PDA

View Full Version : Scale of 40k not true to life... opinions?



gold 'orn silvateef
09-01-2009, 07:38 PM
What do you guys think of the scale of 40k? I mean... you really can't fit a full squad of marines into a rhino in real life but do you all think the size is good? I'd assume that the tanks would probably be bigger in real life too...
And, do you think that the Space Marines and Termies should get an eventual height increase (because they are supposed to be at least a little bit bigger than guardsmen than they already are) along with the vehicles or is everything fine just as it is?

BlacknightIII
09-01-2009, 07:44 PM
Ive seen ten marines modeled inside a rhino so it is possible, although i do not envy the marines stuck in there like sardines.
The height of the marines and terminators does seem a little on the short side since they are only marginally taller then guardsmen yet arnt they supposed to be massive compared to humans?

John Connah
09-01-2009, 07:47 PM
I do wish Space Marines were a bit bigger. Also rhinos are pretty small compared to chimeras (at least the old version rhino I own). Maybe orks could be a bit more hulking too~

Azazel665
09-01-2009, 08:11 PM
Meh, it kind of all comes down to how it looks on the table AFAIC. Game-wise, I'm not too worried about scale fidelity as long as it doesn't get too outrageous. For nicer dioramas and such, scale becomes a bit more significant.

grotto
09-01-2009, 08:15 PM
I think GW or FW should be producing more diorama quality figures... like the Space Marine they have been selling forever. That being said, I think the scale for the table is fine - but as an IG player, I'd like to see a bigger detailed model for display - how about a 6 inch tall DKOK company commander?

Vulkan He'stan
09-01-2009, 08:28 PM
and i love how space marines have all these extra implants in fluff ie a second heart but only 1 wound some super human. but it might account for the 4 toughness i unno but more wounds would be pretty cheap. but if GWs gunna make them up to but the mightest being ever they should reflect its in the model and a little more in the stats like wounds (but they r pretty good for a troop as is).

Tanon
09-01-2009, 08:36 PM
The scale fits overall. It'd be nice to have the models be more in line with their fluff size... but I wouldn't want to pay extra for it. I can deal with the scale size the way it is ;)

terricon4
09-01-2009, 08:46 PM
The space marines are to short and all of their vehicles are also a bit small according to the fluff yes, but think of the consequences of this on the tabletop. It is for starters not going to look as good when your once heroic army now looks like you are a bunch of super sized warriors that should easily win any battle. So first it removes the epic feal and whole air of the space marines. Now lets also think out of the games. They cost more to make per model and being the most common will cost GW bad, and for painting they will use about 10%-20% more paint. Also they would no longer fit in the standard GW carrying case. And realize that a companies own carrying case not being able to carry the army used by the widest demographic is just plain bad business. In the end I am happy as they are, at most just a slight, like almost nonexistent, size increase.

Lord Inquisitor
09-01-2009, 09:16 PM
What is bad is that you can take 12 Marines in a drop pod and their are only harnesses for 10.

eldargal
09-01-2009, 09:22 PM
They roll dice to see who gets the harnesses and which two have to sit in two of the others laps.

Given the fuss a lot of people made about scale creep, particularly with the 'new' terminators, I can understand GW not wanting to make marines as big as they should be. I dont really mind one way or the other so long as things look consistent on the tabletop.


What is bad is that you can take 12 Marines in a drop pod and their are only harnesses for 10.

Aitrus
09-01-2009, 09:23 PM
What is bad is that you can take 12 Marines in a drop pod and their are only harnesses for 10.
lol Yeah, last two drew the short straw and have to stand, hoping that their legs don't become mush upon impact. Either that, or they get to cling to the roof.

Clothar
09-01-2009, 09:28 PM
I agree, they are too small! It is rediculous to see a space marine (or even worse: a terminator!) right next to a guardsmen, same for the tanks. While it may not be practicable to increase the size of the tanks too much, I would apreciate just a little bit bigger Space Marines (or smaller normal humans) and they would still fit in any box, because there are still larger infantry models around like symbionts for example...

terricon4
09-01-2009, 09:31 PM
Just thought of something. A lot of people have current marine armies. Imagine re sculpting the whole range to be bigger, now if you want to use your old minis as well this would look really bad on the tabletop.

Xar
09-01-2009, 11:00 PM
Having things a tad small keeps the price from getting worse, and makes storage, transport, and gameplay easier. The benefits outway the need to scale everything perfectly.

