Add your picks to the list of IWM miniatures which need rescaling!

[iamfanboy]

Wow, yeah. That one is #1 on my short list of "needs resculpting." I'm not sure how it can be modified to fit onto one hex, though.

I saw a conversion eons ago that took out the top joint of each leg, and put a new knee in the 'long' joint, but for the life of me I can't remember who did it or how.

[jackpot4]

quote author=Sereglach link=topic=45741.msg1053208#msg1053208 date=1428251053]
I understand and agree with iamfanboy's rant.  There are a number of minis that are sadly out of scale with each other.  I have a Lament in my force, and it's HUGE.  To put it in the pose I wanted I had to have my fiancée make a special base for the thing.  Sometimes the scale confuses the hell out of me.  Now, on top of it all, the scale DOES make a HUGE difference for those of us who play Alpha Strike.  Alpha Strike determines line of sight by . . . well . . . line of sight.  That makes a big difference for determining whether or not something has partial cover.  If a mini is bloody-frigging HUGE then it's a lot easier to argue against something having cover.  Also, considering Alpha Strike seems to be gaining in popularity as a means of being able to play Battletech, I expect it to be more of a problem in the future.  Think of it like playing N64's Goldeneye and allowing one player to play Oddjob (the tiny little nuisance that was nearly impossible to shoot) while the other player is using Jaws (that monstrous character that you'd hit if you just aimed in his general direction).  Eventually you'll have people fielding companies of nothing but the smallest scaled units, while someone using the newer units will be at a disadvantage.

As far as the Intro Box Set and Alpha Strike Lance Packs go, they're the exact same size as their metal counterparts.  If you buy the metal version of any of those miniatures, they're not any different in appearance to the plastic ones.  It's just the material.  They're also significantly older minis.  That should probably stand as some sort of testament to scale creep.  Now, granted, the quality of the newest minis is AMAZING; and you can also do wondrous things for posing them how you want during assembly.  However, that articulation comes at a cost, and that cost is size.

Part of that is a matter of business and a cost of options.  I get that, and I can't really hold that against IWM.  I want to be able to pose my minis as much as the next guy.  However, part of me is also screaming over why does my Lament (and Black Knight and King Crab, when I can get them) have to DWARF everything else in my arsenal, including my Atlas.  It makes for a heck of a quandary, doesn't it?
[/quote]

I just built a lament and it's not that big, at least compared to the devastator, templar, and malice standing next to it.  whenever we have colliding minis we just push them back in the hexes they occupy so they fit.  I haven't seen anyone who had a negative reaction to it.  As long as the original hex is used for all relevant actions I don't see an issue at all.  I have not played alpha strike but from the MWDA perspective, we just had the attacking mech stop as soon as the two models made contact.

[cavingjan]

I would strongly advocate again the archangel. That will end up causing more problems than fix. All 18 Celestials would need to be resculpted as they all use common parts.

[Stinger]

So, I am a little late to the party here, but I would like to agree with other people thus far that most new sculpts are great.  Pretty much everything since 2012 has been put through IWM's QCC process. 

Essentially, the QCC is a group of sculptors, artists, Camospecs Guys, and both IWM and Catalyst top brass.  They work hard to make sure that these are scaled right.  There are still some instances of hit or miss.

If you didn't know, I did some of the announced online exclusives in CAD.  Looking back now, I think the coming Thor II will be scaled slightly too large, and the coming Arctic Wolf II will be slightly too small, but I feel that all of them are scaled well within reason. But there was and is an honest effort to always scale the minis as best as possible.

So, it is important to note also, that 3D printed masters does not instantly solve the scaling issues. 

Some other points brought up:

The Lament is a great mini, I am not sure why it was brought up as out of scale.  Take a look at this picture:



It scales very well with the Marauder and the Fennec, and I always thought the Hammerhands was a little small.

[Louie N]

This is how I solved my mech scale issues and worked on my OCD along the way.

 ;)

I lined up my mech collection.  Scaled the mechs from biggest to smallest and classed them into weights classes.  I redesigned the mechs to match my selected weight class.

It is one approach

[ColBosch]

The Lament is a great mini, I am not sure why it was brought up as out of scale.  Take a look at this picture:



It scales very well with the Marauder and the Fennec, and I always thought the Hammerhands was a little small.

