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.

ccs 795623 11040933 wrote:well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

Be that as it may, its also a dime & a moment I dont need to spend.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

PieInTheSky wrote:
I really dislike the new era of gigantosauras sized models. I think the reasons for it on GW's behalf were unscrupulous, they take up more room on a limited table and they take longer to paint.

That said, if I was going to play 9th Edition, then I would use the big models and their giant bases. It doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise. And also those giant models would just look weird on normal-sized bases.

If I already had an army and was deadset on playing 9th Edition, then the old army would be retired, or used only for older edition games. Yes, that was exactly the plan by GW, make everyone buy more gak. But if it were me with a giant collection of 28mm-scale models on 25mm bases then I'd just give GW the finger and stop buying new editions. I'd pick my favorite old edition and stick with it. Because they're going to keep pulling this crap until people start.

That is not me however. I am still making up my mind whether I will go old-school and start WH40K with 3rd or 5th edition (not that 5th is particularly old school, but when they release a new edition every couple of years it is) or suck up the suckiness and giant models and just start with 9th. I can see arguments either way coming in new, but if I had an existing 25mm army, it would be a no-brainer to stay old-school.

I am a little confused on the reasons GW on their new models being unscrupulous. I assume you mean GW wants to squeeze more money out of its customers from this. Wouldn't models that take up more space, and therefor requiring less of them on the table, and taking longer to pain mean GW would probably get less money then? I mean there are a number of things one could say how GW is putting the screws to their customers for more money, but what you're saying ain't it.

I am having a hard time visualizing what you mean by using big models and giant bases. Frankly, marines, boyz and whatever else had their bases go from 25mm to 32mm in their boxes really can be explained as an aesthetics thing. Take a gander around other modern miniatures games and the base size they put their models on. They are going to look a lot more like a space marine on a 32mm base than one on a 25mm. And please, don't try and say this GW leading the way. If anything, they were (and with a few models) way behind on this. I am surprised it took GW as long as it did. Jump troops on 25mm bases is dumb, frankly. How many times did you have to upright these models on 25mm and/or stick weights to the bottom to prevent them from toppling over. Because I still had to do that with my hormagaunts.

As for the character models, I think it is less about fitting more terrain bits on them and more about more easily picking them out of a crowd. My Primaris are as plain as the day is long. It isn't hard to lose track of which one the Lt is among a squad or two of Intercessors. But that 40mm bases makes it easy for me and my opponent to know where that dude is. The extra 8mm to the diameter isn't so much that poor Lt feels all alone on his own private piece of nowhere.

Finally, I am not exactly sure where this giant models is coming from save a handful of special characters and/or centerpeice models. Which if you don't like you don't have to include in your collection. Yes, Primaris space marines are clearly bigger than Guardsmen which are slightly bigger than GSC Neophytes and other modern human-size models. I would think that is about getting them back into scale as space marines in armor are much larger than non-augmented humans. The new Chaos Space Marines are larger, but I was able to make my Dark Vengeance Chosen to appear about the same size through some trickery. Necron Warriors are about the same size as they were. Chaos Terminators are so identical is size that I can free mix and match them in squads, and you wouldn't be able to tell on the table. There are hiccups sure, Eliminators are extra big even for Primaris. I don't know maybe tall space marines make better snipers. Abbadon and Guilliman are kinda ridiculous in stature, but Warhammer 40,000 is a ridiculous setting. I think people sometimes forget just how ridiculous the setting is and don't step back enough to remember that.

If a person doesn't want to re-base, that is both completely understandable and more than fine by me. However, I would it strange to start a completely brand-new army and seek to go back to models barely able to fit on top of the small confines of the older, smaller sizes that can't be placed on anything but the gentlest of slope without falling over. I fought against for a bit early on, but I think the new base size has a lot more going for it than the old base size before even considering the rules.

First of all, it's contradictory to say, "GW are not leading the way on this" and then try and claim it's not actually happening, or "only for centerpiece models". That's demonstrably not true. For example, this bloodbowl lineman is clearly not a "special character and/or centerpiece model" and it looks like an ogre compared to older one.