Nabterayl
09-01-2009, 11:38 PM
The biggest scale weirdness I see is the scale of the models compared to the scale of the ranges. The length of a Razorback is 1/8 the effective range of a heavy bolter? Which is itself only 36 times the height of a Guardsman? And only three times the effective range of a pistol? What? :P

It works on the tabletop, of course, and I wouldn't want them to change it for practicality reasons. But ranges are pretty clearly not in scale with the models, or even with each other.

Orlock
09-02-2009, 12:06 AM
I was fortunate enough to have a discussion with Rick Priestly a few yearrs ago about scales. In a nutshell it is all about 'abstracts', especially when it comes to 40K. He used the Rhino as a good example of what we are talking about here. In reality a Rhino would be much larger, Space Marines taller etc. But the bottom line is making sure the game is playable.

I have played an older game written by Bryan Ansell - Laserburn/Imperial Commander and ranges are pretty awe inspiring compared to 40K. The game is fasst and furious and things die even more quickly than in 40K. Anyhow that's my two pennies worth.

Denzark
09-02-2009, 02:01 AM
Wasn't the scaling given on a previous BoLs mainsite posting? Something like heads 1:48 whilst bodies were 1:60 with limbs 1:50. Or some such nonsense. Supposedly to exaggerate the features and make them easier to pant whilst keeping the bodies sizes down.

Vehicles tend to scale around 1:48 - when I use 20th century tank kits to turret swap for vanquishers a Guard coming out of this hatch doesn't look too bad. 1:32 is right out.

What bugs me about scaling is not just the 'you can never fit that many in the vehicle' but things like the leman Russ turrets - looking at the size of the shells, how are you going to fit a gunner and the breach of the gun in the turret?

KnightShift
09-02-2009, 03:46 AM
I think the scales might be fairly accurate. Military vehicles are designed to expedite personnel to the front lines as quickly as possible so that said personnel can proceed to break things and kill people. Personal comfort is going to be a very distant second :D

Besides, these are hardened Space Marines we're talking about: they're used to it. I've seen military aircraft and ground transports in real life that you'd *never* believe could carry the complement that they do. Yet it's not only possible, but routine.

Granted, it's probably not the most fun ride inside a Rhino or whatever... but it gets the job done :)

Drunkencorgimaster
09-02-2009, 08:32 AM
Please quit asking for bigger models! You've got them!

GW has done nothing BUT make the models bigger and bigger and bigger. For Pity's sake, look at the figures they made in the past. They were 25mm at most. The new Terminiators are 30mm at least. What do you want???? 54mm? Just go ahead and play Inquisitor if you can't handle the current line.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing that gets me hotter under the collar than scale creep. My guess is that there are very few old schoolers in the "We want it bigger!" crowd b/c scale creep makes one's old figures look absurd. New players: Just wait a few years when your beautiful 30mm collections are getting dwarfed by 35mm figures and even newer players are screaming for 40mm figures. You will know how we old geezers feel.

Furthermore, how much oversized crap can you fit on a table? I'd rather see hundreds of figures battling it out rather a dozen or so super-detailed, super-expensive, super-huge figures.

ARRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I need a drink.

oni
09-02-2009, 08:34 AM
I dont really mind one way or the other so long as things look consistent on the tabletop.

Yup, this states my opinion perfectly as well.

eldargal
09-02-2009, 08:37 AM
I can prove part of this wrong, no offense. I have a terminator dated 1990* on the base tag, standing it next to one of the new SH terminators, it is the same size only the SH terminator is wider due to the posing. The shoulder pads and arms may be a tad bigger, which is good as they look kind of stubby on the old ones.

*Edit: It is actually 1989.


Please quit asking for bigger models! You've got them!

GW has done nothing BUT make the models bigger and bigger and bigger. For Pity's sake, look at the figures they made in the past. They were 25mm at most. The new Terminiators are 30mm at least. What do you want???? 54mm? Just go ahead and play Inquisitor if you can't handle the current line.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing that gets me hotter under the collar than scale creep. My guess is that the are very few old schoolers are in the "We want it bigger!" crowd b/c scale creep makes one's old figures look absurd. New players: Just wait a few years when your beautiful 30mm collections are getting dwarfed by 35mm figures and even newer players are screaming for 40mm figures. You will know how we old geezers feel.

