Home Forums General General 35mm: Is it scale creep or a clean break?

This topic contains 58 replies, has 18 voices, and was last updated by Guy Farrish Guy Farrish 3 months ago.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 59 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #97017
    Rhoderic
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    I came across a blog post that was lamenting the recent proliferation of 35mm miniature ranges as yet another – and the most extreme so far – escalation of scale creep. I disagree with this interpretation, but I can see the reasoning for it, and I thought it’s worth discussing.

    To me, proper scale creep is when scales actually creep upward. This often happens to successful, long-lived ranges over time (the Warhammer and 40K ranges being the prime examples – they’ve been creepin’ for over 30 years! ). Sculptors who have been at it for a long time will also often subtly creep upward in scale as (I presume) they feel they have to adjust to trends in the industry (a good example of this is the slight difference in size/bulk between Mark Copplestone’s old Future Wars range for Grenadier and his, relatively speaking, newer Future Wars range for Copplestone Castings). Often, ranges have been redefined as being a new, larger scale after the fact, once it has gradually become untenable to call them by their older scales.

    I don’t see these things being true of 35mm. Manufacturers of 35mm ranges, including Fantasy Flight Games, Warlord Games, Knight Models, Spartan Games (when they did Dystopian Legions), Scale75 and the makers of Dust Tactics and Wild West Exodus (I’m not clear on the identities of these last two manufacturers) have all made the very conscious decision to go 35mm, starting from a clean slate. To me, it looks obvious that they’re trying to have their 35mm lines stand apart as something different from the market-congestion of 28mm-32mm products, same as if they had gone 40mm or 54mm. Looking at many of these ranges – most especially the DC, Marvel and Harry Potter lines from Knight Models and the Doctor Who and 2000AD lines from Warlord Games – there’s a definite upmarket, upscale (in every sense of the word), top-shelf “collectibles” feel to them, even more so than with “boutique game” 28mm-32mm miniatures. Also, as regards the Star Wars Legion range, I think part of their motivation for going 35mm was so players couldn’t just replace Legion figures with Imperial Assault ones. They want their customer base to buy in on both games separately of each other.

    What do you guys think? Is 35mm scale creep or is it a clean break?

    #97019
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    It’s just. Another. Damn. Unnecessary. Size.

    28/30/32/35/40/42mm – why FFS?

     

    /rant

     

    🙂

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #97020
    Mike
    Mike
    Keymaster

    What do you guys think? Is 35mm scale creep or is it a clean break?

    A move to create a new scale and get people to have to buy into the range without being able to use existing models.

    #97021
    Darkest Star Games
    Darkest Star Games
    Participant

    the makers of Dust Tactics

      DUST figures and vehicles are designed to be 1:48 scale, as they also have conversion kits to fit Tamiya 1/48 scale plastic models.  Pablo’s original Dust models were actually 1/35 scale and designed for collectors, but once he was talked into making it a game it was decided to go with an “established” scale.

     

    I think a lot of this scale-creep and “new” figure scales are actually based on digital sculpting and 3d printing.  You just can’t get some detail to work at smaller scales, but you also can’t go too large before the figures just won’t work on an “average sized gaming surface”, which is an arbitrary size dependent upon what the company is pimping.  (for instance: there are some CMON games that are in 35mm but have rifle ranges of 24″!)

    Now, also as a part of this scale thing is the fact that a lot of newer games are NOT ground scale dependent, meaning the figures are more like board game markers/chits than actual troop in specific position (Arkham: Mansions of Madness and some other “area” games for instance).  THis frees up the sculptors to create really crazy designs that are more sculptural than most gamers would be willing to use on a tabletop battlefield, but again can’t be too large as they wouldn’t fit in a basic game box.  When you go this route and put out some great looking mini sculptures that people salivate over it’s only natural that “normal” gaming companies would want to follow suite.  There might even be a lot of cross-over between companies using the same sculptors.

    Good thing?  Bad thing?  I don’t know.  I honestly do not collect larger scale minis, though I do have a lot of DUST figures I am just getting around to, so I don’t really have an opinion other than to say that there is a lot of great figures out there in 35mm that I have no use for!

    "I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

    #97022
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    What do you guys think? Is 35mm scale creep or is it a clean break?

    A move to create a new scale and get people to have to buy into the range without being able to use existing models.

