PDA

View Full Version : How Tall would a Warlord Titan be at BFG Scale?



Godzooky
29-05-2010, 09:02
Hi,

Random question. I guess I'm really wondering what scale Battlefleet Gothic approximates to. Would one of the smaller ships be small enough to make as a 40K project?

Many thanks in anticipation and much love.

Green-is-best
29-05-2010, 09:21
Unfortunately, everything in BFG is absolutely enormous. A warlord might be the size of a torpedo launched by a Cobra class destroyer, which is pretty much the smallest warship in BFG. I think somebody figured out a 40k scale Cobra would be the size of a school bus.

Godzooky
29-05-2010, 09:23
Unfortunately, even the smallest ships are absolutely enormous. A warlord might be the size of a torpedo launched by a Cobra class destroyer, which is pretty much the smallest warship in BFG. I think somebody figured out a 40k scale Cobra would be the size of a school bus.

Hi. Thanks very much for the swift reply, Green.

A school bus, you say? Hmmmm.

*works out economies of scale for bulk plasticard purchase* :)

AndrewGPaul
29-05-2010, 09:28
A Cobra-class destroyer miniature is about 30mm long, while the 'actual' ship is about 1,000 metres long*. That's roughly 1:30,000 scale. A 30m Warlord would be about 1mm tall. :)

* In 40K scale it'd be about 16m long.

qsd
29-05-2010, 09:29
BFG warships would be very impractical...
You may want to do something smaller like a lander or system ship/ corvette.

Tves
29-05-2010, 09:50
Well considering that the Fury interceptor is known to be 60-70 meter long in some variants according to the lexicanum which gets its info on this from IA1. I'd say that the warlord titan is a tiny inconsiquential speck in the BFG scale, as its "only" 33 meter tall approximately.

In scale I'd venture to say that even the smallest vessel given its own model in BFG is bigger than the biggest ship built by man. The scale of BFG is immense, take the 70m long fury interceptor, note that it is the smallest imperial craft on the pictures in the basic BFG book, half as long as the shark assault boat which we could then assume is atleast 120m long, just under a third of the length of the Batillus class supertankers (the biggest ships ever built, in length and tonnage). Now think that even a normal cruiser can launch squadrons of these attack craft that are actually not big enough to warrant a model only a marker on the table.

Given that I'd venture to say that even the cobra, the smallest independant craft in the imperial fleet was atleast bigger than these supertankers, and even go as far as stating that they were atleast 800 meters long.

Green-is-best
29-05-2010, 09:54
Just for a bit more scale, a Cobra is apparently between 750m and 1.5k long.

According to wikipedia a 1.83m (6 foot) man is 30mm in 40k scale, meaning 40k scale is about 16.4mm per meter. So, a 40k scale Cobra would range between about 12300mm, or 12.3m long (40 feet for us Americans) on the small end to 24600 mm, or 24.6m long (80 feet for us Americans) on the large end.

So, somewhere between a big school bus and a moderately sized yacht.

Even the tiniest ships, like the Starhawk bomber, are apparently about the size of a modern destroyer. So, that's like 152m, which is 2493mm, or 2.5m (8.25 feet.)

Have fun!

ehlijen
29-05-2010, 10:00
I believe GW (together with FW) makes thunderhawks and Mantas in all three scales (40k, Epic and BFG). From those things you should be able to approximate most things, though there is no such thing as accurate scale in any GW game.

AndrewGPaul
29-05-2010, 10:07
Well considering that the Fury interceptor is known to be 60-70 meter long in some variants according to the lexicanum which gets its info on this from IA1.

Argh! I've just leafed through IA1, and as far as I can see, the only mention of Fury interceptors is that they exist. I can't see anything about their size, function or crew numbers. They might have got some of that info from the comic strip in the introductory booklet in Battlefleet Gothic, but with Lexicanum's usual slapdash approach to citations, it'd hard to tell.

Archangel_Ruined
29-05-2010, 11:15
The manta comparison may well be the best to go with. Although it's worth stating, again, that the scales just don't work. Even the tiniest pause for thought raises too many questions to possibly answer (the T hawks, for example, where exactly would they fit in the battle barge model? Where on earth would they launch from for that matter?). The rule of cool has to come into play, not the ruler monkey with the calculator.

Gorbad Ironclaw
29-05-2010, 11:25
though there is no such thing as accurate scale in any GW game.

That's pretty much the final word on it. BFG is not to scale, at all. I seem to remember it being said that while the ship models are very impressive it's sort of a close up view and that the actual ship should be shrunken down to fit into the tip of the base if you wanted them to a slightly more accurate scale.

Starships are massive and you couldn't really make a usable model for 40k. Furtuantly there are tons of various flying things in the setting and it won't be hard to make something that will be interesting and look good so if that's the motivation then just design your own vehicle to go with that.

