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.

I have never once seen the cadians as children, and they were what got me into Warhammer in 2008 (although I didn't start playing until 2012) when I bought the box of 20 guardsmen and thought to myself, 'Damn this is cool'. I don't want them changed, no thank you.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I have never once seen the cadians as children

they must be dwarfs then, with those proportions

I don't see the resemblance.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I have never once seen the cadians as children, and they were what got me into Warhammer in 2008 (although I didn't start playing until 2012) when I bought the box of 20 guardsmen and thought to myself, 'Damn this is cool'. I don't want them changed, no thank you.

I also love the Cadian aesthetic but unlike you I think it's really ruined by the terrible proportions of the models.

I have a bunch of Cadian models already, but I'd throw them in the trash and buy twice as many again if GW released Cadians with the same aesthetic but proportioned closer to actual humans, similar to the DKOK and Elysians from FW.

To be honest I think I prefer the practicality and visual impact of loose/heroic scale.

Not only is it much easier to visually scan WYSIYG with oversized weapons, but other oversized details allow you to really elaborate the details of the model, particularly the faces and battle markings, allowing you to add character to your (anti)heroes and armies.

As it is I struggle with detailing the open surfaces and practicality of transporting vehicle models. It would be a lot harder to transport all those tanks if the dimensions were doubled up!

I remember reading somewhere (a fan article) that the bolter on the model isn't meant to represent the bolter as it would properly scale. It's so big on the model because it represents the idea of a bolter, a (relatively) big gun that fires death and destruction. to the average imperial citizen (or to us today) the bolter would appear massive and deadly, so that's what gets shown on the model. and if they released new cadians I'd buy tons of them but I would keep my existing cadians.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I remember reading somewhere (a fan article) that the bolter on the model isn't meant to represent the bolter as it would properly scale.

Sounds like a fan article to me

I think the real reason is probably closer to the designer thinking the kids will think it looks cool.

Maybe back in the day (80's and perhaps early 90's) the GW of the day would have made big guns as an intentional parody on absurdity, I think from the late 90's onwards GW got lost in their own parody.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I don't see the resemblance.

Normal human proportions ---> 40K human minis ---> WHF Dwarf

Its on a continuum.

Or hobbits, not dwarfs, for that matter. Anyway they look like child-men, for lack of a better term, not grown up adult men.


I mean, you don't want your Army to look like Verne Troyer right?

Granted, they're not that bad, but still pretty bad when it comes to normal human proportions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nareik wrote:
To be honest I think I prefer the... visual impact of loose/heroic scale...oversized details allow you to really elaborate the details of the model, particularly the faces and battle markings, allowing you to add character...

But then when you look at the shape of the model as a whole, it loses its aesthetic.

I like heroic scale, It does not look like children or dwarfs to me.

If I wanted realism I would play historics.

 Rayvon wrote:
I like heroic scale, It does not look like children or dwarfs to me.

Look around at your fellow human beings though.

 Rayvon wrote:
If I wanted realism I would play historics.

I'm sure you wouldn't want the artwork (Guardsmen for example) to receive the same treatment.

Are you trying to have a genuine discussion, or debate? Or are you just complaining because you don't like the aesthetic? I guess I don't understand what it is you think you're going to accomplish here? GW isn't going to suddenly change the way they produce models.

If you don't like the aesthetic, don't play, or find an alternate line of models. Easy. It doesn't do any good with you responding "but yeah, they look like children!" to every single post in this thread. That's not producing anything.

If you want more slender stuff, go play Infinity. GW isn't going to change their style (if anything it's become more outrageous with the AoS lines of minis) so it's a rather moot point.

Nah. True scale at 28mm is horrible.

 Elbows wrote:
If you don't like the aesthetic, don't play, or find an alternate line of models. Easy.

Well, can't I criticize GW?

It's not exactly easy to simply feth off. I like WH40K! Just not the proportions of the minis.

 Elbows wrote:
Are you trying to have a genuine discussion, or debate? Or are you just complaining because you don't like the aesthetic? I guess I don't understand what it is you think you're going to accomplish here? GW isn't going to suddenly change the way they produce models.