     

    …and that.  Add that to my rant 🙂

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #97026
    Thaddeus Blanchette
    Thaddeus Blanchette
    Participant

    Well, 3mm is creeping up to 4mm, which is upsetting.

    .

    We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

    #97030
    Rhoderic
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    There’s probably a dozen reasons why. Some bad, some good.

    I find 35mm mildly exciting, in a variety-is-spice kind of way. I do still see the problems and downsides of it, and maybe even some of the cynicism of the manufacturers, and I only consider it a niche, but none of that is enough to overshadow the things I find attractive about it (only as a side venture, mind).

     

    the makers of Dust Tactics

    DUST figures and vehicles are designed to be 1:48 scale, as they also have conversion kits to fit Tamiya 1/48 scale plastic models. Pablo’s original Dust models were actually 1/35 scale and designed for collectors, but once he was talked into making it a game it was decided to go with an “established” scale.

    I’m aware, but as I consider 1/48 to be pretty much 35mm, it fits the narrative. I think Dust Tactics helped trailblaze 35mm as a gaming scale.

    I also think a parallel of sorts can be drawn to some of the other 35mm manufacturers. Knight Models and Warlord Games are making their popular-media-franchise-based ranges 35mm, because (aside from the fact that the figures look more desirable as collectibles with that level of detail than had they been 28mm) they’re trying to cover both the wargamers’ market and the non-wargaming modellers’ market at the same time, and 35mm is 1/48 which (thanks to a concerted effort by Tamiya in the not-too-distant past) is familiar to non-wargaming modellers. The gamble was getting us miniatures wargamers to accept a scale that’s not traditional to us. It seems to be paying off. On the whole, we’re probably a more freeform crowd, and therefore more pliable, than the non-wargaming modellers.

    By the way, I didn’t know CMON was in the 35mm niche as well. Which games/ranges, specifically?

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by Rhoderic Rhoderic.
    #97040
    kyoteblue
    kyoteblue
    Participant

    Not a scale/size I would buy. Shrug.

    #97059
    Olaf Meys
    Olaf Meys
    Participant

    It’s just. Another. Damn. Unnecessary. Size. 28/30/32/35/40/42mm – why FFS? /rant 🙂

     

    What he says- it’s just a ploy.

    http://mainly28s.com
    wargames review site...

    #97062
    Rhoderic
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    Hm. There are times I feel like I’m the most omnivorous person on this forum.

    I guess I’ll just have to wait for Adeptus Mechanicus to popularise 8mm, so that scale can relieve 35mm of the role of hated newcomer 

    Or, to be self-critical, I could strive to actually paint and post some 35mm miniatures. I suspect visibly engaging in something creative with the scale would likely inspire more positive responses, whereas simply asking the question “What do you think of that there new thing?” seems to provoke mainly negative ones in any community of invested hobbyist-aficionados.

    Note to self: Acquire and paint some 35s.

    #97063
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    Everyone knows that there are only 5 scales:

    6mm, 15mm, 20mm, 25mm and 54mm all else is folly.

    35mm sounds like making a virtue out of scale creeped 28mm.

    #97064
    OldBen1
    OldBen1
    Participant

    It’s a money grab for sure by making miniatures that are exclusive to one game.  I love mixing miniatures from different companies but have found scale creep annoying.  Some of it may come down to painting style.  I have noticed that painters have been slowing improving the paint standard in the last 20 years.  The larger scales showcase the impressive washes and details painters have now developed.  That being said, who has room to store terrain at 35mm?

    #97068
    irishserb
    irishserb
    Participant

    To me, it is just stuff that I don’t want, like golf clubs or head lice.

     

     

    #97070
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    Painting 6mm head lice is hard work.

    #97077
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    1/48 scale, 1″ = 48″ ∴ 1.5″ = 6′

    1″ = 25.4mm ∴ a 6 foot man would be ~38mm head to foot.

    There, I’ve identified the ‘need’ for a new figure size – 38mm. No need to thank me. 🙂

     

    …and 38mm is a size, not a bloody scale, no matter how much people try to dick about with semantics *mutter*

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #97079
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    38mm will be the scalecreep version of 35mm.

     

    And yes, no one can tell me the length of a 28mm Lee Enfield.