Looks fine to me. The Hammerhands looks bulkier than the others, so I'm okay with it being slightly "too small."

[Khymerion]

I honestly don't think there is a solution that can be done.   As long as I stick to maps only, the giant double and triple parking mechs are only a modest pain but switching over to table top terrain where tape measures come out, the oversized battlemechs start to really become a pain in the rear.   There just comes a point where if I have to tear apart, cut down, rebuild, and nearly resculpt a mini just to make it actually fit the size of a hex base, it begins to really not feel too appealing or worth it... especially if you have a company or more to modify.    Then comes the problem of these rebuilt minis are now amongst the most fragile minis on the board and thus begins the 'Well, looks like the warhammer broke... again' problem (curse that IWM miniature!).

At least when it comes to maps, there can always be putting a D4 or a penny on the map and saying 'Yeah, parked under the arm of that Turkina or Kraken is a Mad Cat' but it gets a bit less happy once you are playing on a table top, especially when blast radius weapons start getting thrown about a good deal.   Then suddenly this fat, bloated minis become a problem because tossing down a template and making sure units are under it becomes really important.  By virtue of their poor terms of consistency in scale and sculpting, it just makes things a pain.

So is there a solution?   Yeah.   Actually treat the miniatures like how other actual miniature companies do it and retire the worst offenders, establish a new set standard, and stick to it.   Is the hex base the gold standard and determiner of the location of a play piece?   Then make sure the play piece fits inside the base or that when in the standard configurations of hex bases touching, that the miniature does not eat up the space and come in contact with the other miniatures.  This means tossing out a lot of the inconsistent miniatures and going at the problem with some intelligence and forethought.   We are not in the 70's, 80's, and 90's anymore...  considering the amount of detail and quality that now is the standard in model building and miniatures across the board for the hobby these days, BT miniatures just seem... well...  behind the times.

Establish a scale and stick to it.   You would think in the era of 3d printing and design, getting this to happen should not be that insane.   Toss the past in the dumpster and start fresh.

[Sentinel373]

Being one of the Sculptors working on new miniatures i can tell you that scale is definitely taken into account. For example when i started on the ares that miniature was 72mm tall. Eventually after  seeing many scale comparisons with other battletech figures we brought it down to 54mm. That still means it's one of the biggest miniatures in the game today but it's not like we just pick a number and roll with it. The scale gets discussed for each miniature at length. now i can only speak for miniatures done in the last year but that has been my experience.

Also to discuss the ease of re sizing a cad model as opposed to a hand sculpted model. scaling the figure up or down is not always as easy as it sounds. Sure you can change the scale value. But what you also have to take into account is will the 3d printer be able to handle this piece. and on top of that will that detail survive the molding process. and then will the detail survive paint. I've seen plenty of 3d models with minuscule details get mangled by the 3d printer because the artists didn't take into account the maximum resolution of the printer. or even when a very tiny detail survives all the way till the final figure only to completely disappear once it was painted.
So while using 3d models for the mold master will make it slightly easier to re-scale a figure. it's not a simple matter of setting the scale value to 0.9 and then printing again. you will also have to deepen and widen panel lines, or in some cases remove the detail all together.

[GunjiNoKanrei]

Establish a scale and stick to it.

Is this on IWM? Or is this on CGL? Who should establish how tall and massive a given unit is? Should the licensee establish a pseudo scale or should the licensor establish a canon scale?

Often the miniatures from the "good old times" get thrown out as a standard new miniatures have to measure up to. Which is something I don't really understand. First of all they aren't perfectly scaled either - sure back then it was only a handful of exception, but back then the BT line was barely a third? a fourth? of what it is now, so there aren't really that many more exceptions today. Second, there seems to have been a change in scale in fluff since back then. Light Mechs being only half the size of Heavies and Assaults was introduced with the computer games and picked up by the fluff. There is much more variety in height of Mechs these days, a much more pronounced visual difference between a Light and an Assault. At least it feels this way to me.

And from a quality point of view, speaking as a painter, I think IWM miniatures are better than ever. Many of the newer sculpts compare very favorable to miniatures of other manufacturers, from Reaper to smaller companies producing exclusively CAD designed miniatures.

