Physique Facts of New Sister

[Bubba Pearson]

At the scale of this or any similarly tiny model, even fairly significant differences in height are imperceptible to the naked eye, and this is the largest AS model yet, scaled to a 32mm standard, I'm fairly sure. The height from the bottom of the heel (not including any "high" heel), to the top of the head indicates scale.  Throughout the industry, that scale distance typically is representative of a six feet tall individual.

 

A visible (and measurable) difference of one eighth inch (3mm) would be one eighth of six feet, or 1/8th of 72 inches.  Divide 72 by 8 and we're talking about a difference in height of 9 inches (!), and I guesstimate 1/8" to be about the smallest distance able to be accurately resolved by eye.  Even a nearly invisible (yet measurable) difference of 1/16 inch (1.5mm) represents 4 and 1/2 inches of height, and manufacturers just don't create models with such differences in size, unless the scale has changed completely, or the figure being represented is a physical dwarf.

 

If the scale were any smaller than 32mm, that would mean these differences are even larger, not smaller.  Further, if the representative figure were any shorter than six feet tall, even several inches of difference in height would be that much harder to resolve, probably impossible, using only the eyes.  When the difference in size for a model in any scale as small as this one is noticeable to the naked eye or can be measured, the difference is significant enough to be a question of scale, not physique.

Edited July 10, 2019 by WarriorFish
Off topic removed, format provided

[Dagoth Ur]

Could you please explain what the point of this thread is? This feels somewhat well thought out, but I just have no idea what you are on about.

Edited July 10, 2019 by The Observer

[tvih]

Scale vs physique with the level of difference were seeing in itself isn't really even the issue, that's just terminology - it's whether people want a clone army of exactly identical physical size or not. Me, I like variety, and the size difference is well within human parameters so I simply don't see a problem for my preferences whether it's a "scale" difference or not. Just because I can tell my imaginary friends Big Pete and Tiny Tony apart from a distance because they aren't the same size doesn't mean it's a problem and I don't see why miniatures need to be identical size either. Others clearly do feel non-exacting height standards are a problem, but the way some put it you'd think they were comparison squats and primaris marines because they don't grasp POSING.

[Slasher956]

Whats the point in yet another thread going on about the physical size of the new sisters of battle minis?

 

Bubba's argument in this thread is that the size difference between an old SoB & the new ones shouldnt be 'written off' as the standard human variance.... although I'll just point out that my wife (to be) is just ~5' 10", however most of the ladies who she knows range from 5'0" to 5' 6" ...giving us a height difference of 4 - 10".... or 3-4 mm at a 32mm scale which is what the plastic sisters will be.

 

So that is fact..

 

As is that GW have changed the scale of the Sisters of Battle Minis and they will look different heights on the table if just on standard bases ... everything else is conjector & personal opinion.

[Marshal Rohr]

What model are you talking about?

[WarriorFish]

I have edited your post to remove the off topic, please consider the B&C's mission statement when posting with particular regard to how we wish to see participation. Thanks.

[Slasher956]

What model are you talking about?

 

Bubba is talking about the new plastic sister Superior Amelia.

 

(its in the TAGs of the thread + all of his new threads have been about this one subject)

[Ryltar Thamior]

I'm going to start by saying that that's a considerable level of analytical thought and effort  you've put in to your observation; and that you've got a bit of a flair for rhetoric.

I'm going to continue by saying that the expectation of consistent scaling, even inside the same model, when it comes to Games Workshop ... is a "Thatway, Madness Lies".

It is absolutely true that they've been getting better in recent years and recent phases of releases - although taking a look at the differential between, say, the Van Saar and Delaque gangers will show just how far human variance can go in the far future. 

The bottom line is: does the miniature look cool/evocative/legit. And yeah, sure, reasonable people may differ in the extent to which 'suspension of disbelief' as a result of 'scale difference' or other considerations may interfere with that - for example, 'regular-scale' marines, and especially terminators, now just look 'off'  to me for various reasons. 