    #97080
    Geof Downton
    Geof Downton
    Participant

    Surely the disparity of scales/sizes is about “play our game, no other company’s figures will look right, so you’ll have to buy more of ours…”

    One who puts on his armour should not boast like one who takes it off.
    Ahab, King of Israel; 1 Kings 20:11

    #97081
    Guy Farrish
    Guy Farrish
    Participant

    1/48 scale, 1″ = 48″ ∴ 1.5″ = 6′ 1″ = 25.4mm ∴ a 6 foot man would be ~38mm head to foot. There, I’ve identified the ‘need’ for a new figure size – 38mm. No need to thank me. 🙂 …and 38mm is a size, not a bloody scale, no matter how much people try to dick about with semantics *mutter*

    38mm from the sole of the foot to the top of the head ⸫ c35mm sole to eye level. QED

    Feel free to explode

    (I was going to say ’35mm scale’ but there are limits, even in irony)

    #97082
    Rhoderic
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    That being said, who has room to store terrain at 35mm?

    I’m a firm believer in scaleless and multiscale terrain and scenery. I’ve never made or bought any piece of terrain or scenery for 35mm, but I already have enough stuff that’s scaleless enough to set up a table that’s just as convincing in 35mm as it is in 28mm. Granted, this won’t include houses, but that’s alright. Plenty of 35mm sci-fi adventures can be had in industrial sprawls, underground tunnel systems and various types of wilderness – certainly enough for a niche project that might involve having as few as 15-20 miniatures for that scale altogether.

    Even if I did scratchbuild a couple of 35mm houses (some sort of sci-fi frontier/colony abodes, most likely), I could probably make them multiscale enough to also serve 28mm (both true and heroic), perhaps with a few interchangeable pieces for the interiors.

     

    …and 38mm is a size, not a bloody scale, no matter how much people try to dick about with semantics *mutter*

    I always feel a bit guilty calling mm sizes scales, but only because I know it aggravates some people and risks provoking an unhappy reaction, not because I think it’s wrong myself.

    It hurts no-one, and in any case I’m not going to start calling them “sizes”, because it’s too generic a word for something so specific to not become confusing and awkward in everyday conversation. I’ve considered “sizescale” (which I think I saw someone else coin elsewhere in the internet community) or “scalesize”, but… nah.

    By the way, I measure mm scales to the eyes 

     

    Surely the disparity of scales/sizes is about “play our game, no other company’s figures will look right, so you’ll have to buy more of ours…”

    Surely it’s not just that, though? I acknowledge that reason – the very most cynical one – as being part of the mix, but I do think it is a mix of reasons, both good and bad. And even if a new scale has its genesis in pure, single-minded cynicism on the part of the manufacturers, does that mean it can’t develop a rich and fulfilling life of its own?

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by Rhoderic Rhoderic. Reason: For some weird reason, my post attributed a quote to the wrong person. Probably my own fault
    #97084
    Geof Downton
    Geof Downton
    Participant

    Surely it’s not just that, though?

    No, it’s not just that, but there seems to have been, in recent years, (I suspect the post GW era) a move towards games which come in a package, with rules, background, figures/models/vehicles and scenics all from the same supplier/manufacturer, rather than games based around a rule set played with armies that could easily have come from 2 or more manufacturers, (in the case of sci fi/fantasy) in a world of the players’ imaginations (see “fluff” elsewhere on this site!) If your company sells all the stuff needed it only needs to be compatible with itself.

    One who puts on his armour should not boast like one who takes it off.
    Ahab, King of Israel; 1 Kings 20:11

    #97087
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    1/48 scale, 1″ = 48″ ∴ 1.5″ = 6′ 1″ = 25.4mm ∴ a 6 foot man would be ~38mm head to foot. There, I’ve identified the ‘need’ for a new figure size – 38mm. No need to thank me. 🙂 …and 38mm is a size, not a bloody scale, no matter how much people try to dick about with semantics *mutter*

    38mm from the sole of the foot to the top of the head ⸫ c35mm sole to eye level. QED Feel free to explode (I was going to say ’35mm scale’ but there are limits, even in irony)

     

    My blood pressure has gone through the roof. I hope you’re pleased with yourself 🙁

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #97088
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    Of course, whilst I have nothing but contempt for 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, 6mm, 18mm ………………………………………….

    In the end, no one has to buy this shit.