MetalGecko23
29-05-2010, 11:48
A cool way to but an Imperial space ship into 40k scale is to take an 8x4 table and build it so that its the inside of a ship. Think a board made to look like a space ship hangar bay would be wicked.

RCgothic
29-05-2010, 12:04
I believe GW (together with FW) makes thunderhawks and Mantas in all three scales (40k, Epic and BFG). From those things you should be able to approximate most things, though there is no such thing as accurate scale in any GW game.

Markers for BFG, such as the Starhawks, Furies and Thunderhawks, are not to scale with the capital ships, which are themselves not to scale with the game board.

AndrewGPaul
29-05-2010, 12:26
Nor are the markers themselves in scale; the Thunderhawks are substantially bigger than Mantas or other ordnance miniatures.

ehlijen
29-05-2010, 12:45
Another suggestion as to how to approach scale:

A freighter in BFG is an escort sized vessel (though probably a larger one). Think 1-2km. It is apparently capable of landing roughly 4000 points of 40k troops (2 assault points) per BFG game turns according to the guidelines in the Planetary assault scenario. Ie each would be able to probably carry a decent sized apocalypse army.

Stonerhino
29-05-2010, 13:15
Nor are the markers themselves in scale; the Thunderhawks are substantially bigger than Mantas or other ordnance miniatures.Mantas are actualy a lot bigger then Thunderhawks. Think about it this way. A thunderhawk gunship can transport 30 marines. A thunderhawk transporter can transport one landraider or two rhino hulls. A manta can transport 48 fire warriors, four Hammerheads, ten crisis suits and an ethereal by default.

The scale of BFG is way off. The ships are actualy the tips of the bases. The base of the base is their shields. The models on top are just a zoomed in view so you can see what it is.

massey
29-05-2010, 13:19
Furies are not 70m long. I don't know how long they are, but it sure as hell isn't listed in any rulebook. It's just a number that got thrown out there at some point, and people accepted it, because they want BFG stuff to be huge. It's worth noting that Thunderhawks are larger than Furies, and we do have accurate sizes on those. A Thunderhawk is smaller than a C130 (though it is substantially heavier).

Nothing in 40K is to scale. Vehicles aren't to scale with the models. Models aren't to scale with the buildings. Height isn't to scale with distance. Just make a starship model really big and don't worry about it.

AndrewGPaul
29-05-2010, 13:21
It's worth noting that Thunderhawks are larger than Furies, and we do have accurate sizes on those.

If there's no size quoted for a Fury anywhere, how do you know that? :)

massey
29-05-2010, 13:26
If there's no size quoted for a Fury anywhere, how do you know that? :)

Because they are tougher in the BFG game, and in BFG, big equals tough. :)

AndrewGPaul
29-05-2010, 13:30
Eh, Eldar fighters and Mantas are equally resilient, yet the Manta is clearly larger than a Thunderhawk. I don't think you can extrapolate in-universe numbers from game stats.

Grand_Marshal_Kazan
29-05-2010, 13:31
http://www.merzo.net/

While not 100% relevant, this gives some comparisons to ships from other sci-fi shows, books etc.

Illiterate Scribe
29-05-2010, 13:34
From Rogue Trader, might help some.

Sword-class Frigate - 1.6km long, 0.3km abeam at the fins.
Dauntless-class Light Cruiser- 4.5km long, 0.5km abeam at fins.
Lunar-class cruiser - 5km long, 0.8km abeam at fins.

theunwantedbeing
29-05-2010, 13:42
It would be puny.
A 4km long ship that is 10cm long, would mean the 40m titan is 1mm tall by comparison.

Lothlanathorian
29-05-2010, 21:18
http://www.merzo.net/

While not 100% relevant, this gives some comparisons to ships from other sci-fi shows, books etc.

I was hoping this link would turn up. It's a wonderful site for comparisons. It's be nice if Imperial Titans and an Eldar Craftworld turned up on there one day.

Col. Tartleton
29-05-2010, 21:51
BFG doesn't have a scale. 40k doesn't either. They use rough sizes. A marine is the same size as a guardsman because they take up similar size. Infantry are roughly an inch, bigger things are a couple inches, much bigger things are more then that. It's all rough.

In 40k, mms of range or movement might be meters or even more when it's more then a dozen mm to a meter on the models. So it's not a real scale mechanics wise, though the models are vaguely in scale then each other.

In BFG, mms of distance are several kilometers of distance, and the ships are so drastrically out of scale. You can't use a 10cm as a real scale, scales are supposed to be ratios, not measurements. You can only get away with 28mm because we know that's relating to a man, so it's 28mm: 1828.8mm (six feet) which equates to 1:65. The models as well don't conform to the actual size of the vessels. A Battleship is 14 km long (which still seems on the short side once you look at the picture of The Divine Right... ) and an escort pretty well defined as 1-1.5 km, so that makes them about four times as big as they should be. If the Battleships are larger then that its even more inaccurate.

