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.

Going back to the problem of model creep... I think beyond what I already said was the biggest issue with models getting per point cheaper, I think the issue isn't really model creep per se. Its Scope Creep. What the average sized 40k game is suppose to represent relative to the "War" has shifted. The inclusion of reserves was the first step, the inclusion of larger units was the next. Another example of this is the inclusion of non-entity attacks... Attacks that originate from units that are not on the table. A chapter master calling in a battle barge to shoot on his call, a IG commander calling in barrage fire from "artillery" or even a Trygon who's first appearance is preceded by an attack without actually being on the table. This things are great thematic devices but show a push towards the larger "scope" the game is attempting to portray.

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.

wonderful idea, though there is a guy at my flgs who would hate this: he showed up to "ard Boyz with a marine list thet was all flash. 5 scouts, 5 Tac Marines and a whole bucket of non-scoring crap. calgar AND a chaptermaster! 10 termies! 5 Sterngaurd! and TANKS!!!!

i digress.

Valks on their flying base take up less space on a table than a land raider. FACT. i LIKE the biger and Badder models: they look epic compared to a standard infantry model. the trygon is nice, it dwarfs the rest of the army, making it more the sweeter to gaze apon.

ArbitorIan wrote: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...

No, it's a policy of AWESOMENESS!

They're not merely "trying", they're *succeeding*. I'm proud to say that I own:
- 1 Dragon
- 2 Giants
- 1 Land Raider
- 3 Defilers
- 3 Baneblade-class superheavy tanks
- 3 Valkyries
If I restart a couple projects, sign me up for a couple Trygons...

Actually, if you remember back in the day, iit started with the Land Raider mk.III... And the Falcon before that!

RaegMachine wrote:If you never want to find a game go play epic

Fixed that for you.

I used to live in dorms and it was impossible to get a game in. Then again, I only had a little 2x2 table unless I wanted to clear off multiple computer desks. Now I've got an apartment with a few folding tables and I haven't had any problems.

Well, maybe GW is attempting to update models to reflect relative size. The last Ork Trukk for instance in relation to the new line of Ork Boyz was small. Fluff wise, I found it very hard to imagine all those orks on that transport. The new ork Trukk looks better and thematically, big enough to accomodate the load it carries into clobberin' range.

Perhaps the "creep" is meant to reflect the relative size of bigger models to what their smaller models now look like.

Unquestionably, GW is bringing non-Tank vehicle scale in line with infantry scale. That is why the Valk is enormous compared to things like the Chimera or Russ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:It might surprise a lot of Americans, but most people I know cannot get a four by six gaming table into their tiny European apartments or even houses. The space just isn't there.

You can't make a folding 4'x6' table topper that sits atop the dinnertable???

JohnHwangDD wrote:Unquestionably, GW is bringing non-Tank vehicle scale in line with infantry scale. That is why the Valk is enormous compared to things like the Chimera or Russ.

I think that was unintentional on GW's part. Its more in scale because FW made the original model for the Valkyrie and their full kits are more consistent to scale. GW just copied the FW model.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:It might surprise a lot of Americans, but most people I know cannot get a four by six gaming table into their tiny European apartments or even houses. The space just isn't there.

You can't make a folding 4'x6' table topper that sits atop the dinnertable???

Make? Do you think most people have the table saw and other tools required to cut fiberboard or plywood to size? Even if they did, there's still the problem of storage. To say nothing of the logistical problems related to using a table you might want to eat dinner off of. Yes, it can be done, but not by everyone and not painlessly.

I remember when a land raider was usually the most expensive thing I would see on a table...ya thats changed big time hell I wwent and saw the prices on a lot of the beastmen stuff and choked they were so high. With the Global economy in the tube atm most companies have cut profit margins to stay afloat were as GW increased...anyone see something wrong with this?

Heres a few more points as fuel for the fire... (or GW 'funeral pyre' should i say? )

The new battle missions book has certainly given rise to model creep. My sole point for this is the IG mission where it's x3 super heavy tanks vs opposing army. I bet the IG player has fun moving those 3 tanks however many inches...

And another thing I've noticed, is that GW is consistantly trying to find ways to add as many minis to your army as possible (which i guess is their point to having a successful business).

But, what i mean is...