Second, GW are clearly leading the way on this. If you say things like, "don't try and tell me GW are leading the way on this", I can only assume that you're simply not very active in the miniatures hobby outside of GW products. And there's nothing wrong with that btw, I don't mean to sound condescending or snarky. But it's just an obvious and widely known fact that GW are driving the 32mm choo-choo train. In fact, nearly all of the other miniature manufacturers that produce miniatures in this scale do so only so they will be compatible with GW products. I don't have a single miniature in that scale that is not a GW product. I'm sure they exist, but GW are most certainly leading the way.

Thirdly, it is price gouging. How do we know? Well because miniature war-gaming and board games such as blood bowl has got along just fine for the past ~five decades without requiring gigantic miniatures. They're that big for multiple reasons, but the sum total of those reasons is that GW thought they would sell more miniatures if they were that big. In fact, having huge miniatures on huge bases is actually detrimental to any game where space is a premium. But their goal is not to produce the best or most convenient game, their goal is to sell as many miniatures as they can.

You're allowed to like it of course. There's nothing wrong with preferring the 32mm scale models. But don't try and tell us it's not happening or that GW made the decision to do that for reasons that were anything else than increasing their bottom line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

PieInTheSky wrote:
I really dislike the new era of gigantosauras sized models. I think the reasons for it on GW's behalf were unscrupulous, they take up more room on a limited table and they take longer to paint.

That said, if I was going to play 9th Edition, then I would use the big models and their giant bases. It doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise. And also those giant models would just look weird on normal-sized bases.

If I already had an army and was deadset on playing 9th Edition, then the old army would be retired, or used only for older edition games. Yes, that was exactly the plan by GW, make everyone buy more gak. But if it were me with a giant collection of 28mm-scale models on 25mm bases then I'd just give GW the finger and stop buying new editions. I'd pick my favorite old edition and stick with it. Because they're going to keep pulling this crap until people start.

That is not me however. I am still making up my mind whether I will go old-school and start WH40K with 3rd or 5th edition (not that 5th is particularly old school, but when they release a new edition every couple of years it is) or suck up the suckiness and giant models and just start with 9th. I can see arguments either way coming in new, but if I had an existing 25mm army, it would be a no-brainer to stay old-school.


.

There are good things and bad things for larger base sizes. If you see what GW is intending and choose to play into it, that seems a little odd to me. Do you really somehow believe these gakky rules writers agonize on their rules working flawlessly dependent on base size ? I think you give them far too much credit as to assume they are playing some 3 D chess 3 turns ahead. The model basing has pretty much nothing to do some real or imagine fairness or balance. It's just them changing their mind, again. I mean look at bike bases. They were this square ugly things, then the smaller ovals which I like now they are the bigger ovals in a couple years they could make them be even bigger ovals and I don't think this has anything to do with someone sitting around figuring out the perfect base sizes for their rules to be perfect.

I can lose a game just fine with my old based models or my new based models and won't just retire whole armies because I won't rebase them. If I wanted to play in a tournament I'd use stuff that is set up currently, because it cuts down on disagreements but in like the 99% of my games if someone thinks an old based marine army gives me some huge advantage, that sounds like it would be scapegoat for having lost.

My comment on it "it doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise" was a side-point. No, I don't think the rules-writers are particularly phased about factoring in different bases sizes too much. I do however think that regardless of the fact the rules-writers don't seem to care too much about base sizes, models should still should be on the same scaled bases if you want to be as fair and even as possible. This likely does not matter for most people who are just playing friendly games to have fun. But if you've got a competitive streak or you're playing in a competitive competition I think it matters regardless of if the rules-writers took into consideration or not. It matters by accident (if you're very competitive, and there's nothing wrong with people that are).

However, that's not my main problem with them. My main problems are that they take up too much room, they take longer to paint and it's just all round a kind of dodgy maneuver on behalf of GW for $$$. Even though I wasn't personally effected, I don't like their attitude towards long-term fans ("let's think up a way to make them have to rebuy all the stuff they spent the last decade collecting").

(fwiw, I also don't think they look as good. The new sculpts look good, but they would look better in 28mm scale. The size of the new miniatures look almost like little "action figures" or dolls or something. But that is subjective opinion.)