So it's hard to say what's accurate. The current scale is certainly not a scale at all. It's just how big they made the miniatures.

chaos0xomega
29-05-2010, 22:06
It is important to remember that BFG has an inconsistent scale. The escort craft are in a different scale from the capital ships (cruisers/battleships) and the ordnance.

Green-is-best
29-05-2010, 23:33
It isn't really accurate to say 40k doesn't have a scale. 40k's scale consistency isn't as strong as military or train modeling, but everything is pretty much the right size relative to everything else. It isn't like a space marine is supposed to be 12 feet tall and a guardsman is 4 feet tall. They're both in the 6-7 foot range and marines tend to squat slightly while guardsmen tend to stand up straight. With that alone, we're talking maybe a millimeter or two inaccuracy. Even the rhino, 40k's equivalent of a clown car, is still in the right ballpark. An extra couple of millimeters here and there would pretty much put it in proper scale to hold 10 space marines uncomfortably. (And as anyone who has seen the inside of an IFV or APC can attest, they're not exactly built for spacious seating.)

Certainly, the scale is strong enough to say that a 40k sized BFG ship would be the size of a fairly large vehicle.

chaos0xomega
30-05-2010, 02:21
Actually a guardsman is supposed to be like a normal modern day human in the 5-6 foot range while Marines are said to be in the 7+ foot range. Theres a reason why people make true scale marine models.

Green-is-best
30-05-2010, 03:09
Actually a guardsman is supposed to be like a normal modern day human in the 5-6 foot range while Marines are said to be in the 7+ foot range. Theres a reason why people make true scale marine models.

There's no variance in height of the actual models so even if we assume they're average current height, 5'10" or so, we're talking about a couple millimeters of height added to a marine model to correct the scaling. That's a pretty big difference from saying 40k has no scale.

Regardless, this is a silly tangent. The foibles of 40k scaling isn't going to change the fact that the smallest BFG vessels is still going to be absolutely enormous in 28mm and well outside modeling capacity of the vast majority of hobbyist.

Archangel_Ruined
30-05-2010, 14:27
It should be well outside the modelling capacity of anyone, you can take a hobby too far you know.

chaos0xomega
30-05-2010, 17:25
There's no variance in height of the actual models so even if we assume they're average current height, 5'10" or so, we're talking about a couple millimeters of height added to a marine model to correct the scaling. That's a pretty big difference from saying 40k has no scale.

Regardless, this is a silly tangent. The foibles of 40k scaling isn't going to change the fact that the smallest BFG vessels is still going to be absolutely enormous in 28mm and well outside modeling capacity of the vast majority of hobbyist.

Actually we're talking 6+ mm which is a VERY noticeable difference.

MegaPope
30-05-2010, 20:54
At around the time the game was released, Dave Andrews made an off-the-cuff remark in White Dwarf that the fighters and bombers 'were mo ethe size of Jumbo Jets'.

This makes sense in a way - the Imperial Marauder is in the fluff classed as more a 'tactical' than a 'strategic' bomber (the equivalent of something like a WWII Martin Marauder, in fact ;)). The Starhawk bomber I see as being more in the league of the Avro Vulcan up to the B-52 in size - I'd imagine that anything smaller simply couldn't even dent a major starship! :D

Regardless, BFG frigates and upwards are simply not practical at 40K scale, unless you plan on buying an entire Winnebago and doing a conversion job on it so that it contains your whole games club ;)

chaos0xomega
30-05-2010, 21:42
That winnebago comment gave me some ideas...

I would like to point out that Tactical and Strategic don't really tell us much about the size of an aircraft. For example, the B-29 superfortress was a strategic bomber, and is dwarfed by the B-52, which even though it was built to fulfill the role of a strategic bomber, has been used as a tactical bomber for the past 20-30 years.

MegaPope
30-05-2010, 23:26
The Tactical/Strategic dichotomy is pretty much about range as well as payload - the B29 was the size it was at the time because it was designed for Pacific theatre. Similarly the B52 was also designed to be a very long range, high altitude strategic bomber. That it ended up being used in the tactical role was pretty much a combat adaption, combined with the SAC's nuclear role being supplemented and eventually pretty much surpassed by long range ballistic missiles and nuclear-armed submarines. The same goes for the Avro Vulcan, which flew its only actual combat missions in more or less the tactical role, albeit at extreme range (UK to Falklands via Ascension Islands).

Aaanyway...while putting a BFG capital ship in 28mm scale is a no, making something like a Starhawk MIGHT be within the realm of the possible - essentially you'd be looking at something Manta-sized or a little smaller.

Green-is-best
31-05-2010, 02:40
Actually we're talking 6+ mm which is a VERY noticeable difference.

That's what the height difference between 5'10 and 7' is, not the scale correction necessary. The marine model is already slightly taller than a Cadian model and the marine has a much more pronounced squat. Accounting for those things, we are talking maybe 3mm subtracted from the cadians or added to the marines to get a proper marine height.