We start off with the rulebook with 3 missions. You choose (and let's say) 1500pts of minis. So you go and buy them, paint, play etc.

THEN, they say try 'cities of death'. Buy more minis to suit this particular style of gaming. So off you go and purchase MORE minis.

THEN, they release 'planetstrike', 'apocalypse', and now the battle missions where there is every FOC under the sun and you are not so much forced as 'strongly suggested' (ie GW jedi mind trick hand wave thing) to buy the rest of the range of minis just so you can compete in each of these styles of games.

This is GREAT cross-selling by GW... and what do they do when they've run out of ideas? Just release the next ed rulebook and all associated codices and minis along with it. Not so good for the rest of us that are left to choose whether to cough up the minerals to GW or choose to play another way, something else, or whatever.

...

Anyway, I'm having fun... with my foil hat, and mumbling about GW conspiracy theories that are the potholes in our roads (which i swear IS a conspiracy theory between the governement and independent tyre retailers

snowman40k wrote:
And another thing I've noticed, is that GW is consistantly trying to find ways to add as many minis to your army as possible (which i guess is their point to having a successful business).

I agree that this is part of GW's marketing, but I look at it as a possibly good thing. In regular 40k games, it tends to become fairly clear, fairly quickly that certain units just aren't great. Every unit can be taken sometime, but in general, the standard missions tend to relegate certain units to 2nd class status.

CoD, Planetstrike, Apocalpyse, and now Battle Missions go a long way towards creating environments that encourage the use of these formerly 2nd class units. It may make a specialized, tooled-up comp list less effective, but it does allow those who may have collected widely across their codex to bring units to the table that might otherwise be relegated to the display shelf.

My point of view is probably more beneficial to those who like collecting larger armies that include less tourney-desirable units. However, I have a hunch there's alot of folks out there who assemble armies as much based on models as on game usefullness and would relish the chance to play those units in a setting where they can really shine.

I don't think it is a new phenomenon by any means, see the old style land raider for an example of model growth. That being said, there is a difference between increasing the size of a model to conform with scale and simply ballooning the size for no good reason.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Unquestionably, GW is bringing non-Tank vehicle scale in line with infantry scale. That is why the Valk is enormous compared to things like the Chimera or Russ.

I think that was unintentional on GW's part. Its more in scale because FW made the original model for the Valkyrie and their full kits are more consistent to scale. GW just copied the FW model.

I wouldn't really say that. Look at the Tau Devilfish. It's pretty well in line with how the technical drawings Forge World did later on are.

Personally, I kind of agree that 40k would be better played on a 5x8' at least, and probably a 5-6x10 table at best. I haven't made a table that large for myself yet, but the historical gamer in me longs for a table that will allow more manuever, as well as a longer duration game to support it.

At the same time, I think that limiting games to 1500-1750 makes a lot of sense on a 4x6 board too if you find it a bit crowded, especially with newer codexes having cheaper transports.

However, GW really does need to get their scale straight. Perhaps by making their IG and the like actually 28mm or so, sort of like the FW Elysians. They wouldn't need to make their marines, but they would be proportionally sized towards everything else. No matter what they do though, they need to pick a scale and stick with it.

Back in the days of Rogue Trader, we grumbled about not having models for vehicles, monsters and the like. Seems daft to grumble about them now that they're finally arriving on a wide scale.

That said, I enjoy smaller infantry based games more, so I can see where the OP is coming from. I think the key to Wargaming nirvana is to have a collection of models, both infantry and bigger stuff and make room for both types of games.

I find it enjoyable to build up a large army of say 2000pts and pick a force from what I have for a 1000 point game. But it's also fun getting all the big stuff out of box for the odd mega game too.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

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

It might surprise a lot of Americans, but most people I know cannot get a four by six gaming table into their tiny European apartments or even houses. The space just isn't there.

Priorities...how much furniture do you need? I mean a bed....or a bed / couch!...Tatami mats....or just huddle in the corner burning coal for warmth.

Seriously I lived in an apartment..I know the plight. I mean its a card table 4x4 if can at all(city fight?), or a hobby shop/friends house.