Is there a scale issue? Yes, there is. Both in terms of height and in terms of mass. But it has gotten much better in recent years, with most miniatures produced in the last three or so years being (mostly) consistent in scale. Redoing the line isn't really an option, at least not as long as IWM has to play catch up with the insane number of new designs popping up left and right. Besides, how many would actually buy a reculpted Mech X when they already have one or two of the old sculpt in their collection? Would you support IWM if they were to resculpt most of the line?

As a gaming mechanism, maybe introducing different base sizes would be a solution? Four sizes for Light, Medium, Heavy and Assault.

[GRUD]

Some things to keep in mind.

A. A LOT of the older 'Mechs are Probably still being produced with the old RP molds.  Changing those minis to adjust to any new scale would require them being newly sculpted.  That would require more time and money to do, both of which are better applied to new designs that don't exist as a mini yet.  We already have a few 'Mechs that are on their 3rd sculpt, for the same variant!   :P

B. The sizes help keep them fitting on a standard hex base, with a few exceptions.  Those being the Super-Heavies and most of the Quads.  Do you scale the Lights down, or the Assaults up? Do you want Light 'Mechs the size of Protos, or Assault 'Mechs the size of the Museum Scale minis?  Do you want to pay $49.95 PER MINI for your Assaults?   :o  Just because "A Lot" of people play using Miniatures Rules or even AS (and also don't use hex maps), that does NOT mean EVERYONE does.  Last I checked, every single box set that has been released came with hex maps.

C. According to the rules, EVERY 'Mech is 2 Levels tall, Period.  Not JUST the Heavies or Assaults, but ALL Classes.  Using the size of the mini to determine "Valid LOS" sounds more like a House Rule to me.  If people are going to be so Literal about LOS, then they need to be just as Literal about what WEAPONS can hit their target.  If they only have LOS from their head to their target, then only weapons mounted in the head should be able to attack, rather than ALL weapons.  As far as that goes, any 'Mech with Partial Cover shouldn't be allowed to fire any leg-mounted weapons either.  Fair is fair, right?

D. Who gets to decide which minis are "Off Scale"?  That is something that is as subjective as saying what 'Mech is the Ugliest/Best-Looking or Best/Worst design.   :-X


Something I can't figure out is why everyone that complains about "Scale" always lays it fully on the heads of IWM (and RP before them), though it's CGL (or FASA and FanPro before them) that designs the 'Mechs to begin with.   ???  If the people responsible for the Fluff can't decide on any "Set Scale", why demand that the people that make the minis do so?

As to worrying about your mini's paintjob while playing, you could simply play with a mini that DOESN'T have a "Display Quality" paintjob, couldn't you?  Or else play with people that aren't going to bump your stuff around.   O0


I'm a Collector rather than a Painter, so "Scale Creep" is a NON-Issue to me.  As far as I know, the only way to "Correct" the so-called Problem would be to resculpt all the so-called "Offenders".  As I said above, I think this is time and money BEST spent on NEW minis of NEW designs that haven't seen the light of day yet.

[Khymerion]

As a gaming mechanism, maybe introducing different base sizes would be a solution? Four sizes for Light, Medium, Heavy and Assault.

This brings up a major legacy issue.   Since we still live in the world where the hex mapsheets, growing ever more rare, still are the basis upon which we play the game.   This means that there is a hard limit on how big a base can be and how much 'land', so to speak, a miniature can dominate.

This game does not have the luxury of having the selection of 25/28mm bases, 40mm bases, and 60mm bases like a certain other war game.   We are stuck with the classic hex base for the base since they need to operate within the realm of being still compatible with the basic game.   Stinks to be trapped like that honestly but it is a hard constraint to operate in.

I guess for me as a consumer, I would be actually interested in purchasing new miniatures to replace old ones, putting the old ones out to pasture, if I had an actual reason to do so.   If the next generation miniatures, better scaled and looking more consistent on their bases when on table top, were produced, I would actually consider replacing a good deal of outdated and disproportionate miniatures.   There is always a time to discontinue something and it would give a chance to actually revamp units to something that might actually resemble a consistent level.   If that means tossing out or discontinuing a miniature that is 20+ years old, well... I am sure that everyone who wanted it has already picked up what they need.