... apols for the ten thousand edits. Just fixing typos (and I bet I still missed a bunch).

Definitely seems very much a split opinion on the general scale creep of 40k but quite frankly the writing has been on the wall for that one since 3rd edition with the oversized guardsmen.

Though I do think the scale creep does highlight or exacerbate the goofy proportions for some model's and also that most of the vehicals haven't been rescalled to match makes them look even more comical. Yeah sure 10 deathwatch vets fit in a rhino but 40k has never been a scale modeller based hobby.

Honestly Kriby has a lot of sins to answer for.

The vehement opposition to accepting if you want to be intournament or such that it's a reasonable expectation for you to use the current base sizes seems like disenting just because you like the sound of your own voice.

ccs wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

Be that as it may, its also a dime & a moment I dont need to spend.

It makes tournements more balanced, and at some point in the future, you WILL be forced to do it, as you wouldnt be able to paticipate in tournements and maybe skirmishes with friends either. With time, its expected that the 25mm that should be 32, actually becomes 32 to fully balance the game, which it isnt with 25mm when others use 32.

Inheritence tax isnt the same as this though. This is a game that needs balancing, and eventually certain things will be balanced out differently than what it was 10 years ago when it was created.

In the end, you can do what you please. But eventually tournement creators can deny you entrance if you dont have proper bases. Furthermore it might be frowned upon even by friends when a model that should have changed its base to 32mm like 10 years ago (when we reach that stage) still hasnt had that done.

Stating that it will happen is an awfully strong statement.
I don't GW has much interest in fully balancing the game at all. They're only interested in maintaining enough balance to ensure the game remains popular and sells well.
As far as GW is officially concerned 25mm based Terminators are still legal on the tabletop.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Stating that it will happen is an awfully strong statement.
I don't GW has much interest in fully balancing the game at all. They're only interested in maintaining enough balance to ensure the game remains popular and sells well.
As far as GW is officially concerned 25mm based Terminators are still legal on the tabletop.

It's been a while but I can say you're probably going to have a hard time getting even GW to allow you to use 25mm terminators in an office GW tournament.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Stating that it will happen is an awfully strong statement.
I don't GW has much interest in fully balancing the game at all. They're only interested in maintaining enough balance to ensure the game remains popular and sells well.
As far as GW is officially concerned 25mm based Terminators are still legal on the tabletop.

Maybe. but GW dont make all tournements, and some tournement creators want proper basing. They would deny your 25mm terminators from being on the table. Its been years since terminators went from 25 to 40mm so at this point, people still using 25mm terminators, i will assume do this to gain an advantage with being able to hide more efficiently and get more terminators in to combat, and deepstrike more easy. Most dont have a ton of terminators, so terminators should be very cheap to put on adapters.

1 adapter for 1 model is around a quarter dollar. Its not expensive.

I understand people not wanting to rebase boyz or troops that you have a lot of , but elite infantry should be rebased with adapters. Or something else. Eventually ones troops should too, so one might as well start. It will be mandatory eventually by most tournement holders.

Tournaments making the ruling is a separate thing - I'm sure most tournaments would have a problem with my 25mm based Astartes.
I was just responding to the idea that GW themselves would make an official ruling. It's not in their interest. It would alienate and piss off a lot of established players to the point of driving them from the hobby and they would be unlikely to sell whole new kits to such people.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Tournaments making the ruling is a separate thing - I'm sure most tournaments would have a problem with my 25mm based Astartes.
I was just responding to the idea that GW themselves would make an official ruling. It's not in their interest. It would alienate and piss off a lot of established players to the point of driving them from the hobby and they would be unlikely to sell whole new kits to such people.

Why they have made such rulings in the past for their own events.

Beardedragon wrote:
This is a game that needs balancing, and eventually certain things will be balanced out differently than what it was 10 years ago when it was created.

10 years ago? Try 35 years ago young son.

It's never going to be balanced because GW don't seem interested in making a balanced game. They seem interested in releasing a new set of rules and codexes and models for everyone to rush out and buy every two or three years, which is nowhere near long enough to iron out such a complex game. And they will keep doing that while everyone keeps rushing out and buying them. I probably would too.