As for model creep in size, I do see larger models appealing to painters. You do not see many models of great size in games under 1k though. There is always 1 guy though who has like the bare minimum troops and a HUGE nid or something. If you compare the size of other models they are a little more spendy as well. It is a niche market though, hobby stores do not make HUGE profits if they even profit at all. Having larger models for Apoc games also allows much older players who have about every model to field something new to buy.

The thing that gets me is power creep, it happens in all games such as this (more so in games like magic the gathering). Some posters have already pointed out the number of models increasing for the point costs. The power level between old vs new is always key too.

Anyways, there goes my break at work.....Sorry if there is bad spelling/grammar! I can edit when I get home.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:You can't make a folding 4'x6' table topper that sits atop the dinnertable???

Make? Do you think most people have the table saw and other tools required to cut fiberboard or plywood to size?

Even if they did, there's still the problem of storage.

To say nothing of the logistical problems related to using a table you might want to eat dinner off of. Yes, it can be done, but not by everyone and not painlessly.

It's very easy to find excuses not to do something.

You can get the board(s) cut to size (2x 4'x3') at the lumber yard / hardware store. If you have friends, usually, somebody has a circle saw or table saw. If you're any sort of man at all, you should have basic tools for final assembly.

A table topper stores flat under a bed, and a folder stores upright in a closet.

You can't buy and attach rubber bumpers under the table topper so it doesn't scratch the table? You can't get a big piece of flannel or foam rubber?
____

snowman40k wrote: And another thing I've noticed, is that GW is consistantly trying to find ways to add as many minis to your army as possible

Nothing forces you to play big games if you don't want to. We did a 1000-pt round-robin event last time, and it was great fun. It's all about having more choices and some basic structure to keep things simple for everyone. But the idea that one must buy huge armies doesn't fly.

You *choose* to buy a big army.
____

Wehrkind wrote:40k would be better played on a 5x8' at least, and probably a 5-6x10 table at best.

the historical gamer in me longs for a table that will allow more manuever, as well as a longer duration game to support it.

GW really does need to get their scale straight. Perhaps by making their IG and the like actually 28mm or so, sort of like the FW Elysians. ... No matter what they do though, they need to pick a scale and stick with it.

5' deep gives a big bias toward shooting. 5'x10' says you need Deep Strikers, Fast Skimmers, and Basilisks.

If you want to maneuver on the board, play Epic.

Actually, GW has gotten figure scale straightened out. This is especially visible in WFB, with new minis being well-sized for each army, proportional to other minis in other armies.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:40k would be better played on a 5x8' at least, and probably a 5-6x10 table at best.

the historical gamer in me longs for a table that will allow more manuever, as well as a longer duration game to support it.

GW really does need to get their scale straight. Perhaps by making their IG and the like actually 28mm or so, sort of like the FW Elysians. ... No matter what they do though, they need to pick a scale and stick with it.

5' deep gives a big bias toward shooting. 5'x10' says you need Deep Strikers, Fast Skimmers, and Basilisks.

If you want to maneuver on the board, play Epic.

Actually, GW has gotten figure scale straightened out. This is especially visible in WFB, with new minis being well-sized for each army, proportional to other minis in other armies.

5' doesn't give a particular bias towards shooting if you use sufficient terrain. Likewise, a good terrain layout encourages feints and maneuver.
Also, pointing out that at 5'x10' you need DS, Fast Skimmers and Bassies... good? Bassies are currently under used due to their awkward ranging requirements, and fast skimmers are cool precisely because they can zip around and maneuver, yet are under used. DS is pretty necessary now anyway.

I would agree that you would have to choose your army comp based on the slightly different movement requirements, and armies like Daemons with lots of initial DS mobility but a lack later on would hurt a bit. Still, I think a really good 40k experience would be 2000-3000 points a side on a 5x10 table, perhaps 10 turns long. Set that up in your basement or dining room, and allow enough time to either finish the game in one afternoon or leave it be till the next day to finish. I still play 2000 on a 4x6 like everyone else, but I think the sheer number of models is starting to suggest a larger table, and the rules for some units make them less than desirable in a small space.

As to scale, when a Space Marine is taller than a Cadian, tell me that GW's scale is reasonably consistant. Until then, don't tell me that GW has their scale "figured out". WHFB might be getting better, and bully for them, but the recent SM and IG releases didn't do anything to fix 40k. Also, I think the daemonettes got about 2-3' scale feet taller with their plastic kits, but I suppose daemons can be whatever size.

