Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SO, I'm ranting but...

Has GW recently adopted a policy of 'Model Creep'. It seems like they're trying to make bigger, more expensive models. The recent armies have all had huge kits, from the Baneblade through to the Valkyrie and the recent Tyranid codex and it's billion or so monstrous creatures. Hell, it all started with that darn defiler...

I must say, I'm not a fan at all. I like my little guys. I like that they all fit in my case. Is 40k going to end up as 'everyone has to have a great big model to win'?

I'm not a fan either, but for a different reason:

It removes some of the tactics and mobility from the game.

If you play on a 4x6 table or smaller, and you have Valks, Baneblades, etc. on the table, they take up a lot of real estate. That limits your ability to maneuver, and the game gets "sticky" for lack of a better term.

I also think that 'scale' is off with these larger creatures and vehicles. If I wanted to use Baneblades, I'd play epic. 40k is supposed to be a smaller battle that is part of a larger struggle, but while army sizes have been increasing, so have model sizes. Pretty soon the standard table top will have to ballon up to 4x8 or maybe 5x10 to accomodate.

Coming soon, the official GW 6x12 table! Preorder yours today, only $9999.99!

I'll take eight!

I would disagree with you guys.

A Trygon is smaller than a Landraider, first of all, and baneblades, or dfilers are not that much larger.

Second, there is a difference between model size increases and making bigger models. The size of a normal space marine has not changed too much over the last couple of years, and thier base size has not changed even a millimeter.

Sure some Limited quantity troops like terminators have gotten larger, but fluff wise that was always the case and it allows the models to have more detail and look cooler.

Also BOLS had a good article on Reserves in 5th ed. They are available in EVERY mission, and people are begining to take advantage of it. 40k is no longer the pitched battle game that it once was, and you are going to start seeing games that are something like this, Early Game manuevering, middle game reserve bash, Late game clears up and manuever for obj.

At least that's my opinion. In the end, I dont think that were gonna be moving to a larger board size anytime soon. Reserves can be useful, use em, it changes the tactics of the game, but also gives new tactics to use.

Cruentus wrote:I'm not a fan either, but for a different reason:

It removes some of the tactics and mobility from the game.

If you play on a 4x6 table or smaller, and you have Valks, Baneblades, etc. on the table, they take up a lot of real estate. That limits your ability to maneuver, and the game gets "sticky" for lack of a better term.

I also think that 'scale' is off with these larger creatures and vehicles. If I wanted to use Baneblades, I'd play epic. 40k is supposed to be a smaller battle that is part of a larger struggle, but while army sizes have been increasing, so have model sizes. Pretty soon the standard table top will have to ballon up to 4x8 or maybe 5x10 to accomodate.

You don't have Baneblades in standard games, so your point is moot.

Valkyries, in addition to 'taking up a lot of real estate' also take up a fair amounts of points. So again...point is moot.

And 4x6 or smaller? Really? Do you guys play in a closet?

Cruentus wrote:I'm not a fan either, but for a different reason:

It removes some of the tactics and mobility from the game.

If you play on a 4x6 table or smaller, and you have Valks, Baneblades, etc. on the table, they take up a lot of real estate. That limits your ability to maneuver, and the game gets "sticky" for lack of a better term.

I also think that 'scale' is off with these larger creatures and vehicles. If I wanted to use Baneblades, I'd play epic. 40k is supposed to be a smaller battle that is part of a larger struggle, but while army sizes have been increasing, so have model sizes. Pretty soon the standard table top will have to ballon up to 4x8 or maybe 5x10 to accomodate.

the only place you can use baneblades is an apocalyspe game though...


i think that the next edition of 40k needs a system akin the WFB where you only get a certain amount of certain slots at every point level and you need a certain amount of troops aswell.

twistinthunder wrote:

the only place you can use baneblades is an apocalyspe game though...


i think that the next edition of 40k needs a system akin the WFB where you only get a certain amount of certain slots at every point level and you need a certain amount of troops aswell.

They already have that though. Each army has a FOC with 1 HQ, 2 troops mandatory and maximums for the other unit types.