By most people's accounts, the game was at it's best at fifth edition, or perhaps even earlier. Everything since has just been an excuse to release more gak that everyone "needs" to buy to stay current.

Beardedragon wrote:
well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

There are other things to adapt that aren't that easy. 25mm to 40mm or older to new bikes bases for example, I don't think there are any adapters for those.

PieInTheSky wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
This is a game that needs balancing, and eventually certain things will be balanced out differently than what it was 10 years ago when it was created.

10 years ago? Try 35 years ago young son.

It's never going to be balanced because GW don't seem interested in making a balanced game. They seem interested in releasing a new set of rules and codexes and models for everyone to rush out and buy every two or three years, which is nowhere near long enough to iron out such a complex game. And they will keep doing that while everyone keeps rushing out and buying them. I probably would too.

By most people's accounts, the game was at it's best at fifth edition, or perhaps even earlier. Everything since has just been an excuse to release more gak that everyone "needs" to buy to stay current.

Young son even? could you be more condescending.

I know the game has existed since, what, the 80s before my birth (im 28), but i just made a general statement and chose 10 years ago because thats a bit of time in which balancing things could happen. I could have said 30 years too, i simply chose not to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

There are other things to adapt that aren't that easy. 25mm to 40mm or older to new bikes bases for example, I don't think there are any adapters for those.

and that would be among the things that most players would be okay with. But something thats easy to get adapters for, probably not so much. And i think tournement creators are more lenient with things thats difficult to rebase, than things thats easy.

Perception of balance is almost as important as balance itself. If the advantages of smaller bases are wrongly believed to sufficiently outweigh the disadvantages therefore, they can still feel unpleasant to play against. Mechanical behavior inconsistent with current expectation could also feel off putting.

However, I do not see GW suggesting players should rebase existing miniatures. I do see GW strongly suggesting that a new miniature should be bought to augment their collections and anyone declining to do so is irrelevant due to not contributing to the revenue stream.

Beardedragon wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Stating that it will happen is an awfully strong statement.
I don't GW has much interest in fully balancing the game at all. They're only interested in maintaining enough balance to ensure the game remains popular and sells well.
As far as GW is officially concerned 25mm based Terminators are still legal on the tabletop.

Maybe. but GW dont make all tournements, and some tournement creators want proper basing. They would deny your 25mm terminators from being on the table. Its been years since terminators went from 25 to 40mm so at this point, people still using 25mm terminators, i will assume do this to gain an advantage with being able to hide more efficiently and get more terminators in to combat, and deepstrike more easy. Most dont have a ton of terminators, so terminators should be very cheap to put on adapters.

1 adapter for 1 model is around a quarter dollar. Its not expensive.

I understand people not wanting to rebase boyz or troops that you have a lot of , but elite infantry should be rebased with adapters. Or something else. Eventually ones troops should too, so one might as well start. It will be mandatory eventually by most tournement holders.

I wouldn't want GW releasing a chart with official bases though, as even casual games could be affected. Rule of 3 was released by GW as a "suggestion" and yet it became a mandatory rule in any meta.

Tournament organizers can already issue their house rules. They already do and don't need a guideline from GW.

 Blackie wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Stating that it will happen is an awfully strong statement.
I don't GW has much interest in fully balancing the game at all. They're only interested in maintaining enough balance to ensure the game remains popular and sells well.
As far as GW is officially concerned 25mm based Terminators are still legal on the tabletop.

Maybe. but GW dont make all tournements, and some tournement creators want proper basing. They would deny your 25mm terminators from being on the table. Its been years since terminators went from 25 to 40mm so at this point, people still using 25mm terminators, i will assume do this to gain an advantage with being able to hide more efficiently and get more terminators in to combat, and deepstrike more easy. Most dont have a ton of terminators, so terminators should be very cheap to put on adapters.

1 adapter for 1 model is around a quarter dollar. Its not expensive.

I understand people not wanting to rebase boyz or troops that you have a lot of , but elite infantry should be rebased with adapters. Or something else. Eventually ones troops should too, so one might as well start. It will be mandatory eventually by most tournement holders.

I wouldn't want GW releasing a chart with official bases though, as even casual games could be affected. Rule of 3 was released by GW as a "suggestion" and yet it became a mandatory rule in any meta.