Furthermore, how much oversized crap can you fit on a table? I'd rather see hundreds of figures battling it out rather a dozen or so super-detailed, super-expensive, super-huge figures.

ARRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I need a drink.

Duke
09-02-2009, 08:47 AM
I would like to see some scale come into the whole game, but I don't think I would take it as far as going 'true scale'... This almost feels like a "If you give a mouse a cooke," discussion. lol

Duke

Alzer
09-02-2009, 09:00 AM
After finding some of the "appropriate" size measurements on Lexicanum, a friend and I did some calculations and I don't recall exact numbers just rough sizes.

Land raiders would be the size of a PS3, but a little taller. Leman Russ

Space marines would ALL be the size of tyranid warriors. With terminators getting even bigger

Rhinos are about toaster sized. (four slot toasters) Chimeras are slightly longer but less wide

Carnifex would be roughly the size of a basketball.

Eldar would ALSO be the size of tyranid warriors. (tad skinnier but those xenos are tall)

And I think baneblades match the average end table.

Personally I'm glad I'm not paying for that much plastic, and imagine trying to DEPLOY those. Yeah it's goofy but when you consider what we'd actually be dealing with, ya kinda just let it go. I would NOT want to run a monolith the size of a mini-fridge (and you all know they would be)

JavaKnight
09-02-2009, 09:11 AM
If you want to use real line of site you need to have real scale ratio as well. Take for instance the DE's Talos its suppose to be a monsterous creature but you can hide it behind a small rock. In real scale a canon can shoot a few kilometers not as in 40K where you shoot 48" = about 500 Meters in real life. So on the table size we play 40K it would mean that the size of the models need to be about 2-3mm.:confused:

doskar
09-02-2009, 09:13 AM
Alzer has a good point. My deployment zone already looks like a parking lot, I cant imagine bigger rhinos.

AdorianBlade
09-02-2009, 09:15 AM
i don't think scaling "up" would be needed, i mean look at what most players in gw's fanbase play, marines

so scale down the other model ranges and leave vehicles caus honestly if you scale up veuhicles it just gets bulky but at least as far as infantry goes you could accuratly represent scale with a rather low impact change

Drunkencorgimaster
09-02-2009, 11:22 AM
I can prove part of this wrong, no offense. I have a terminator dated 1990* on the base tag, standing it next to one of the new SH terminators, it is the same size only the SH terminator is wider due to the posing. The shoulder pads and arms may be a tad bigger, which is good as they look kind of stubby on the old ones.

*Edit: It is actually 1989.

No offense taken EG, but your post does not actually prove anything. Your have simply made a statement. I likewise cannot prove anything over this forum. Unfortunately, none of us could prove much unless several BoLS members could get together and measure heads, arms, legs, etc. I suppose somebody could post pictures of the two side-by-side and let everyone vote.

In my opinon though, GW would be hard-pressed in a court of law to demonstrate that their figures have remained consistently sized.

McPherson
09-02-2009, 11:41 AM
I think the scale that is around right now works fine.

Yes some things seem a little off, but no more than any other miniatures game (outside the ultra-realistic scaling of historical wargaming) Though all these complaints about scale creep is beyond me - yes the models have in general gotten a bit larger as time as moved on and people asked for more detail and bigger/better models. Especially when it came to Terminators wher ethe old metal terminators looked anything but awe inspiring next to plastic power armor marines.

Thigns are good right now - I dont think we need to switch things up or down.

Gotthammer
09-02-2009, 12:36 PM
I think the current scale is fine. I would dislike seeing marines become '8ft tall', as my chapter fluff has them at around 6' - 6'10" at most. Helps them fit in places with low ceilings ;)

And re: scale creep:

Three generations of Marines:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/40k/marinescale.jpg

RT metal, 2nd ed Metal/plastic, current plastic.


Three generations of Terminators:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/40k/termiescale.jpg

RT metal, 2nd ed metal (Deathwing Box), current plastic.

Terminators are bigger, quite a bit in fact, but it works for them. Marines aren't too much taller, but they are certainly bulkier.