I am glad that the newer mechs are better in terms of quality and scaling but that doesn't excuse clinging to 20+ year old miniatures that are just jokingly bad when compared to newer miniatures in terms of quality.

Much like I would not be too keen to buy a 20 year old terminator miniature from GW when I can pick up a much higher quality current range version of it or how I probably would not touch an old Ral Partha fantasy miniature that I surely would have bought 20 years ago when I know I can throw money at Reaper or a half dozen other companies for something far better in terms of detail, if I could find a properly scaled alternative to IWM's miniatures that could fit contently on a standard BT hex base, I probably would not look back.

[ActionButler]

On the issue of 'what is a better use for IWM's limited funds', I think the business of promoting a clean, consistent, high-detail product should be paramount.  The new sculpts that they have rolled out are gorgeous and (I think) some of the best of what Battletech has to offer.  Whether that has more to do with the actual line drawing design, or the 3D sculpt, I can't say.  I can say that I really like the mech designs from the last couple of TRs almost as much as I like the designs from 3025 and 3050 to me, most of what comes in-between in just sort of... there). 

All that being said, I think we are doing ourselves a huge disservice by continuing production of the old RP sculpts without at least modifying the most egregious scale mistakes.  I'm fine with the level of detail on the old Centurion and Jager minis, for instance, but I am really put off by the fact that 50 tons of battlemech somehow ended up larger than 65 tons of battlemech.  Now, by all means, tell I'm being silly.  Tell me to get my OCD in check.  I am being silly and I do need to get my OCD in check, I own up to both of those things.  However, when I take a stroll down the aisles of my FLGS, none of the other major tabletop mini game has this issue.  Space Marines are scaled properly to Rhinos, Eldar, Orks, and whatever else they've added to 40K.  DUST walkers are believably sized to infantry.  Heavier warjacks look heavier than recon 'jacks. 

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't just an issue of personal preference.  It is an issue that makes BT seem like it is cobbled together (which, frankly, is awfully close to the truth of the matter).  We have IWM's beautiful new sculpts standing side-by-side with RP's assault-mech-scaled recon units.  If this game is ever going to take off and become the super-success that similar games already are, someone, at some point, is going to have to fix the old models. 

[GunjiNoKanrei]

I am glad that the newer mechs are better in terms of quality and scaling but that doesn't excuse clinging to 20+ year old miniatures that are just jokingly bad when compared to newer miniatures in terms of quality.

Much like I would not be too keen to buy a 20 year old terminator miniature from GW when I can pick up a much higher quality current range version of it or how I probably would not touch an old Ral Partha fantasy miniature that I surely would have bought 20 years ago when I know I can throw money at Reaper or a half dozen other companies for something far better in terms of detail, if I could find a properly scaled alternative to IWM's miniatures that could fit contently on a standard BT hex base, I probably would not look back.

This is where it gets tricky. GW has the luxury of recycling the same models time and time again. Yes, there are a few new ones each time a new codex gets released, but the core sees little fluctuation. And Reaper and those other companies - well, take all of their Mechs combined and you probably still have less miniatures than IWM's Battletech line.
IWM is in a difficult situation. Do they continue this never ending race of trying to keep up? Do they ignore new designs and resculpt the existing Mechs, starting with the oldest molds? A bit of both? And how do they resculpt old miniatures if there is no up-to-date canon artwork? Even the fans seem to be undecided on these questions, which is not a good foundation to build on.

[Khymerion]

Perhaps there then needs to be a concerted game plan between IWM and CGL to figure out exactly what each is able to do and what capacities are available.   When looking at other miniature companies and the games associated with them, they have the benefit of actually moving in line with their production houses.   So yes, they do release new material and a few new units but that gives them time to also go back and revamp or discontinue those things that are no longer working, no longer fit the feel of the current line, and move forward.   It has given the longer lasting miniature games out there a chance to stay vibrant and energetic.

We do have the benefit of not having to deal with WYSIWYG yet for some reason we have several miniatures in BT that seem to actually bother with that.   Perhaps that is just knowing what the customers are willing to buy but it also puts a possible solution out there.