Tournament organizers can already issue their house rules. They already do and don't need a guideline from GW.

Exactly. Im not expecting GW to make official rules, but i know tournement creators will. Thats why im saying i think one should put on adapters or rebase if not otherwise possible, because you wont be able to paticipate in tournements otherwise eventually.

And maybe even skirmish battles will be affected, as ones friends will eventually not wanna play with someone who gets base advantages.

Beardedragon wrote:

PieInTheSky wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
This is a game that needs balancing, and eventually certain things will be balanced out differently than what it was 10 years ago when it was created.

10 years ago? Try 35 years ago young son.

It's never going to be balanced because GW don't seem interested in making a balanced game. They seem interested in releasing a new set of rules and codexes and models for everyone to rush out and buy every two or three years, which is nowhere near long enough to iron out such a complex game. And they will keep doing that while everyone keeps rushing out and buying them. I probably would too.

By most people's accounts, the game was at it's best at fifth edition, or perhaps even earlier. Everything since has just been an excuse to release more gak that everyone "needs" to buy to stay current.

Young son even? could you be more condescending.

Take it easy. It's just a friendly saying where I come from (Australia).

Gayzus people are easy to offend these days!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beardedragon wrote:
I could have said 30 years too, i simply chose not to.

Odd considering you would have been 3 times more accurate with exactly the same time & effort.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hiseadmose wrote:
Perception of balance is almost as important as balance itself. If the advantages of smaller bases are wrongly believed to sufficiently outweigh the disadvantages therefore, they can still feel unpleasant to play against. Mechanical behavior inconsistent with current expectation could also feel off putting.

However, I do not see GW suggesting players should rebase existing miniatures. I do see GW strongly suggesting that a new miniature should be bought to augment their collections and anyone declining to do so is irrelevant due to not contributing to the revenue stream.

I honestly don't think GW give a toss about people re-basing anything nor do they give a toss about the balance of the game. I believe that when it comes to base-sizes the only thing they consider is what will look the best on the box art. And I can't blame them for that. As I said before, If I chose to play 9th or whatever with the big models, I'd go with the 32mm bases that fit those scaled-up models the best.

But the more I think about it, the more I think I'm just going to start with 5th edition and just not expose myself to all the GW price gouging.


.

I rebased by Chaos Marines from 25mm up to 32mm. At first, I didn't care, but then as I started to see more models on 32mm, I thought they looked a lot better and more in-proportioin. Plus, my old basing scheme was quite basic, so this was a way of giving a new lease of life to old models.

PieInTheSky wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

PieInTheSky wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
This is a game that needs balancing, and eventually certain things will be balanced out differently than what it was 10 years ago when it was created.

10 years ago? Try 35 years ago young son.

It's never going to be balanced because GW don't seem interested in making a balanced game. They seem interested in releasing a new set of rules and codexes and models for everyone to rush out and buy every two or three years, which is nowhere near long enough to iron out such a complex game. And they will keep doing that while everyone keeps rushing out and buying them. I probably would too.

By most people's accounts, the game was at it's best at fifth edition, or perhaps even earlier. Everything since has just been an excuse to release more gak that everyone "needs" to buy to stay current.

Young son even? could you be more condescending.

Take it easy. It's just a friendly saying where I come from (Australia).

Gayzus people are easy to offend these days!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beardedragon wrote:
I could have said 30 years too, i simply chose not to.

Odd considering you would have been 3 times more accurate with exactly the same time & effort.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hiseadmose wrote:
Perception of balance is almost as important as balance itself. If the advantages of smaller bases are wrongly believed to sufficiently outweigh the disadvantages therefore, they can still feel unpleasant to play against. Mechanical behavior inconsistent with current expectation could also feel off putting.

However, I do not see GW suggesting players should rebase existing miniatures. I do see GW strongly suggesting that a new miniature should be bought to augment their collections and anyone declining to do so is irrelevant due to not contributing to the revenue stream.

I honestly don't think GW give a toss about people re-basing anything nor do they give a toss about the balance of the game. I believe that when it comes to base-sizes the only thing they consider is what will look the best on the box art. And I can't blame them for that. As I said before, If I chose to play 9th or whatever with the big models, I'd go with the 32mm bases that fit those scaled-up models the best.