2mm wargaming is the way to go, guys.

2mm wargaming is the way to go, guys.

haha! and simple drybrushing ftw!

Personally me & my friends try to play on as big a table as possible. Usually we play on an 8X12 and increase the number of turns. We tend to say "A real battle would not start so close together" and while sometimes it may (In densely terrained areas) usually we feel that there should be more than 2-3 turns before a non-mech unit can get in CC.

On a side note this has nothing to do with the fact that the focus is slightly in CC's favor over shooting. Though they have fixed it slightly (I.E. new rules for shooting then assaulting)

@wehrkind: you know, you can always use Reserves to avoid overcrowding the table...

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you're any sort of man at all, you should have basic tools for final assembly.

Isn't that just the poster child for belligerent American masculinity? God forbid not everyone should fit into the same mould sent to us from above and propagated by the multi-billion-dollar media.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you're any sort of man at all, you should have basic tools for final assembly.

Isn't that just the poster child for belligerent American masculinity? God forbid not everyone should fit into the same mould sent to us from above and propagated by the multi-billion-dollar media.

Hammer, handsaw, screwdriver(Phillip's head and flathead), folding table legs.

And a healthy dose of ballsdraggingtheground syndrome.


I jest, I jest.
But a modular table really doesn't actually require all the specialized tools you seem to believe, Agamemnon. I can't think of anyone who used a table saw working on theirs.

Not really.

It's not like I'm looking down on people for not buying pro-grade Makita and having a full wordworking / machine shop capability, but I simply can't conceive of any normal guy not having simple basics like screwdrivers, hammer, pliers, drill, etc.

Kanluwen wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you're any sort of man at all, you should have basic tools for final assembly.

Isn't that just the poster child for belligerent American masculinity? God forbid not everyone should fit into the same mould sent to us from above and propagated by the multi-billion-dollar media.

Hammer, handsaw, screwdriver(Phillip's head and flathead), folding table legs.

And a healthy dose of ballsdraggingtheground syndrome.


I jest, I jest.
But a modular table really doesn't actually require all the specialized tools you seem to believe, Agamemnon. I can't think of anyone who used a table saw working on theirs.

Home Despot....scuse me...Home Depot and I am sure their competitors make 2 free cuts ( each additional cut .25 cents, although I have never been charged for them) on any lumber you buy. It is how I got a 4' x 8' OSB (plywood) home. They will do it for you. Then all you need is a screwdriver and screws if you want hinges on it. So 7 or 8 bucks for OSB, then 15 cents a screw, couple bucks for hinges and a cars backseat. 10 - 12 bucks gets you the foundation, it's the terrain that will drain your wallet.

Still does not solve the space issue at home! But it does save you from borrowing or buying a table saw.

Is this going off topic? From mini's growing in size = needing bigger playing areas = home square footage and its uses.

I totally undestand and support Agammenon2 with the board stuff.

I feel lucky because I have a standard table permanently mounted. 180x120cm, wich I think it is 6'x4'. But I don't have it in my own home, it is mounted in a premises* that my father owns. I've been threatened by him on dismounting it a couple of times

Between the gamers I know in my city, I would say that only 3 or 4 guys own a gaming board. And they don't live in the city, they live in small villages with big houses. City gamers play in LGS.

Most of times, people here lacks of:

a) space to put all this.

b) tools, resources and skill.

c) both of them.



* premises... Is that word ok? LOL I mean a small local, a place where my father has a workbench, similar to a garage, but in a different building than their home.

Kanluwen wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Unquestionably, GW is bringing non-Tank vehicle scale in line with infantry scale. That is why the Valk is enormous compared to things like the Chimera or Russ.

I think that was unintentional on GW's part. Its more in scale because FW made the original model for the Valkyrie and their full kits are more consistent to scale. GW just copied the FW model.

I wouldn't really say that. Look at the Tau Devilfish. It's pretty well in line with how the technical drawings Forge World did later on are.

I was speaking specifically of his example. The valkyrie was a FW model long before it was a GW plastic kit and FW just tries harder when it comes to scale.

This just in: GW tries to make money by selling plastic models. Full story at 11.