I don't like the aesthetic, but I'm not insisting that everyone must dislike it. Yes, I am trying to have a genuine discussion.

Secondly, I haven't been doing a whole lot of complaining. Don't mistake my disagreements for complaints.

I'm not hoping for a sudden change either, that's unrealistic.

 Elbows wrote:
It doesn't do any good with you responding "but yeah, they look like children!" to every single post in this thread. That's not producing anything.

Because some people say, "I don't see it", and I'm just helping them to "see it". Don't mistake them for complaints. I'm just trying to bring across my point of view.

I don't want to be repetitive, but I'm responding to a different person each time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Byte wrote:
Nah. True scale at 28mm is horrible.

I saw some photos of some 3D printed realistically proportioned minis at 28mm once. Let me see if I can find them.

 Elbows wrote:
GW isn't going to suddenly change the way they produce models.

They might. They already changed once, look at the old Bretonnian models, they were much more realistically scaled. The old Cadians were a bit bobble headed but not as bad as many of the current models as far as being broad as a barn and guns so large they could barely be carried.

Also FW's DKOK have been hugely popular and are more realistically scaled.

GW rescaled skeletons to be more realistically scaled as well, remember the old skeletons with skulls larger than the heads on living humans?

I'm trying to think of recent regular human GW releases, most of the kits that come to mind actually come from the 00's. The Kairic Acolytes are more recent and have a super-buff-dudes aesthetic, but they do have better proportions that most of GW's humans from the 00's.

Popularity wise I don't think the Space Marine line would benefit hugely from being properly proportioned, other than maybe fixing up the legs so they don't look like they're squatting. Although they haven't been "truescaled" the Deathwatch and Thousand Sons Marines are finally standing upright after 30 or so years of Space Marines only ever being in their wide legged stance.

BUT, my understanding has been GW's regular human lines have been more touch and go on popularity. Given we've had the same plastic Cadian models for some 15 years I would say it's a real possibility GW might change the proportions to something more realistic if they thought it'd sell better.

Also people have been wanting female Cadians and IMO they'd work much better if GW shifted to more realistic proportions.

EDIT: Actually I think GW already have slightly changed their regular human aesthetic, most of the more recent kits that come to mind aren't nearly as bad as the Cadians, Bretonnians and Empire models that came out in the early 00's.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
GW isn't going to suddenly change the way they produce models.

They might. They already changed once, look at the old Bretonnian models, they were much more realistically scaled. The old Cadians were a bit bobble headed but not as bad as many of the current models as far as being broad as a barn and guns so large they could barely be carried.

Also FW's DKOK have been hugely popular and are more realistically scaled.

GW rescaled skeletons to be more realistically scaled as well, remember the old skeletons with skulls larger than the heads on living humans?

I'm trying to think of recent regular human GW releases, most of the kits that come to mind actually come from the 00's. The Kairic Acolytes are more recent and have a super-buff-dudes aesthetic, but they do have better proportions that most of GW's humans from the 00's.

Popularity wise I don't think the Space Marine line would benefit hugely from being properly proportioned, other than maybe fixing up the legs so they don't look like they're squatting. Although they haven't been "truescaled" the Deathwatch and Thousand Sons Marines are finally standing upright after 30 or so years of Space Marines only ever being in their wide legged stance.

BUT, my understanding has been GW's regular human lines have been more touch and go on popularity. Given we've had the same plastic Cadian models for some 15 years I would say it's a real possibility GW might change the proportions to something more realistic if they thought it'd sell better.

Also people have been wanting female Cadians and IMO they'd work much better if GW shifted to more realistic proportions.

EDIT: Actually I think GW already have slightly changed their regular human aesthetic, most of the more recent kits that come to mind aren't nearly as bad as the Cadians, Bretonnians and Empire models that came out in the early 00's.

Are the old Bretonnians good or bad?

FW's DKOK is still pretty child-like IMO, from the pics I've seen.

Kairic Acolytes are much better. Why can't SM be like that?