But the more I think about it, the more I think I'm just going to start with 5th edition and just not expose myself to all the GW price gouging.


.

im not really offended "mate" i just didnt understand the reason to be condencending in the middle of no where. Being an aussie or not.

Ive mostly talked about troops choices going from 25mm to 32mm, and that wasnt done 30 years ago so there was no reason to mention 30 years. Tournement creators have been more adamant about having 32mm bases for most troop choices as this is a fairly "new" change. So going back even 10 years werent even needed. Sure there are bigger changes than that, but i mainly talked about troop choices and maybe elite infantry.

I consider increasing base size primarily an inevitability that follows scale creep. Scale irregularity and creep had been a GW constant since the beginning and at some point the bases were going to follow suit if only to accurately stabilize models in a game that is played on an irregular surface.

I'm not saying it isn't also a cash grab, but its one of margins. All minis and their provided bases may be legal but GW knows that any change will get a segment of the community to buy the "new" even if its not necessary. They know also that their will also be peer pressure to confirm to the new.

Scale creep is simply one of the most obvious signs of this since it's an unnecessary change.

Put simply base increase is less of a cash grab (though it is a little one) than an inevitability following 30 years of scale creep for profit.

PieInTheSky wrote:
First of all, it's contradictory to say, "GW are not leading the way on this" and then try and claim it's not actually happening, or "only for centerpiece models". That's demonstrably not true. For example, this bloodbowl lineman is clearly not a "special character and/or centerpiece model" and it looks like an ogre compared to older one.

Second, GW are clearly leading the way on this. If you say things like, "don't try and tell me GW are leading the way on this", I can only assume that you're simply not very active in the miniatures hobby outside of GW products. And there's nothing wrong with that btw, I don't mean to sound condescending or snarky. But it's just an obvious and widely known fact that GW are driving the 32mm choo-choo train. In fact, nearly all of the other miniature manufacturers that produce miniatures in this scale do so only so they will be compatible with GW products. I don't have a single miniature in that scale that is not a GW product. I'm sure they exist, but GW are most certainly leading the way.

Thirdly, it is price gouging. How do we know? Well because miniature war-gaming and board games such as blood bowl has got along just fine for the past ~five decades without requiring gigantic miniatures. They're that big for multiple reasons, but the sum total of those reasons is that GW thought they would sell more miniatures if they were that big. In fact, having huge miniatures on huge bases is actually detrimental to any game where space is a premium. But their goal is not to produce the best or most convenient game, their goal is to sell as many miniatures as they can.

What I mean by GW not leading the way is that most miniatures companies were already putting their miniatures on bases large enough that their toes were over hanging the base. I was very active in miniatures game before GW did their 25mm to 32mm change. Other companies were placing their models on undersized bases well before then.





You notice how none of those models have their toes over hanging the base becuase the base is large enough to allow them not to. That's what I am talking about. All of these models were out long before GW made any mention of changing base size. I know because I started getting GW models just before the news of the base size was happening.



Note how most of those Chaos Space Marines are just barely on top of their bases. Often hanging just a little over. The rest of the miniatures industry had moved past doing that, and gave their models enough base to comfortably be positioned on them.

These larger bases just look better proportionally than smaller bases where the model is barely able to stand on them. Games Workshop was well behind on this by the time they actually made the decision to change. That's what I mean by them not leading the way. They were clearly trying to catch up to the rest of the industry. I have been less involved with other minitures games since starting GW ones. Just the same, I am pretty sure Dust Tactics, Bolt Action and any Mantic Games increases the sizes of the bases in respeonce to GW doing it with a few of theirs. Because they had already had better proportioned bases to the models being placed on them and didn't have to.

You completely lost me on your third point. Games Workshop hasn't been around for 50 years. Most of the games prior to Citadel I am aware of were rank and file games where units were placed in groups on a single base. But I am certainly not versed on miniatures from the 20th century nor the games they were used in except D&D. I don't see how making the decision to change bases to something that looks more proportional is price-gouging. It isn't like GW started raises prices in excess of what they were during those times. In fact, I remember that it was during those years the prices remained pretty flat as GW had lost momentum due to the lack of popularity in 6th/7th editions.

