Is Truescaling... Rude?

[ElectricPaladin]

Here's an odd question, and I'd love to have a conversation about it.

 

In this hobby, the visual experience is clearly a part of the appeal. That's part of why we all try to get our models painted, envy and admire the guys who show up with 100% painted armies, and try to play with cool (and also painted) terrain. It's why many narrative events and campaigns either ban grey plastic or give special benefits to painted armies. Different players have different opinions about this trend, and these practices, and that's fine, but I don't think anyone can deny that painting your models is a part of the hobby, and having visually interesting models creates an awesomer, more cinematic experience.

 

Now, here's the question: if painting your models is part of giving your opponent a better experience - and I'm not trying to demonize those who can't or won't paint, I'm just acknowledging that this is part of the hobby, nobody is perfect and that's fine - is it rude to alter your models in such a way as to make the visual experience of the tabletop less coherent? His truescale models might look great in his cabinet, but they're going to look weird next to your normal scale models. Is that rude? Are you enhancing your experience of your own models at the cost of your opponents' experience of the game?

 

I'm not trying to attack anyone - I'm just really curious what the community's response to this idea is going to be.

[*Furyou Miko]

It's rude in that it's putting your own way of playing the game above someone else's, but ultimately, I think that it's one of those things that you should just let slide. Most 40kers aren't exactly the soul of politeness in any case.

[Grotsmasha]

I wouldn't say that modelling and expecting to play with a True Scale force is rude, treating someone poorly because they opt out of playing a True Scale force would be.

 

Cheers,

Jono

[jeffersonian000]

Personally, I find the size difference more of a hinderance to the Truescaler than to me as an opponent. Difficultly in grouping models in tight terrain, cover issues due to True Line of Sight, oversized vehicles with the same flimsy stats as my normal sized vehicles that can hide better. There are advantages to Truescale, such as larger bases mean less models hit by blasts, larger vehicles mean less chance of overage from scatter hitting infantry models nearby. But over all, it's not that good of a trade off to justify any advantage.

 

And I don't find it to look all that good, either.

 

SJ

[Chaeron]

I think, if I were to see one, I'd simply applaud the effort - unless they were modelling for advantage, which I think is probably unlikely!

[Bryan Blaire]

I agree with Grotsmasha, jeffersonian and Chaeron.

[Veteran Sergeant]

This question makes me laugh.  As do your puny models.

[Volt]

This question makes me laugh.  As do your puny models.

Keep laughing when your guys struggle to fall in behind a brick wall.

 

"They're in cover"

 

"Their groin is above the wall!"

 

Also, while truescale armies look great when it's truescale space marines fighting guardsmen, it's not so great visually when they're fighting normal space marines.

 

As for painting, yeah, 40k is pretty much meant for the narrative campaign side of gaming. Grey models dun look purty. Especially if somebody else has busted their butts to paint their whole army.

[the jeske]

In this hobby, the visual experience is clearly a part of the appeal. That's part of why we all try to get our models painted, envy and admire the guys who show up with 100% painted armies, and try to play with cool (and also painted) terrain

if painting your models is part of giving your opponent a better experience

- is it rude to alter your models in such a way as to make the visual experience of the tabletop less coherent?

It is not rude. if units/models are hard to identify its cheating.

His truescale models might look great in his cabinet, but they're going to look weird next to your normal scale models.

the weird is a taste thing and doesnt matter much in game. What does matter is different LoS blocking,LoS drawing.

Is that rude? Are you enhancing your experience of your own models at the cost of your opponents' experience of the game?

In general cheating is illegal.

[Inquisitor Kravin]

So long as it's not modelling for advantage I don't see a problem. In any given match up I'm likely to be facing someone whose army is better painted than mine and therefore could arguably make mine look inferior - if I get hung up on that I'll never be able to play.

[Jolemai]

It simply depends if they are modelling for advantage or not. If they are then it's cheating (i.e. very rude) if they aren't (which is most likely the case) then no.

 

Personally, it shouldn't matter what someone's army looks like (modelling for advantage notwithstanding): It shouldn't matter if it's unpainted, unbased, blu tac'd or whatever. So long as it's assembled and you can see (or are told) what something is then it's all fair game. Enjoy you beer and pretzels.

[Kol Saresk]

If one person has a truescale army, I wouldn't consider it rude. To me, it is no different than the person who has GS sculpted fifty percent of their character models or people like Subtle Discord, Dan the Daemon and 1000Heathens(Hyenidae now I believe) who essentially leave "no model unconverted". To me, it is exactly like the painting, an optional step. Something the other player can do that I don't necessarily have to do. Especially if I can't.

[Sheesh Mode]

No. My chosen are true-scale and I have yet to find a time when my opponent noticed enough to mention it, let alone feel insulted by it. Any comments I receive are complementary, people are impressed that I have put so much work into heightening and reposing my models.

I have considered making my vehicles larger as well, but that is a future project which I will not be taking to tournament games. It is extremely unlikely that anyone will care at my local hobby shop. We like interesting and new styles and conversions. Look at orks for chrissakes, their whole motif is for conversions, why would that be an issue if I did that to marines?

"They're too big."

And? It doesn't give me an advantage - quite the opposite - I simply field that army because I enjoy it.

In this hobby, the visual experience is clearly a part of the appeal. That's part of why we all try to get our models painted, envy and admire the guys who show up with 100% painted armies, and try to play with cool (and also painted) terrain

if painting your models is part of giving your opponent a better experience

Jeske why do you play 40k?

[Demus Ragnok]

Yes it's rude. How dare someone take evidence of their talent and work ethic and rub my untalented nose in it!

 

(Fraters the above comment was presented in the "sarcasm" style. It is in no way to be taken seriously.)