There are a LOT of mechs out there.   Lots and lots.   We do not really have a lack of variety of mechs.   There is not really a new need for more mech designs.   Take a page from GW or other games and focus on utilizing or properly improving the mechs in the current inventory.  With hundreds to choose from, stop adding to the back log, start pruning designs, clean up what ever they can along the way and set a new standard of quality.   Work with the designers, focus on variants that can use the existing line, and clean house.

[GRUD]

There are a LOT of mechs out there.   Lots and lots.   We do not really have a lack of variety of mechs.   There is not really a new need for more mech designs.   Take a page from GW or other games and focus on utilizing or properly improving the mechs in the current inventory.  With hundreds to choose from, stop adding to the back log, start pruning designs, clean up what ever they can along the way and set a new standard of quality.   Work with the designers, focus on variants that can use the existing line, and clean house.

Actually, a few years ago CGL DID release the Wars of Reaving Supplemental Sourcebook that mentioned several designs that were no longer in Production among the Clans.  It only cut 16 'Mechs though, and no land or Aerospace vees.  Of course they've since released TRO: 3145 plus all the separate 3145 Faction TROs, each introducing another 5-8 or so NEW 'Mechs, or new Variants of existing ones.   ::)   ;D  Dropping 16, then adding 50+ doesn't do much good.   :D

Hell, they were already behind from when FASA/FanPro were releasing ONE new TRO every year or two.  Going from the dates of when I got them, they've released 26 XTRO PDFs since early 2011 (probably sooner than that), though of those 2 were "April Fool's" XTROs, then 2 others (Boondoggles and Most Wanted) are full of designs that Shouldn't exist as minis, though the Black Knight variant in Most Wanted will be seen Thanks to the Fan Funding 2.0 Project.  New designs of ALL types keep getting tossed on IWM's plate (again, when they were Already behind!), we BT players keep clamoring for new minis, and IWM is also doing minis for other lines.  I don't think they'll EVER be able to catch up at this rate.   :-\  Yet people continue to complain about the "Scale Creep" from older designs, practically DEMANDING that they be Resculpted.   ::)

[DrPhil]It is what it is.  Let it go!  Let it go and move on with your life![/DrPhil]

 O0

[Col.Hengist]

So you're talking about icons of mechs. They're all close in size. That's my opinion. They're all pretty cool and I can justify sizes by some use bulkier materials like the primitives or FFA and endo or have an xl engine...

[iamfanboy]

Okay, Khymerion, are you a clone of mine that somehow got loose and became a Battletech fan too? 'Cause you're saying words that jive perfectly with my thoughts.

There are a LOT of mechs out there.   Lots and lots.   We do not really have a lack of variety of mechs.   There is not really a new need for more mech designs.   Take a page from GW or other games and focus on utilizing or properly improving the mechs in the current inventory.  With hundreds to choose from, stop adding to the back log, start pruning designs, clean up what ever they can along the way and set a new standard of quality.   Work with the designers, focus on variants that can use the existing line, and clean house.

The real skeleton in the Battletech closet, as far as miniatures go, is that it's EASY for FASA/Wizkids/CGL to design 40-50 new 'Mech designs so they can sell a new TRO set only a few years after the last one - and Ral Partha/Iron Wind Metals is obligated to produce miniatures for each design. This leads to a glut of minis that is basically dead weight, which is what forces them to discontinue certain lines, and why the whole fan-funding/archive system EXISTS.

In my ideal world, CGL's next TRO would focus on the "Greatest Hits" of TROs 3055-3067 in the 3155 era, culling some of the ugliest/most useless/most redundant, and glorifying the best combination of visual and tabletop design - without redesigning the visual look. This would give IWM a chance to bring out some of their older molds (simplifying the production process), and resculpt the ones which look great but are too large for 30mm hexes.

(Oh, and give them a chance to bring back some of the unjustifiably trimmed 3055 visual designs - dat classic Stone Rhino bootay!)

Great cross-selling appeal, too, to have blisters ready to go next to the TRO and the new boxed sets.