Games Workshop hasn't even came out and said player has to use the new base sizes. As far as I know, they are still on the, 'the base the model came with is fine' except maybe with Age of Sigmar. Which I think is more a response to the player base wanting that size chart. Even tournaments requiring uniform base sizes is a creation of that player base not GW. Even the base size taking up more of the table seems like that would curb the total points for games. Games Workshop hasn't been the leading the bigger and bigger games charge. It has been the players. Warhammer 40k works fine at 1500pts which some saying it also is great at 1250pts maybe even 1000pts. Yet, the gold standard for games is 2000pts. Brought on more from tournaments than GW saying that is where they design games to work best at. I believe if anything GW has taken the customers' desires for 2000pt games and are designing 40k to work there because that's where the demand is. I think it is more likely the rules designers try to keep the game working for smaller games as to not scare away new players (which really keep GW in business).

Games Workshop is in the business of selling miniatures. Bigger miniatures, in the case of Primaris, look nicer due to details and are easier to paint. Primaris certainly captured my adoration because of it. As for centerpiece models, they can be displayed as the crown jewel in a collection as much as on the tabletop. Neither of which directly ruin games by virtue of just being big. Space is less of a premium in 40k/AoS than you make it out to be. If player doesn't like those models there are a host of other options. Funny enough, 9th edition has largely been shrinking of tables to the minimums due to widespread tournament adoption. If that is still too much area, there's smaller point games or even Kill Team. None of which that I have played have been adversely affected by some models going from 25mm to 32mm or 40mm.

The biggest model I have built is Teclis for Age of Sigmar. Even that model's base only takes up a tad more area than my Chaos Land Raider. There are bigger models available in 40k and AoS. And while GW would like you to buy them, they aren't sending goon squads around to make anyone. I think it is more that there is a demand for these larger models and GW are simply providing them. You might not like them, but clearly other people do. It is hard for me to see this as price gouging (in the colloquial use of the term) over just being a product customers want.

Scale creep isn't really an inevitability.

At one point, they actually _shrank_ models (particularly in fantasy), because their plastic designs had actually improved to the point it was practical and within their skill cap. [The post monkey-skaven era was like a dream finally realized]

For a lot of models (necron warriors and old space marines in particular) the base size increase solved a problem that had been around for decades. The models overwhelmed the bases to the limit, to the point there was overhang- not just with dramatic weapon poses, but with the _feet_.

It also helped with stability for a lot of 'dynamic' poses they became obsessed by in the last decade or so.

All my WHFB stuff is still on squares.

Because warhammer fantasy battle isnt officially supported anymore so no one really cares

Beardedragon wrote:
Because warhammer fantasy battle isnt officially supported anymore so no one really cares

Don't go cutting yourself on that edge there mister...

WHFB the Old World is on the way back, and outside of tournament play, IME nobody really gives a hoot about what bases your AoS model are on so long as you don't take the piss, just like 40k.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What I mean by GW not leading the way is that most miniatures companies were already putting their miniatures on bases large enough that their toes were over hanging the base. I was very active in miniatures game before GW did their 25mm to 32mm change. Other companies were placing their models on undersized bases well before then.

...

You notice how none of those models have their toes over hanging the base becuase the base is large enough to allow them not to. That's what I am talking about. All of these models were out long before GW made any mention of changing base size. I know because I started getting GW models just before the news of the base size was happening.

...

Note how most of those Chaos Space Marines are just barely on top of their bases. Often hanging just a little over. The rest of the miniatures industry had moved past doing that, and gave their models enough base to comfortably be positioned on them.

...

These larger bases just look better proportionally than smaller bases where the model is barely able to stand on them. Games Workshop was well behind on this by the time they actually made the decision to change. That's what I mean by them not leading the way. They were clearly trying to catch up to the rest of the industry. I have been less involved with other minitures games since starting GW ones.

...

You completely lost me on your third point. Games Workshop hasn't been around for 50 years. Most of the games prior to Citadel I am aware of were rank and file games where units were placed in groups on a single base. But I am certainly not versed on miniatures from the 20th century nor the games they were used in except D&D. I don't see how making the decision to change bases to something that looks more proportional is price-gouging.