Maximus Bitch wrote:
Are the old Bretonnians good or bad?

They're still hero scale, but they're not nearly as bad as the Bretonnians released in later editions.

IMO the worst period for GW's proportions of regular humans was when the plastic Bretonnians and Cadians were released, which I believe was the early 00's.

The Kairic Acolytes are really nice. Unfortunately I don't have a Tzeentch fetish, if they'd come with regular non-Tzeentch heads I'd probably buy 60 of the buggers just for the fun of it. They're crazy muscular, but still have proper human proportions which make them really stunning (compared to, say, the Catachans).

I can live with a bit of hero scaling, but Cadians are just crazy bad, the new Reikland Reavers are also hero scale, but they look a lot nicer than Cadians because their hero scaling is somewhat consistent, Cadians have this tiny little chest on to which comically large arms and heads attach, the Reikland Reavers are very broad as well, but the torso is somewhat in proportion. They're also scaled a bit larger, so that their heads (which are about the same size as Cadians) fit their body better. Of course Cadians I'd prefer they kept them the same size and just trimmed down the oversized bits, because Cadians are already pretty large compared to Space Marines.

I don't mind the cartoony look and chunky scale - it's probably why it appealed so much when I was 15.

The things I could never get my head around, though, were how I've got guardsmen in boots/trousers that are as tall as a superhuman soldier in an exosuit. And how in the books you can conquer a planet with just 5 Astartes, but in game 5 Astartes are pretty useless.

Neither spoil the game or fluff for me, I know they kind of painted themselves into a hole in it. I just find it a bit odd.

Herzlos wrote:
I don't mind the cartoony look and chunky scale - it's probably why it appealed so much when I was 15.

The things I could never get my head around, though, were how I've got guardsmen in boots/trousers that are as tall as a superhuman soldier in an exosuit. And how in the books you can conquer a planet with just 5 Astartes, but in game 5 Astartes are pretty useless.

Neither spoil the game or fluff for me, I know they kind of painted themselves into a hole in it. I just find it a bit odd.

Interesting. I thought 15 was the age at which kids started turning away from the kiddie stuff and gravitated towards mature stuff. Some already at 14.

Thats cos they don't just want to sell 5 space marines haha


I never liked the look of the minis. But you know why I started this thread? Because one day, I was looking at my codex and a friend glanced at it. She asked me whether it was a game for young boys and whether I was getting it as a gift for a relative (young boy).


I asked her why and she mentioned that the minis had the proportions of children, Now I finally realised why I never liked the minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Are you trying to have a genuine discussion, or debate? Or are you just complaining because you don't like the aesthetic? I guess I don't understand what it is you think you're going to accomplish here? GW isn't going to suddenly change the way they produce models.

If you don't like the aesthetic, don't play, or find an alternate line of models. Easy. It doesn't do any good with you responding "but yeah, they look like children!" to every single post in this thread. That's not producing anything.

If you want more slender stuff, go play Infinity. GW isn't going to change their style (if anything it's become more outrageous with the AoS lines of minis) so it's a rather moot point.

Maybe they could release two versions lol

Maximus Bitch wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I don't mind the cartoony look and chunky scale - it's probably why it appealed so much when I was 15.

The things I could never get my head around, though, were how I've got guardsmen in boots/trousers that are as tall as a superhuman soldier in an exosuit. And how in the books you can conquer a planet with just 5 Astartes, but in game 5 Astartes are pretty useless.

Neither spoil the game or fluff for me, I know they kind of painted themselves into a hole in it. I just find it a bit odd.

Interesting. I thought 15 was the age at which kids started turning away from the kiddie stuff and gravitated towards mature stuff. Some already at 14.

Thats cos they don't just want to sell 5 space marines haha


I never liked the look of the minis. But you know why I started this thread? Because one day, I was looking at my codex and a friend glanced at it. She asked me whether it was a game for young boys and whether I was getting it as a gift for a relative (young boy).