GW has always had a little bit of model creep, but most of it was a matter of scale creep. Just compare terminiators, rhinos, LRs, dreadnoughts, Guardsmen, etc from the past and present.

As to the New models that happen to be huge...

Gargants and Baneblades, are pretty much an apocalypse thing, they shouldn't be considered model creep because they aren't intended to be on a standard table or in standard games.

Valks could definitley be model creep, but I'm so glad to finally be able to own a proper dropship, a that I don't care about creep. Plus, it's comparatively small base, shouldn't interfere with tabletop metrics too much. I'll have to wait and see what truely huge vehicles come out in the future before I make a final judgment, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if model creep was the way of the future.

There is certainly one clear answer.

Points costs. If folks play 1k armies on big table then it limits the 'megamodels' making an appearance.

Not to mention many people forget the utility of having lots of small models. I think that people are, like orks, fixated on the big stuff because it takes more skill to use the small stuff effectively.

Kanluwen wrote:
And 4x6 or smaller? Really? Do you guys play in a closet?

4x6 is standard table size.

Cruentus wrote:

I also think that 'scale' is off with these larger creatures and vehicles. If I wanted to use Baneblades, I'd play epic. 40k is supposed to be a smaller battle that is part of a larger struggle,

So by that logic why are important named characters running around fighting in such tiny skirmishes? i assume you don't use any of them or condone their use either?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
And 4x6 or smaller? Really? Do you guys play in a closet?

4x6 is standard table size.

Not MY standard table size! *shakes fist*

I hate big models. Put them in dioramas or something. I'll take hordes of guys any day.

agnosto wrote:

twistinthunder wrote:

the only place you can use baneblades is an apocalyspe game though...


i think that the next edition of 40k needs a system akin the WFB where you only get a certain amount of certain slots at every point level and you need a certain amount of troops aswell.

They already have that though. Each army has a FOC with 1 HQ, 2 troops mandatory and maximums for the other unit types.

i not a i know that if you READ my ENTIRE sentence you would have found this:

"...at every point level ..."

you then would have realised i meant a system (LIKE WFB's, oh wait i said that!) such as:

at 1500pt games you must have:
1+heroes (no specials)
3+ troops

you can then have:
0-2 elites
0-3 FA
0-1 HS

not a fixed list until you decide to play apocalypse but a list that changes what you need/can have depending on the point size(like WFB's, see i even said a again for you).

Kanluwen wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
And 4x6 or smaller? Really? Do you guys play in a closet?

4x6 is standard table size.

Not MY standard table size! *shakes fist*

Nuh uh!

@ above: remember kanluwen isnt a GW drone and as such uses bigger than their tiny "you must use this!" realm of battle board.

6'x6' is a good size for a table.

twistinthunder wrote:@ above: remember kanluwen isnt a GW drone and as such uses bigger than their tiny "you must use this!" realm of battle board.

But...I've been called a GW apologist for ages...when did I stop being a drone?

Is this what freedom feels like?!

I use a 6x4 board as Fantasy tends to play best on it (much bigger and small armies either get horribly outmanouvered, or certain units barely a get shoe in having been deployed wide).

Also consider the average available space. 6x4 is in my experience the most common.

As for bigger models. Well, it's something cool to build, model and paint isn't it? Plus it makes larger points more accessible straight off the bat, as you don't need dozens, if not hundreds of footsloggers. Which also slows the game down during movement.

Bigger models = better standard of painting/detail= happier players.

@kanluwen: yes yes it is, i have granted you freedom from you chains, just remember to give me blood and skulls as worship tokens or ill put you right back in AGAIN! MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I think the real issue that should be looked at is inverse point creep... as models get cheaper in points you field more models. This effect takes up more real estate than large models. What it boils down to is, as GW tries to get us to pack more models on to the table for the average sized game, we simply need to decrease the number points used in an average sized game to maintain a viable amount of playable space on the table. In 3rd edition 2000pts wasn't that many models, unless you were a hoard army. Now non-hoard armies sometimes have as many models as the hoard of 3rd edition.