You're a bit confused I think.

Just forget the bases. The bases are bigger because the models are bigger. It looks better with bigger bases, I get it. I'm on board with that point. If I play 40K, I will use the giant models and their giant bases. No, I don't want my gigantic model to have it's feet hanging off a relatively tiny 25mm base. I get it. So forget about the bases.

Why did the models get bigger (necessitating the bigger bases)? One of the reasons was certainly so that everyone who had collected an army in the past was now stuck with miniatures in "the wrong/old" scale and has to now go and re-buy everything in order to stay current. If you don't think that was a consideration you're being willfully naive.

And if you truly believe that it's not GW are driving this new jumbo-sized 32mm miniature scale thing then I just don't know what to tell you. If you have chosen to believe that bizarre bit of fiction then I doubt I'll be able to say anything to convince you otherwise. But the plain fact is that it's been entirely driven by GW and independent manufacturers seeking to make their miniatures compatible with GW games. It wouldn't surprise me if some other game designers are starting to adopt it too, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Bigger miniatures, in the case of Primaris, look nicer

That's totally subjective. I think they look like toys.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
due to details and are easier to paint.

... and that's just wrong.

The details didn't get any bigger or easier to paint when the models got bigger. There's just more of the details. As a result, each model takes longer to paint and is more difficult to paint. I'm sure, "they're easier to paint" is the false-narrative that GW are pushing however.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
It is hard for me to see this as price gouging (in the colloquial use of the term) over just being a product customers want.

It would be literally impossible to price-gouge on a product that customers did not want. That's what enables price gouging.



.

PieInTheSky (changed your name?),

You've said this a couple of times, but I am finding your statement that the up-sized miniatures are harder to paint a little odd. It's certainly not my experience. Maybe because I have 50 year old eyes? I went back and repainted some old 2nd Ed plastic Space Marine recently. It certainly wasn't "easier" than the latest Intercessors/Eradicators I painted. Bladeguard were a challenge, but so were some models back in the day. The Intercessor/Gravis aesthetic is rather clean. From the designer's comments this was intentional.

Still, if you find them harder to paint I guess they're harder to paint for you.

Primaris are easier to paint because they're cleaner, not because they're larger.

If the change from small marines to primaris makes them look like toys then what clasic miniatures of Ogers and Trols look like? Toddler teddies?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Primaris are easier to paint because they're cleaner, not because they're larger.

So we can agree at least that they are easier to paint? Absolutely no argument from me that the clean design helps painting. My point is that making the miniatures larger on its own does not make them harder to paint.

You can cram "hard to paint" detail into an old-school 28mm figure.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
PieInTheSky (changed your name?)

No ... was the some other fellah on this forum easily triggered by the huge scale creep?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
You've said this a couple of times, but I am finding your statement that the up-sized miniatures are harder to paint a little odd. It's certainly not my experience.

I guess it depends on what sort of quality you're going for.

That's not meant to sound condescending or snarky, it's just that increasing the surface area of a miniature does demonstrably not make it easier to paint. It just means it takes longer to paint because there is more "stuff" to paint.

If they were taking the same designs as the old models and scaling everything up, including scaling up all the detail, then it would be easier to paint. But they're not doing that, they're just cramming more and more detail into a bigger model. If you're skipping over the detail and just blocking in with blobs of paint to make them look okay from 3 feet away, then okay, in that case then maybe, depending on the model, it might be easier to paint.

But for the most part, being bigger only means there is most junk and more detail to paint, i.e. "harder" to paint. If you take five halfling miniatures and stack them on top of each other and call it one model, it's not suddenly easier to paint than one just because it's bigger! Do you get my point? It's actually harder because there's five times the detail to fuss over.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
maybe because I have 50 year old eyes?

My eyes are not as good as what they used to be either. I use a magnifying lamp AND (for really fiddly detail) a magnifying lenses. Not only does it provide excellent light quality with the built in lamp but the magnification is invaluable. Especially as I've gotten older, but tbh, I don't know how I ever painted anything without them.


.