The constant flow of TRO books from the FASA days, continually introducing new designs, was quite possibly the worst decision FASA ever made. It diluted the product and made it harder to understand - frankly, it's the same mistake TSR made with AD&D. But that's another topic which should go into the General Discussion, and I may do just that when I formulate my argument and solution better.

[Col.Hengist]

I think TPTB have improved on the old mech designs. Look at project phoenix and all the old is the new new, and revised record sheets.

[ActionButler]

The constant flow of TRO books from the FASA days, continually introducing new designs, was quite possibly the worst decision FASA ever made. It diluted the product and made it harder to understand

I agree with this 100%.  New designs are great, but BT -as a whole- would have been in a much better place in the 90's if ~70 brand new designs hadn't been piled on top of everything else (IMO).  To bring the Games Workshop example back in, 40K has survived for years with the exact same Space Marines as their core product.  The models have gotten nicer, their in-game options have expanded, but they are still the same basic guys.  There is no reason that BT could not have succeeded by just expanding on the options and variants of the 3025-era machines while slowly adding in new machines. 

To bring this aside back around to the topic on-hand... this would have made IWM's job much more feasible.  As it is now, I think the current catalog of stompy hardware is just too expansive to resolve scale.

[Cache]

So, I am a little late to the party here, but I would like to agree with other people thus far that most new sculpts are great.  Pretty much everything since 2012 has been put through IWM's QCC process. 

I was involved with the QCC from 2006-2009, so it's been around a bit longer.

[JPArbiter]

I don't think anyone has said it yet, but the king crab being compared to anything for scale is a bad idea, as the KC is built to be low to the ground, coming up comparitivly speaking to the waist of an Atlas.  it is why in advanced games they are given the low profile quirk by my play group.

when the Omega is called "Half again as large as a king crab" I believe they are talking about in terms of tonnage, not physical volume.

[Jal Phoenix]

For anyone who is thinking resculpting the line is an option, let the record show that IWM and Ral Partha before them have produced around 700 individual BattleMech miniatures.  That's just 'Mechs.  Add in everything else (vehicles, infantry and Battle Armor, Various and sundry aerotech minis) and you're looking at almost 1500.  Say a sculptor charges an average of 600 (and I'm shooting low!) for each of those 1500 pieces.  Then you have to factor in mold making costs, etc.  Do the math, and never, ever think it's going to happen.

[iamfanboy]

For anyone who is thinking resculpting the line is an option, let the record show that IWM and Ral Partha before them have produced around 700 individual BattleMech miniatures.  That's just 'Mechs.  Add in everything else (vehicles, infantry and Battle Armor, Various and sundry aerotech minis) and you're looking at almost 1500.  Say a sculptor charges an average of 600 (and I'm shooting low!) for each of those 1500 pieces.  Then you have to factor in mold making costs, etc.  Do the math, and never, ever think it's going to happen.

Okay, why do people strawman my argument here as "Resculpt the entire line! Resculpt the entire line!" That's NOT what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is listing the 'Mechs which do not fit on 30mm hexes and are comically oversized (a category limited to Assault and a few Heavy 'Mechs, with one or two of the quads), checking to see which of those are popular enough to warrant a resculpt, and then resculpting them to fit more in line with the current QA specs. It would reduce IWM's overhead by cutting the amount of metal in the largest minis, make them look better overall, and make them cheaper for us to buy.

And JPArbiter, the fluff specifically says "half again as tall as a King Crab." While it is built wide and flat for sure, but it's still 1.1 inches tall.

[Jal Phoenix]

Okay, why do people strawman my argument here as "Resculpt the entire line! Resculpt the entire line!" That's NOT what I'm talking about.

I'm not strawmanning your argument.  I'm not addressing your argument.  I'm not even addressing you.  My statement is a generalization based on about twelve years of hearing that IWM minis are out of scale and need to be redone, and another ten or eleven years before that from Ral Partha minis, too.

[cavingjan]

There are a LOT of mechs out there.   Lots and lots.   We do not really have a lack of variety of mechs.   There is not really a new need for more mech designs.   Take a page from GW or other games and focus on utilizing or properly improving the mechs in the current inventory.  With hundreds to choose from, stop adding to the back log, start pruning designs, clean up what ever they can along the way and set a new standard of quality.   Work with the designers, focus on variants that can use the existing line, and clean house.