I asked her why and she mentioned that the minis had the proportions of children, Now I finally realised why I never liked the minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Are you trying to have a genuine discussion, or debate? Or are you just complaining because you don't like the aesthetic? I guess I don't understand what it is you think you're going to accomplish here? GW isn't going to suddenly change the way they produce models.

If you don't like the aesthetic, don't play, or find an alternate line of models. Easy. It doesn't do any good with you responding "but yeah, they look like children!" to every single post in this thread. That's not producing anything.

If you want more slender stuff, go play Infinity. GW isn't going to change their style (if anything it's become more outrageous with the AoS lines of minis) so it's a rather moot point.

Maybe they could release two versions lol

Or maybe you're 14 in your head and can't deal with the fact you're playing toy soldiers.

morgoth wrote:

Maximus Bitch wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I don't mind the cartoony look and chunky scale - it's probably why it appealed so much when I was 15.

The things I could never get my head around, though, were how I've got guardsmen in boots/trousers that are as tall as a superhuman soldier in an exosuit. And how in the books you can conquer a planet with just 5 Astartes, but in game 5 Astartes are pretty useless.

Neither spoil the game or fluff for me, I know they kind of painted themselves into a hole in it. I just find it a bit odd.

Interesting. I thought 15 was the age at which kids started turning away from the kiddie stuff and gravitated towards mature stuff. Some already at 14.

Thats cos they don't just want to sell 5 space marines haha


I never liked the look of the minis. But you know why I started this thread? Because one day, I was looking at my codex and a friend glanced at it. She asked me whether it was a game for young boys and whether I was getting it as a gift for a relative (young boy).


I asked her why and she mentioned that the minis had the proportions of children, Now I finally realised why I never liked the minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Are you trying to have a genuine discussion, or debate? Or are you just complaining because you don't like the aesthetic? I guess I don't understand what it is you think you're going to accomplish here? GW isn't going to suddenly change the way they produce models.

If you don't like the aesthetic, don't play, or find an alternate line of models. Easy. It doesn't do any good with you responding "but yeah, they look like children!" to every single post in this thread. That's not producing anything.

If you want more slender stuff, go play Infinity. GW isn't going to change their style (if anything it's become more outrageous with the AoS lines of minis) so it's a rather moot point.

Maybe they could release two versions lol

Or maybe you're 14 in your head and can't deal with the fact you're playing toy soldiers.

ooh much burn


Its just a critique on the look. I mean, I don't have the same issue with 40K artwork.

And, if the artwork started having the same proportions as the minis, how would you feel about it.

Maximus Bitch wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I don't mind the cartoony look and chunky scale - it's probably why it appealed so much when I was 15.

The things I could never get my head around, though, were how I've got guardsmen in boots/trousers that are as tall as a superhuman soldier in an exosuit. And how in the books you can conquer a planet with just 5 Astartes, but in game 5 Astartes are pretty useless.

Neither spoil the game or fluff for me, I know they kind of painted themselves into a hole in it. I just find it a bit odd.

Interesting. I thought 15 was the age at which kids started turning away from the kiddie stuff and gravitated towards mature stuff. Some already at 14.

Its just a critique on the look. I mean, I don't have the same issue with 40K artwork.

And, if the artwork started having the same proportions as the minis, how would you feel about it.

You should look up the word critique.

What you're doing is ranting over and over about a point of view you have which almost noone shares (kiddie etc.) And which by your own admission is based on "maturity" concerns, i.e. those that only immature people worry about.

It's not welcome or productive or anywhere near as useful to others as a critique.

morgoth wrote:

Maximus Bitch wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I don't mind the cartoony look and chunky scale - it's probably why it appealed so much when I was 15.

The things I could never get my head around, though, were how I've got guardsmen in boots/trousers that are as tall as a superhuman soldier in an exosuit. And how in the books you can conquer a planet with just 5 Astartes, but in game 5 Astartes are pretty useless.

Neither spoil the game or fluff for me, I know they kind of painted themselves into a hole in it. I just find it a bit odd.

Interesting. I thought 15 was the age at which kids started turning away from the kiddie stuff and gravitated towards mature stuff. Some already at 14.