Now as it happens, I *do* think there's been some scalar alteration going on over the past few years in GW's output. And something that's more observable when you've got miniatures around all the way back to the early-90s in metal. I just don't think it's that significant to be too bothered about; in fact, it's something I've actively welcomed in a lot of cases.

Long story short, as somebody who's wound up putting quite a bit of effort into truescaling every marine he's done since ... well, since I started building again some time ago, I am somewaht sensitive to scalar concerns. But ultimately - each  to their own, somewhat, as to whether they think a given GW miniature has a place in their collection. We've known for some years now that regular Marines are out of scale - often considerably so - with regular human miniatures. It hasn't, and shouldn't, stopped people from enjoying and doing cool things with them, regardless. Your personal mileage, as ever, may vary. 

 

[Jomgor]

I think it is inarguable the new models look better in every way to the old models. Reading your other posts though, it seems to me GW could send you a gold nugget with a free army of plastic and you would complain about the packaging.

[ERJAK]

I like that she's giant.

[Bubba Pearson]

I think it is inarguable the new models look better in every way to the old models. Reading your other posts though, it seems to me GW could send you a gold nugget with a free army of plastic and you would complain about the packaging.

I'm not complaining about the new model. My posting has been edited, with considerable content removed (and that's not a complaint either.) I think the new models are fantastic, although a bit high in price for my hobby budget. I thought my posts made my opinion of GW, particularly their qualitative standards, quite clear. I only posted this (which I have said before in other posts), because other members were claiming these differences were matters of pyhsique. In any scale as small as this, even fairly significant differences in physique are invisible, for all practical purposes, and model manufacturers adhere to scale very closely, for that very reason.

[ValourousHeart]

Here is what I see.

 

This new sister is standing fairly tall with her feet less than shoulder width apart and there is no discernible bend in her knees.

 

This sister has her feet placed wider than shoulders, and there is a clear bend in her knees.

 

This second picture is a typical stance for the metal range and would account for about 6 inches difference in the height profile of an adult.

 

*edit* That might not sound like a big difference but it is roughly an 8-10% shift in height which would be noticed even at Warhammer scale.

Edited July 10, 2019 by ValourousHeart

[ERJAK]

Here is what I see.

 

This new sister is standing fairly tall with her feet less than shoulder width apart and there is no discernible bend in her knees.

 

This sister has her feet placed wider than shoulders, and there is a clear bend in her knees.

 

This second picture is a typical stance for the metal range and would account for about 6 inches difference in the height profile of an adult.

 

*edit* That might not sound like a big difference but it is roughly an 8-10% shift in height which would be noticed even at Warhammer scale.

Having put her and other models next to each other, she's head and shoulders taller even accounting for pose. Whether it's a good thing or bad thing is up to taste but there's no denying she's pretty massive compared to other sisters.

[Marshal Rohr]

Yeh, but she wont be compared to other plastic SoB, Primaris, and Guard, which is what matters. 

[ERJAK]

Yeh, but she wont be compared to other plastic SoB, Primaris, and Guard, which is what matters.

Technically if you plan on mixing old SoB and new SoB the size difference between sisters would matter more.

 

I personally could care less how the army looks so long as the rules are good.

[Aqui]

I think this topic has gone as far as it is able to go. Some people are not keen on the new size of the Sisters models, and that's fine. Others are okay with the new scale, and that also is fine. This has happened before, when the RTB01 Marines were replaced by the metal and plastic Mark VII models. It's a consequence of progress. There is only a finite amount of detail that can be put on a model around the 28mm mark. Either players accept that (for good or ill), or, they try to accept models that veer off that scale to be able to get the detail they deserve.

 

In any case, I do think that this discussion has no further merit to it. Whether we like it or not, this is the direction GW is going, and I doubt they're going to change that direction.