    #97089
    Rhoderic
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    Surely it’s not just that, though?

    No, it’s not just that, but there seems to have been, in recent years, (I suspect the post GW era) a move towards games which come in a package, with rules, background, figures/models/vehicles and scenics all from the same supplier/manufacturer, rather than games based around a rule set played with armies that could easily have come from 2 or more manufacturers, (in the case of sci fi/fantasy) in a world of the players’ imaginations (see “fluff” elsewhere on this site!) If your company sells all the stuff needed it only needs to be compatible with itself.

    This, I’ll acknowledge emphatically.

    I have an omnivorous attitude to this kind of thing, myself. Some of my projects (including most of my largest ones in scope) are about as freeform as they get, usually built around a generic, “universal” visual/sculpting style for which there are plenty of miniatures available from dozens of manufacturers (in the case of 28mm, I consider the North Star stable of sculptors to represent the modern gold standard for the “universal style”). With others, I’ve bought into the notion of a complete, self-contained package, at least as far as miniatures.

    I love to jump between not only settings and scales, but also visual/sculpting styles, so when a manufacturer offers a self-contained, reasonably self-sufficient range in a unique style, this is usually attractive to me, even accounting for the fact that I’ll have to make the project a strictly-delineated one that can’t easily be expanded in a freeform way with miniatures from other manufacturers. That just makes the project more manageable. Many of my projects are really very small in scope, but if there’s something I feel to be missing in one project, I can probably get it satisfactorily in another. Limits are borders. Borders are contours. Contours are shapes. Shapes are what make one project/setting different from another.

    This doesn’t extend to terrain, rules or background settings, though. As a terrain-building aficionado, I detest the fact that GW doesn’t even acknowledge the possibility of scratchbuilding terrain anymore – they want their customers to genuinely believe the only way to get terrain for GW games is to buy it from GW. It’s one of the reasons I only make scavenging raids into GW territory these days, as opposed to ever again being a true “GW hobbyist”. For rules I have a “whatever works” attitude, and will often disregard the official ruleset for a proprietary range of miniatures in favour of something homebrewed or some ruleset from the indie publishers like Nordic Weasel. For background, whatever that’s worth, I always have my own headcanon, which may contain anywhere between 1% and 99% of the official background material for a game.

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by Rhoderic Rhoderic.
    #97127
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Mr. Picky, while relentless in his pursuit of niminy-piminy pedantry to the greatest possible extent allowed by law, has never been able to get his prize-winning pumpkin-sized head around the fakety-fake distinction between “size” and “scale” affected by some terrestrial wargamers. This is not a problem suffered by railway modellers, aeromodellers, architects, naval architects, doll’s house constructors, or anyone else who plays with scale models. Obviously a scale model has some numerical ratio in its dimensions when compared with its real-life prototype.
    One might argue that toy soldiers are different, because people come in different sizes, but that hardly stops the models of them to a constant scale doing the very same thing. When grizzlymc says nobody can tell him the length of a 28mm Lee-Enfield, one can only hope that this is because of the failure to specify whether it is a no. 1 rifle, a no. 4 rifle, or the no. 5 jungle carbine. If the scale model is not 1/64th of the size of the original, something is wrong, because 28mm figures are either 1/64th scale, or wrong. Bleating about “measuring to the eyes” should be treated with the contempt it deserves; horses may be measured to the shoulder, but humans (or at least all those I’ve ever met) do not articulate at the level of the eyes, so no ambiguity is possible on that score, and there is no excuse.
    One might also argue that wargaming miniatures are not scale models, which would account for the megacephalic stumpiness of many sculpting styles. This strikes me as a crackpot argument, and it is not one ever offered by the railway modellers, aeromodellers, and so forth, who also use model people. They do not feel oddly obliged to misrepresent the shape of the human frame. For those who claim that accurately-scaled representations of the human form are impossible for the wargaming table, I have, like the drunken old bugger at Ben’s pool party in “The Graduate”, one word: Plastics.
    If “35mm” is not the good old traditional 1/48th scale, as Rhoderic correctly identfies it, then I am a pair of Belgian hamsters, and you can slap my bottom and call me Abigail.
    Regardless of the current Zeitgeist of universal stupidity-worship, I have every confidence that the way numerical ratios work will continue to function in very much the same way that is has done since the FROG Penguins of the 1930s, and indeed before. People are free to think otherwise, just as people are free to claim that Ivor Novello is still alive, but this should by no means prevent the rest of us from pointing and laughing at them.