Its just a critique on the look. I mean, I don't have the same issue with 40K artwork.

And, if the artwork started having the same proportions as the minis, how would you feel about it.

You should look up the word critique.

What you're doing is ranting over and over about a point of view you have which almost noone shares (kiddie etc.) And which by your own admission is based on "maturity" concerns, i.e. those that only immature people worry about.

It's not welcome or productive or anywhere near as useful to others as a critique.

Relax, I didn't make this thread to talk about the maturity of players. You've misunderstood it. That post was just a question to Herzlos only.


You quoted Elbows, he said the same thing and I replied.

Maximus Bitch wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Are you trying to have a genuine discussion, or debate? Or are you just complaining because you don't like the aesthetic? I guess I don't understand what it is you think you're going to accomplish here? GW isn't going to suddenly change the way they produce models.

I don't like the aesthetic, but I'm not insisting that everyone must dislike it. Yes, I am trying to have a genuine discussion.

Secondly, I haven't been doing a whole lot of complaining. Don't mistake my disagreements for complaints.

I'm not hoping for a sudden change either, that's unrealistic.

 Elbows wrote:
It doesn't do any good with you responding "but yeah, they look like children!" to every single post in this thread. That's not producing anything.

Because some people say, "I don't see it", and I'm just helping them to "see it". Don't mistake them for complaints. I'm just trying to bring across my point of view.

I don't want to be repetitive, but I'm responding to a different person each time.

Many people on this thread actually share my view.

Lastly, how would you feel if the artwork was given the same treatment?

"Maturity" and "wargaming" are words that have very little in common, considering it's a hobby where you push little dollies around and pretend they fight each other. And 40k of all things is pretty much the king of silliness and immaturity.

I'm one of those people who don't really care about heroic or true scale, what I care about is whether or not I like the look of the minis in question and how they fit in to my existing collection or the project I'm buying them for. I can certainly understand why people don't like heroic scale and there are a lot of really bad heroic scale minis. To give a couple of examples, the Catachan minis, which I quite liked back when they were released but you won't get any argument from me that they have aged terribly, or perhaps the infamous high elf spearmen with hands bigger than their heads. However looking at more recent GW offerings like the Ad Mech or Genestealer Cultists I think they're absolutely brilliant, still heroic scale though. If heroic scale really bothers you that much rather than ask a company who have a style that they've been using and evolving over decades to change just find some minis that you like and use them instead. There are loads of other companies offering brilliant true scale sculpts, many of which could be used for GWs games if you wanted. To take an example, with a bit of clever converting and scratch building you could make some great Imperial Guardsmen using the various Napoleonic ranges that are out there, or maybe some Tallarn style minis using some Napoleonic or WW1/2 arms, the bodies of the Gripping Beast Arab Spearmen set and a few sci fi bits and pieces (for Rough Riders Gripping Beast do two different Arab cavalry sets too). Obviously a lot of historic minis can also be used for fantasy projects with ease if you want to do some sort of human army, historical minis for the bulk of the army with a selection of suitably fantastical minis like wizards or monsters to add flavour.

One major complaint I have about GW's current range of minis it's the appearance of basically all Imperial vehicles. I know that the aesthetic that GW were going for is chunky and over the top but the proportions are all wrong to my eyes. Ideally I would like most of the Imperial tanks to be at least an inch or two longer, as it stands they're far too tall for their length. However I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there who love that look I'm just not one of them so I won't be buying any of their tanks. If I ever attempt to get back into 40k, which is unlikely given the current state of the rules, I would want to look for alternative options and convert them to work with the game or take a GW vehicle and convert it to have a look that I like.

Another issue that can exist is a lack of consistency within a range, I would argue that the Age of Sigmar range suffers this really badly at the moment. The sheer size difference between the Sigmarines or a lot of the new Khorne minis and the old Warhammer stuff is basically like putting early 80s 25mm scale minis alongside 28mm scale minis. It just looks wrong to me. That issue puts me off adding any of the AoS range to my collection simply because they won't fit in with anything else that I own, which is a real pity because GW have made some minis that I think are amongst the best fantasy minis currently available.