IWM did do that a few years ago. Although they archived them instead of stopped selling them completely. We see how well that seemed to have worked out.

The constant flow of TRO books from the FASA days, continually introducing new designs, was quite possibly the worst decision FASA ever made. It diluted the product and made it harder to understand - frankly, it's the same mistake TSR made with AD&D. But that's another topic which should go into the General Discussion, and I may do just that when I formulate my argument and solution better.

Aren't TROs the best selling product that FASA/FanPro/CGL produce? By a large margin? OR am I misremembering a couple of BattleChats?

[iamfanboy]

I do apologize, Jal; i jumped to conclusions. But the 'resculpt the line' guys have their finger on part part of the problem that Battletech has: that too many of its minis are static and boring. For me, it's not a problem, as I've got the skills to mod their grilles so I give the thrills - but it's a turnoff to a new player when they can look at the visually striking Malifaux or Warmachine stuff and then see how 80% of Battletech minis are just standing, feet flat, arms half-bent with guns kinda-sorta pointing forward...

IWM did do that a few years ago. Although they archived them instead of stopped selling them completely. We see how well that seemed to have worked out.

Aren't TROs the best selling product that FASA/FanPro/CGL produce? By a large margin? OR am I misremembering a couple of BattleChats?

I guess I do have to clarify my opinion - and make it clear that it is my opinion, and not something that I'm arguing as straight-up fact. Also, I KNOW that a lot of these decisions I see as mistakes are long-past and unfixable.

TROs are definitely the most popular items, of course - it's fun to read about new designs and see new art. However, far too many of the designs were created not to add to either the universe lore or to the tabletop, but to fill pagecount and deadlines. What purpose did the Sentry (TRO3060) serve when the Watchman (TRO3055) was still being produced, and could have been simply reprinted in 3060 as a Watchman II? Why should St. Ives have created the Cossack when they had Stinger/Wasp facilities? Why does the Yeoman exist when there are already a round dozen fire support 'Mechs in its size and capacity? TROs 3058, 3060, and 3067 were definitely the worst offenders when it comes to adding crap just for crap's sake.

By creating those TROs with more of an eye towards filling pagecount and getting some quick cash, FASA hurt Ral Partha (forcing them to make minis for each new design, which just by the nature of how many designs were filler meant that only a  few would sell), and hurt themselves by over-saturating their market with books that meant very little.

However, just because these books were written with deadline and filler in mind doesn't mean that there aren't visually striking and dramatically useful designs from those books; but the worst scale-creep victims are from these TRO years (aside from the Celestials!)

Naturally, CGL is doing a helluva lot better. I adore TROs 3075 and 3085, and honestly want to get the new one because some of the MWDA minis did have nice designs.


On a side note, my attempts to use the re-MAD's hip/feet has been successful in reducing the Sagittaire's height to just above the King Crab's, and while it is still broad I can forgive it. I do wish I had the time to mod it as jumping, but I've got too many projects on my plate and I prefer to get things DONE.

[D.Jensen]

So, do you have a starting point for this list?

Addendum: also, any chance we get a pic of the improved Sagittaire? I love seeing modded minis. :)

[ColBosch]

So, do you have a starting point for this list?

Can I second this? As I said, I'm much more interested in seeing what people feel is off-scale rather than why or why not resculpts should or can happen.

[ActionButler]

Regarding the originally stated problem.... are there any problem quads OTHER than the arachnid mechs (Scorpion, Fire Scorpion, Stalking Spider, Tarantula, Bishamon)? I can't personally vouch for them all, but I can confirm that the Stalking Spider takes up, at least, two or tnree map sheets. The quads that don't have spider legs seem to be okay for fitting into hexes, though. 

I don't know how you would solve that, though.  If you rescaled the Stalking Spider to fit into s hex, you might as well be using a real spider because that would be extremely tiny.  I suppose you could sculpt them with one leg in the air, but the other three would still be very crowded.

[worktroll]

a) Tarantula has one leg in the air - it doesn't help
b) The Unseen Scorpion did get all four feet more or less into one hex - OTOH, it had a ridiculous knock-kneed stance.