    All the best,

    John.

    #97128

    Thomaston
    Participant

    I think part of it is marketing, they need to draw people to their games and bigger miniatures have an easier time attracting attention. Once someone bought into 35mm miniatures they will be comparing the detail/quality with their 28-32mm.

    3mm is 4-4.5mm on a good day, that’s the largest creep I’ve seen. GHQ 1/285 infantry are already around 8mm.

    I’m waiting to see if what GW make of 8mm and hope I don’t live long enough to see 28-32mm miniatures go to 38-40mm.

    Life's too long.

    #97133
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    When Mr Picky was just a lad, I’m sure he bought Airfix HO/OO scale figures.  HO/OO is not actually a scale, but a track width.  US toy trains running on HO/OO track are a different scale to European toy trains running on the same track.  Scale is never as simple as it looks.  And when it comes to the esoteric, the wargaming community are veritable skippers of detail compared to the toy train people.

    Now, as for the scale length of a Lee Enfield.  I never realised how difficult it is to get historical data on people’s heights.  But, based on an hour of plowing through the results of a google search, using a Mk 1 No 4 (113cm) as my standard Lee Enfield, I come up with a range of weapon lengths from 17.8mm in the hands of a 28mm figure in 1975 (presumably a reservist or sniper) to 18.95mm for a home guard figure born in the 1870s.  The typical WWII tommy would have a Lee Enfield 18.34mm long and I would have one 16.9mm long.

     

    This makes the assumption that our figure is 28mm from his stockinged feet to the crown of his head.  I am 10% shorter if measured in boots to the eyes, so the weapons would all be 10% longer.

     

    Wait till you try this across nations.

     

    #97134
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    US toy trains running on HO/OO track are a different scale to European toy trains running on the same track.

    Nope. HO gauge models (toys? pah!) scale out at 1:87 in both Europe and America. OO is British, by God, and 1:76 scale.

    O gauge, on the other hand, is 1:43 in Britain and France, 1:45 in Germany and Japan and 1:48 in the US.

    US and European N gauge is 1:160. British N gauge is 1:148.  Japanese N gauge is 1:150, but models of the Shinkansen have been made 1:160.

    Now, do you want to discuss model track gauges v actual track gauge across the various scales? 🙂

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #97135
    Mike
    Mike
    Keymaster

    Now, do you want to discuss model track gauges v actual track gauge across the various scales?

     


    You need the Sheldon Cooper forum for that.

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by Mike Mike.
    #97137
    norm smith
    norm smith
    Participant

    35mm is both a scale and a size …… Everything in life is both a scale and a size, I am 1:1 scale with my identical twin and also 6 ft size, throw into the mix that I might also be considered chunky rather than proportionate. I always wait in resigned anticipation for the post to these threads that wants to argue the pointless toss about scale v size, as in any case it is a subject that we know what the original posters means regardless of terminology, it just seems rather rude to me to be ‘corrected’ in this way.

    Anyway, I doubt 35mm is scale creep of 28mm as scale creep would be called 28mm, but then not actually fit in with anything normally considered 28mm, so it looks to be deliberately something different or 1/48 as others have said. For non-modern wargaming, I am not sure how 35mm could take off as mainstream size and require terrain and other forces to match it because it seems (to me at least) that normal 28mm or even large 28mm or 40mm would be the choices that people will go to for with their already well supported lines for pre WWII.

    Scale creep on 15mm (should that be size creep? I await to be corrected) has now become so entrenched that we now have the new size (scale) of 18mm being universally accepted as a common point of reference. Lancashire Games for example have been tradional 15mm producers and they are now producing lines described as 18mm.

    But perhaps the point really is that it is just one more product to celebrate,  from the point of view that the gamer has never been so well served in choice as they are today, the hobby continues to stride forward and meet all needs … Good!

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by norm smith norm smith.

    http://commanders.simdif.com

    #97141
    MartinR
    MartinR
    Participant

    I’ll just go on buying stuff from my favourite old manufacturers and ignore all this modern crap. At Joy of Six I compared some modern “6mm” figures with some 10mm figures in the bring and buy, and they were the same size. Good god.