[BrotherCaptainArkhan]

This isn't serious, surely?

I'd be hard pressed to avoid incredulous laughter were someone to seriously suggest in real life that truescaling is 'rude'.

How about if my opponent uses non-GW dice? Or dice in ugly colours? They clash visually with the muted dull tones of my army. Is that rude?

[ElectricPaladin]

If you don't get what I'm going at, you should reread my OP. You can disagree, but I don't think it's a bizarre question. I'll lay it out for you in bullet points, though:

 

1. Playing a wargame is at least partly a visual experience.
2. Your truescale army might look great on its own, but it's going to look really weird on the table next to my army and potentially detract from the overall experience of the game.
3. At the same time, the game is not only a visual experience - it's also a game - and additionally you can do what you like with your army.
4. Therefore, the question: is it rude or selfish to do something to your army that makes you happy but will almost always clash with your opponents' armies, undermining suspension of disbelief and detracting from their experience?

 

I think it's an interesting question. It's similar a conversation about having painted and fully assembled models. It has nothing to do with having "ugly" dice or any other reductionist hyperbole. There are lots of good reasons why your answer could be "no, I don't think anything is wrong with this practice," but I don't think it's such an absurd question to ask.

[knife&fork]

 

Your truescale army might look great on its own, but it's going to look really weird on the table next to my army and potentially detract from the overall experience of the game.  

 

The same thing could be said about lack of paint, different paint styles, clashing terrain, 3rd party models, GW models from different eras and so on.....

 

It's just something that inventively will happen as long as we don't buy pre-painted and pre-assembled models. 

[Knight of the Raven]

Therefore, the question: is it rude or selfish to do something to your army that makes you happy but will almost always clash with your opponents' armies, undermining suspension of disbelief and detracting from their experience?

Ask power gamers and fluff bunnies how they feel about each other.

[Sheesh Mode]

s it rude or selfish to do something to your army that makes you happy but will almost always clash with your opponents' armies, undermining suspension of disbelief and detracting from their experience?

 My army was made with the express purpose of giving the appearance of 'true spacemarines' they are barely a centimeter taller than guardsmen and Tau, yet that is sufficient to give the impression of towering super-warriors. It is barely noticeable unless looked for and rewards those who see it with an interesting perspective. 

[BrotherCaptainArkhan]

 

Therefore, the question: is it rude or selfish to do something to your army that makes you happy but will almost always clash with your opponents' armies, undermining suspension of disbelief and detracting from their experience?

 

Who honestly can say they've had a worsened experience playing 40k due to their opponent using a truescale army?

 

There are much more important things to worry about.

[JeffTibbetts]

This isn't serious, surely?

I'd be hard pressed to avoid incredulous laughter were someone to seriously suggest in real life that truescaling is 'rude'.

How about if my opponent uses non-GW dice? Or dice in ugly colours? They clash visually with the muted dull tones of my army. Is that rude?

There's a dude in my club who plays with ridiculous dice and I think it's annoying as hell. Seriously. A case could be made. I don't think it's rude, per se, but I don't like that guy very well.

[Firepower]

The difference between ugly dice and true-scaling is that true-scaling actually affects the game.  I still don't know if 'rude' is the right word, but I acknowledge that it does present potential problems.  If I was rolling Vindicators, I might get annoyed when only 4 or 5 marines at most could fit under the template.  But that example is assuming that the true-scaling actually increased the base size.  If it just makes them taller, it's just a very small issue of LOS.

[Hyaenidae]

If you don't get what I'm going at, you should reread my OP. You can disagree, but I don't think it's a bizarre question. I'll lay it out for you in bullet points, though:

 

1. Playing a wargame is at least partly a visual experience.
2. Your truescale army might look great on its own, but it's going to look really weird on the table next to my army and potentially detract from the overall experience of the game.
3. At the same time, the game is not only a visual experience - it's also a game - and additionally you can do what you like with your army.
4. Therefore, the question: is it rude or selfish to do something to your army that makes you happy but will almost always clash with your opponents' armies, undermining suspension of disbelief and detracting from their experience?

 

I think it's an interesting question. It's similar a conversation about having painted and fully assembled models. It has nothing to do with having "ugly" dice or any other reductionist hyperbole. There are lots of good reasons why your answer could be "no, I don't think anything is wrong with this practice," but I don't think it's such an absurd question to ask.

 

That depends dramatically, based on individual people. You could say the same of someone who won't even basecoat their army. Or uses a counts as beer-can-drop-pod. or bases their normal-sized minis on complex or raised bases. Or someone who still plays with their Rogue Trader army, which consists of mostly smaller mini's. Or someone whose painting standards are leagues above your own. Or someone who bought a professionally painted and converted army, or....

 

Seriously, we could go on and on and on. If you can't stand the contrast of any of these possibilities, then you might want to restrict who you play with, and avoid pick-up games at all cost. Ever.

[Redtoof]

I'd find it a bit weird if my Orks were dwarfed by power armoured marines, but I wouldn't think it rude, unless their attitude was a long the lines of 'these are real space marines - your space marines are not'.

[Kol Saresk]

 

Therefore, the question: is it rude or selfish to do something to your army that makes you happy but will almost always clash with your opponents' armies, undermining suspension of disbelief and detracting from their experience?

Ask power gamers and fluff bunnies how they feel about each other.

Heh. I remember when people tried to use "fluff bunnies" as an insult. Its funny how fast that turned around and stopped being one.

 

Anyway, I haven't really seen an argument for how it can be rude other than "modeling for advantage", which is very situational. One could argue "varying aesthetics between armies" but as pointed out, that goes well beyond just truescaling.