Ultimately I can't see GW dropping the exaggerated heroic scale aesthetic any time soon. Not only have they been developing and perfecting it for years but it also fits with the nature of the background of their games. If they were making "realistic" science fiction or fantasy games then yes I would expect to see less over the top designs that are closer to being true scale, but they're not. They make crazy cartoony minis for insane fictional universes. There's lots of room for improvement but recently releases definitely point in the right direction in my opinion.

There is one final issue here and that's the attitude of having to use the mini range that accompanies a ruleset to play the game. If you're stuck playing GW games in GW stores or tournaments that force players to use only certain minis (and not just GW are guilty of that!) then yes I can understand it (I used to do just that in my GW playing days) but if you're playing at home, a club or an independent store there's absolutely no reason to keep doing it. Provided the minis clearly represent the appropriate unit choices from your chosen ruleset then that's cool. It used to be the case that gamers would regularly throw a selection of minis from all sort of different sources on to a table and play a game with them. A lot of companies like to guide their customers into the mindset of only using their minis with their rules to maximise profits which from a business point of view makes complete sense and if I were in charge of a company producing both rules and models I would do exactly that. I'm not though, I'm a gamer if I want to use minis from 10 different companies I'll do it and I would suggest that other gamers do the same thing, they may find they get more enjoyment from the hobby.

 Nick Ellingworth wrote:
... it also fits with the nature of the background of their games. If they were making "realistic" science fiction or fantasy games then yes I would expect to see less over the top designs that are closer to being true scale, but they're not. They make crazy cartoony minis for insane fictional universes.

I've asked this question a couple of times with no replies. What if they gave the artwork the same treatment?

I'm going to 3D print some minis using the best source available, the Relic 3PS Space Marine. I'll post some pics soon.

Maximus Bitch wrote:
I've asked this question a couple of times with no replies. What if they gave the artwork the same treatment?

Erm you have seen some of the older art right? I'm thinking about Rogue Trader/2nd Edition era art. Some of that is even worse from a proportion point of view than even the most heroic style minis they produce today. Doesn't stop it being awesome though.

Take the 2nd Ed starter box as an example



Those proportions are all over the place. Still an awesome piece of art though, really gives a feel from what 40k was back in the early to mid 90s.

 Nick Ellingworth wrote:

Maximus Bitch wrote:
I've asked this question a couple of times with no replies. What if they gave the artwork the same treatment?

Erm you have seen some of the older art right? I'm thinking about Rogue Trader/2nd Edition era art. Some of that is even worse from a proportion point of view than even the most heroic style minis they produce today. Doesn't stop it being awesome though.

Take the 2nd Ed starter box as an example



Those proportions are all over the place. Still an awesome piece of art though, really gives a feel from what 40k was back in the early to mid 90s.

Yeah I have. In the grim darkness of the far future everything is rainbows. Reminds me of that film Small Soldiers

Would you like the art to become like that again?

Note that Small Soldiers actually appear to have better proportions than the minis

Yes

I miss the sense of humour that GW's games had back in that era. A lot of their background material both art and written word has got too serious for it's own good despite the obviously silly nature of the universe.

And rainbows you say? I for one would massively welcome the return of the Rainbow Warriors

 Nick Ellingworth wrote:
Yes

I miss the sense of humour that GW's games had back in that era. A lot of their background material both art and written word has got too serious for it's own good despite the obviously silly nature of the universe.

I actually like true grimdark. Not over the top silly grimdark, but something that's truly and seriously grim and dark. Like when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. That Eastern Front Grimdark reflected in 40K is good.

Maximus Bitch wrote:

 Nick Ellingworth wrote:
Yes

I miss the sense of humour that GW's games had back in that era. A lot of their background material both art and written word has got too serious for it's own good despite the obviously silly nature of the universe.

I actually like true grimdark. Not over the top silly grimdark, but something that's truly and seriously grim and dark. Like when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. That Eastern Front Grimdark reflected in 40K is good.

You mean DKOK vs the soviet imperial guard?