    So I bought some good old H and R figures which have remained exactly the same size for the last 40 years. Judging by the flash, they are the same moulds too:)

    "Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

    #97142
    Angel Barracks
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    we know what the original posters means regardless of terminology, it just seems rather rude to me to be ‘corrected’ in this way

    This.
    It does not help the question at hand but rather tends to fuel a bad vibe.

    #97149
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    Now, do you want to discuss model track gauges v actual track gauge across the various scales?

    You need the Sheldon Cooper forum for that.

     

    Don’t point that finger at me, we’re all on the spectrum here 😉

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #97150
    Mike
    Mike
    Keymaster

    I meant more that he is mad for trains.

    #97154
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    I meant more that he is mad for trains.

    O I C

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #97180
    Rhoderic
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    Thank you, Norm.

    I’ve come to consider the whole issue of defining scales, sizes, measuring standards and correctness of proportions an intractable conflict in this hobby, therefore one that I find best left unacknowledged or preempted in any discussion where it wasn’t the original topic to start with.

    (By “preempted”, I mainly just mean that when I state the exact size/scale of a figure I’m able to measure myself, I state the measurements to both the eyes and the top of the head, or whatever I can imperfectly judge to be the top-of-head-level underneath headgear, in order to preemptively mollify both camps in the “where to measure” dimension of the conflict and provide everyone with the information they subjectively want to know.)

    We could hash out a thousand threads about the supposedly correct definitions and applications of scales and sizes, the correct way to measure and the legitimacy or illegitimacy of stylised sculpting involving unrealistic proportions, and nothing would be solved or ameliorated in the least. I know that I for one won’t change my ways (I call sizes scales, I prefer measurements to the eyes and, within reason, I can appreciate sculpts that are stylised as opposed to photo-realistic, in the same way I can appreciate a graphic novel that uses stylised art). I don’t expect others to change theirs.

    That’s why, even though I was anticipating and dreading from the moment I thought about starting this thread that the scale/size conflict would surface, I didn’t want to bring it up. I could have, just to try to preempt the conflict, but I didn’t want the opening post to be a wall of text that anxiously tries to get ahead of every eventuality. Besides, I know from bitter experience that trying to set up ground rules in the opening post of a thread will often, unfortunately, provoke responses that are rebellious and indignant for the pure sake of it. Sadly, sometimes there’s just no winning when trying to generate rewarding discussion in the hobby community. It’s not a TWW problem, it’s a community-wide one, in the broadest definition of community.

    I’m now laying this specific matter to bed for my own part, but I intend to keep discussing my original topic, and constructive spin-offs of it, in this thread. There are a few more things – constructive things – I wanted to respond to, but I’ve spent over one-and-a-half hours trying to word this post in the best way, and it has drained my energy for now.

    #97181
    irishserb
    irishserb
    Participant

    Giving greater consideration to the original question about 35mm, I would like to offer the following:

    I define scale creep as being the process where an established line offers figures (of humans) of greater size and/or scale over time, but continuing to market these newer, larger figs as being the same scale/size as the figures of original or earlier introduction.  Producing and marketing a line of figures in a new, or otherwise larger scale than was available previously, is simply introducing a new scale, as I see it.  So producing a line of 35mm figs after 25, 28, 30, and 32mm figs have been on the market for awhile isn’t scale creep, but most likely a marketing tactic.

    Relative to my own use, my objection is that this new scale will not be compatible with my previously purchased figures, nor will it be compatible with scale dependent terrain and accessories.  It will potentially require me to repurchase forces that I already own in a new scale, as well as, buildings, roads, bridges, and other items.  This requires an investment of time and money, with no perceived resulting benefit (by me).  The scale doesn’t promote or permit games of different scope  from what I previously ran, and it takes more of the two things that have the least of to get back to were I was, time and money.  As a consumer and hobbyist, I find this potentially upsetting, and possibly detrimental to the overall health of the hobby.

    I’ll stick with my smaller scales.

    Note:  I deleted a portion of my original post, offering thoughts about scale and size, in an effort to be respectful to Rhoderic.  I am sorry if this causes any inconvenience.

