chainfist?  SIGN ME UP!  

Regardless I think truescaling vehicles and character models would go a long way towards selling the license to more players.  I think there's a lot of videogamers out there in what is an $8 or $9+ billion dollar industry who avoid 40k games because our armor and vehicles look so weird or gothic or clunky or "chunky" (you know what I mean) whereas games like Halo or Destiny have taught players that power armor is sleek or formfitting.  To be fair I think the OP's got a point there.

 

 

 

Even worse when tabletop is used as justification for lore. In a D6 system with only 4 values to work with, you are really, REALLY limited. No difference between an astartes bolter and a human-sized one. Or astartes power armor and sororritas one (despite astartes one being far thicker) And when those numbers are brought in as representation of lore, it's just a facepalm problem. Granted, this more of an problem with people, les with the tabletop.

But you know that older editions like 2nd had much more granularity and complexity, right?  Terminator armor was on like 2d6 and assault cannons rolled way more dice but had jams.  Whether we like it or not the simplification of 2nd to 3rd edition 40k dovetailed with a big increase in sales.  Correlation or causation?

[Bryan Blaire]

Truescaling game models in video games wouldn't do anything for the complaints of things looking "old fashioned", "backward", "too gothic", or "chunky" - even more proportioned models would still be chunky and gothic, because that's the game's aesthetic - it's meant to look that way. If folks want sleepy stuff and/or form fitting power armor, then they need to play Halo, Mass Effect, Destiny, etc.

[Fajita Fan]

Well some of the art has decidedly less chunkly looking power armor.  I feel like this https://warhammerart.com/shop/warhammer-40000/space-marine/commander-azrael/  looks really different than this https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Dark-Angels-Company-Veterans-Squad-2017

 

Art direction changes to expand sales.  See: Primaris product line 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Fajita Fan

[Bryan Blaire]

Um, okay. Taller maybe - no less chunky/hefty.

 

The Primaris aren't any less hefty/chunky either, they aren't more slender (if anything, they are actually a little thicker and chunkier/heftier).

 

Those are just lengthened proportions, but the bulk is still there, it just isn't as compressed together.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

 

On the topic of whether the scale to lore mismatch is a choice. I distinctly remember an interview with Jes Goodwin once where he remarked that it was a choice, because if the rhino were to scale with the marines, it would take a whole movement phase to get from the front to the back, so it was deliberate.

Pretty much. Like, here's some numbers so everyone can understand/

 

The canon, in-universe dimensions of a Rhino are: 6.6 metres long, 4.5 metres wide and 3.6 metres tall

 

If that was properly scaled down to the 28mm scale it'd be: 9.3 inches long, 6.3 inches wide and 5 inches tall.

 

A Land Raider (the Phobos pattern) for example as well in case people still can't understand:

 

In universe size: 10.3 metres long, 6.1 metres wide and 4.11 metres tall

Actual 28mm scale size: 14.5 inches long, 8.6 inches wide, 6.7 inches tall

 

Which is, uhh.... Just a bit silly. The Rhino would be the length of the Baneblade model, but wider and taller.

 

 

 

Your math is way off. In proper 1/64th scale, IE, true 28mm, the dimensions of the Rhino would be: L 4.1", W2.8", H2.2". These numbers are rounded slightly for brevity, but still accurate enough for our purposes. 

 

However, as Warhammer is Heroic Scale, and thus not true 1/64th, you might want to use 1/48th vehicles for a better aesthetic. In that case, the dimensions would be L5.4", W3.7", H3". Even in this instance you've just about doubled the actual scale size. Not sure how you wound up with your numbers, but a Rhino isn't far off on the table from where it is supposed to be.

[Fajita Fan]

Um, okay. Taller maybe - no less chunky/hefty.

 

The Primaris aren't any less hefty/chunky either, they aren't more slender (if anything, they are actually a little thicker and chunkier/heftier).

 

Those are just lengthened proportions, but the bulk is still there, it just isn't as compressed together.

  Well those lengthened proportions look sleeker and less chunky to me.  Now don't ask me what's going on here, Garadon looks like he's assaulting a Dunkin Donuts:

https://warhammerart.com/shop/warhammer-40000/space-marine/tor-garadon/

 

I still remember the original Dawn of War trailer and realizing how silly the SM armor proportions are in motion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-E1RcRvny8

 

Contrast that with Dawn of War 3 and how they lengthened the bodies, the movements seem more natural even walking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN8geCTlZOo

[MegaVolt87]

Frankly though, whoever did the DoW 3 trailer should not be relied on in this case. That marine's way too lanky, and " Lol, I'm fresh out of art school, let's do something original and use the xenomorph's design from Alien on LITERALLY EVERYTHING, despite said everything already having VERY established designs."

 

Watch the DoW 2 trailer instead. And the Space Marine game's cutscenes. Perfect visuals.

 

Yeah agreed. OG DoW intro was way better.