As a miniature company GW's goal is to get us to a point where a 6x4 table is so packed with minis GW no longer needs to write movement rules, just ammend casualties with removing from back edge of table and reserves filling their space.

twistinthunder wrote:

agnosto wrote:

twistinthunder wrote:

the only place you can use baneblades is an apocalyspe game though...


i think that the next edition of 40k needs a system akin the WFB where you only get a certain amount of certain slots at every point level and you need a certain amount of troops aswell.

They already have that though. Each army has a FOC with 1 HQ, 2 troops mandatory and maximums for the other unit types.

i not a i know that if you READ my ENTIRE sentence you would have found this:

"...at every point level ..."

you then would have realised i meant a system (LIKE WFB's, oh wait i said that!) such as:

at 1500pt games you must have:
1+heroes (no specials)
3+ troops

you can then have:
0-2 elites
0-3 FA
0-1 HS

not a fixed list until you decide to play apocalypse but a list that changes what you need/can have depending on the point size(like WFB's, see i even said a again for you).

[shrug] No reason to get your knickers in a twist it was a simple misunderstanding. I took the meaning of "a certain amount of certain slots" literally, was unaware that points had anything to do with it.

Cruentus wrote:I'm not a fan either, but for a different reason:

It removes some of the tactics and mobility from the game.

If you play on a 4x6 table or smaller, and you have Valks, Baneblades, etc. on the table, they take up a lot of real estate. That limits your ability to maneuver, and the game gets "sticky" for lack of a better term.

I also think that 'scale' is off with these larger creatures and vehicles. If I wanted to use Baneblades, I'd play epic. 40k is supposed to be a smaller battle that is part of a larger struggle, but while army sizes have been increasing, so have model sizes. Pretty soon the standard table top will have to ballon up to 4x8 or maybe 5x10 to accomodate.

You use baneblades on a 4x6 table? Yeah, that might feel a little tight for apocalypse games. We use 6'x 32', but the minimum I'd ever use a baneblade on was a 6x8.

Nurglitch wrote:Not to mention many people forget the utility of having lots of small models. I think that people are, like orks, fixated on the big stuff because it takes more skill to use the small stuff effectively.

To quote Michael Scott, "That's what she said!"

I agree with the model creep being more about the universal lowering of points costs to drive sales of more models. The effect of having 4-8 vehicles per side or vast horde armies is much more profound than something like the Baneblade or even the tourney-legal monstrous creatures, etc. They make the tables more packed and condense (which is cool in a way) but also lengthen the game.

Exactly, but if players really want to play more packed in games, they can simply play on a smaller table.

CT GAMER wrote:

Cruentus wrote:I also think that 'scale' is off with these larger creatures and vehicles. If I wanted to use Baneblades, I'd play epic. 40k is supposed to be a smaller battle that is part of a larger struggle,

So by that logic why are important named characters running around fighting in such tiny skirmishes? i assume you don't use any of them or condone their use either?

The point was that it's not necessarily a tiny skirmish. A 40K game is a 'snapshot' of one portion of the larger battle being fought.

aka_mythos wrote:I think the real issue that should be looked at is inverse point creep... as models get cheaper in points you field more models. This effect takes up more real estate than large models. What it boils down to is, as GW tries to get us to pack more models on to the table for the average sized game,

I think this is definitely happening. Forces get bigger and bigger until even non horde armies start looking hord'ish

aka_mythos wrote:
we simply need to decrease the number points used in an average sized game to maintain a viable amount of playable space on the table...
...As a miniature company GW's goal is to get us to a point where a 6x4 table is so packed with minis GW no longer needs to write movement rules, just ammend casualties with removing from back edge of table and reserves filling their space.

Limiting the number of points used is one solution, but I think an equally good solution hides in your last line. Reserves. In a game with universal access to reserves, there is rarely a need to have your entire army on the board at once, and most often it's too your advantage not too.

Of course this could be part of an evil plan to make us buy more miniatures by taking away the limiting nature of a limited deployment area by giving us unlimited reserves.

-Hey kid, buy yourself 3 more Basiliks and another infantry platoon.
-But I've already got 12"x72" of guardsmen!
-Don't worry about it kid, just put them in reserve....