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by irishserb irishserb.
    #97185
    Angel Barracks
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    I like new things if they add value to my experience.
    I am not sure that 35mm would offer anything that I want.
    There could almost certainly be more detail, maybe, that of course depends on the sculptor.
    I have seen 15mm with nicer detail than 25mm, and 6mm with better than 15mm.
    No doubt there will be better 28mm than some 35mm.
    It may offer the chance for more detail but as to if that will actually happen, no-one can say for sure?

    However, I am quite happy with the level of detail on my 15mm, should I decide that I want more then I would go to 28mm to get the extra texture/features.
    35mm may offer more but I am primarily a gamer and not a modeller, were I modeller I would not buy wargames figures, but scale models anyway.

    35mm would not for me offer anything other than, increased cost, increased storage space, reduced choice and the need to buy everything again as my current stuff would not fit with my aesthetic.

    Now, having said that, I have no issues with a boardgame that has its pieces in 35mm, they could be 32.98mm for that matter, if they are designed to fit within the enclosed system then it would not bother me.
    But, having said that… if a boardgame was made with 2 options of size, one that fitted with what I already have so I could get use from the figures outside the boardgame, and a size that fitted with nothing else on the market, I would pick the one that offered more use, or more value for money if you prefer.

    In terms of scale creep, my new range could very much be accused of this, and that is OK with me.
    I have gone out of my way to call it 15mm, (so that people have an idea what size the models are and if they should work with that they already have) but have made sure the figures vary in size.
    Apart from the obvious ones where I have had short people sculpted and taller people sculpted all within the 15mm sizing, I have also made my hero character models bigger than 15mm.
    The idea is that the rank and file, NPC types are around 15mm tall and the super special villains and heroes are closer to 18mm.
    I want the protagonists to be larger than life.

    I also think that just because you can, does not mean you should.
    I recall a good few years back when MDF laser cut buildings started becoming the rage that I saw an MDF hummer.
    It had very visible joins, very sharp straight lines, chunky detailing, and generally did not look as ‘real’ as equivalent resin models on the market.
    To top it off, it cost more…

    So for me, it immediately smacks of an attempt to try and capture consumers with something new and pretty and tie them into that product, not dissimilar to some tech companies and their phones that don’t even share chargers across the same brand…

    #97189
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    Alright, not Connard, I give in, but my error makes my point.

     

    I think it all went wrong when Metal manufacturers sought to make their ranges incompatible with airfix.

     

    There are only 5 sizes: 6mm, 15mm, 20 mm 25mm and 54mm.  All else is madness.  And your remember the Airfix scale creep – HO/OO mark II Germans would eat the under  weaponed HO/OO infantry Combat Group for breakfast.

    #97197
    norm smith
    norm smith
    Participant

    Now, having said that, I have no issues with a boardgame that has its pieces in 35mm, they could be 32.98mm for that matter, if they are designed to fit within the enclosed system then it would not bother me. But, having said that… if a boardgame was made with 2 options of size, one that fitted with what I already have so I could get use from the figures outside the boardgame, and a size that fitted with nothing else on the market, I would pick the one that offered more use, or more value for money if you prefer.

    Mike, sort of spinning off the back of that, at the moment, the wargame boardgame industry is seeing a number of long out of print boardgames being re-presented, with a goodly number moving up from one map to two. The map graphics stays the same, it is just stretched over the area that is two map boards instead of one, so everything is bigger, including the hexes and the counters. This is all very nice for eyes that are getting older, but it does of course assume that one has the gaming space to put the new bigger game into.

    We can’t really call it scale creep, but I suppose the effect itself should have a name, which could be generically useful as we see the same upsizing factor in many things, cars, TV screens, new borns weighing heavier, kids growing taller, waistbands increasing and mobile phones getting tablet sized, conversely of course, chocolate bars get smaller which sort of breaks my theory that if the universe is expanding, then perhaps so is everything else including 6mm, 15mm and 28mm. This doesn’t explain the creation of 3mm, though that does get us back to the chocolate bar. Einstein of course saw it more in terms of Mc2 = scale x size x (28+6+15+18-3) and who are we to argue!

     

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by norm smith norm smith.

    http://commanders.simdif.com

    #97200
    deephorse
    deephorse
    Participant

    I think it all went wrong when Metal manufacturers sought to make their ranges incompatible with airfix.

     

    IIRC Airfix made their own range of figures incompatible with Airfix!

    Wargamers - successfully driving the fun out of wargaming since 1780

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 59 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.