Blue Beetle
09-02-2009, 02:11 PM
The Marines' scale is fine. It's the Guardsmen that were made too big.;)

JamesP
09-03-2009, 04:52 AM
If you want to use real line of site you need to have real scale ratio as well. Take for instance the DE's Talos its suppose to be a monsterous creature but you can hide it behind a small rock. In real scale a canon can shoot a few kilometers not as in 40K where you shoot 48" = about 500 Meters in real life. So on the table size we play 40K it would mean that the size of the models need to be about 2-3mm.:confused:

Somewhere lurking in the back of the Rogue Trader book, I think in the designer's notes from Rick Priestly, was some musings on why they'd decided on the weapons ranges that are used for 40k (the reason was that, as in WFB, they work well for what they wanted from the game) and also some ideas on scaling up the ranges to be more realistic.

IIRC, energy weapons got their range increased a bit, the range of solid shot weapons went up even further and the range of rockets and missiles was increased further still.

We tried using those rules but it made it a very, very different game as you'd imagine - shooting ruled and clsoe combat rarely happened. Close combat marines found themselves being picked off by Orks with bolters from five feet away.

I'll check my RT book and see what the instructions about scaling up ranges said. It was either in that book or some designer's notes in WD about the time RT came out.

JamesP
09-03-2009, 04:57 AM
Marines aren't too much taller, but they are certainly bulkier.

Comparing your RT marine with the current plastic, it looks like the current model is a head taller than the RT one. Is that right, or is that because the RT marine is in a more crouching pose?

I find that the size difference is a bit noticeable. I tried adding a servo-harness to the metal RT marine with the oversized head & scanner on his arm, to make a techmarine. The harness was so big it looked more like some bizarre penitent engine :(

Denzark
09-03-2009, 05:12 AM
I think the current scale is fine. I would dislike seeing marines become '8ft tall', as my chapter fluff has them at around 6' - 6'10" at most. Helps them fit in places with low ceilings ;)

And re: scale creep:

Three generations of Marines:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/40k/marinescale.jpg

RT metal, 2nd ed Metal/plastic, current plastic.


Three generations of Terminators:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/40k/termiescale.jpg

RT metal, 2nd ed metal (Deathwing Box), current plastic.

Terminators are bigger, quite a bit in fact, but it works for them. Marines aren't too much taller, but they are certainly bulkier.



CHRIST! Isn't RETRO the new black?

Lindargo
09-03-2009, 05:53 AM
I think that vehicles would be bigger and Eldar and HUmans smaller, but then they would be hard to paint and vehicles would cost us mortgages!

Pietia
09-03-2009, 06:31 AM
The marines are supposed to be 8 feet tall, right? They are something like 33-35mm from the soles of their feet to the top of the helmet right now. Believe it or not, but it translates to 1/72 scale exactly :D .
So - a space marine next to a guardsman should look something like this:

http://urbanzone.ehost.pl/blog/wp-content/gallery/exorcist-space-marines/sdc10654_0.jpg

Gotthammer
09-03-2009, 12:18 PM
Comparing your RT marine with the current plastic, it looks like the current model is a head taller than the RT one. Is that right, or is that because the RT marine is in a more crouching pose

It's an optical illusion caused by my adding in a bunch of yaw to the picture, sto the back and foreground has an angel to it. If you scroll your browser window so that th etop of it is level with the new marine's backpack it'll make it clearer.

Most of the height gain seems to be in the legs, which are much bulkier.


Denzark - they're black because they're RT Dark Angels.


Pietia - whislt true, you run into the problem of proportions. The 1/72nd dude is close to normal human proportions, while a marine's fingers reach his knees while standing, but he can barely touch his opposite shoulder.


As for the RT increased range rules, it's near the beginning of the equipment section, titled 'A note on effective ranges" (pg 68).

There is some blurb about ranges being designed to make the game playable, and how more theoretically powerful and long range weapons are producable, but the mindset/tech level of the time requires simpla and sturdy weapons and that close in fighting is seen as the 'right' way to fight ("brute force and fear are the most potent of all weapons")

Projectile weapons can fire up to 10x their normal range, energy weapons and primitive weapons 5x. Beamers and grenades are as normal regardless. A roll of 6 is required before the normal BS roll, and the S of the weapon is at -1 if it is greater than the weapon's normal maximum range.

Sasquatch1916
09-03-2009, 03:13 PM
my Marines are fine the way they are, it's my tanks that need to be bigger. much bigger.

BlacknightIII
09-03-2009, 07:22 PM
I think for the 40k game the current scale is fair but i do think that GW should release a collectors range or a modellers range where the models have greater detail and are closer to proper scale. The Inquisitor range is ok but it isnt very customizable and is quite limited.