Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2022/12/05 13:20:24
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Brickfix wrote: I want to add my opinion about monopose:
Just because the waste can't be rotated it is not monopose.
The high interchangeable in the primaris marine kits has allowed me a ton of conversions. Angling the gun and had adds way more character to a model then rotating the waste.
I also build 60 guardsmen, 20 old and 30 new Orks.
The new Orks are monopose with me redeeming feature except that the look cool (personal opinion). The old ones are highly customizable but I had issues fitting a head over the gun in some instances.
But, for the old Orks as well as the old guard kit, the least used feature is the rotatable waste. In most cases I glued the waste to the legs for all minis in basically the same angle, and worried about the pose later.
And if anyone wants to claim that the ork nob kit is monopose ...
This is the truth. In reality, and the monopose haters won’t admit it, but anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way.
I agree, I love how the new ORK boyz look, best looking ORK troops ever but they are monopose. If they did a set with choice of shoota or slugga I would love them.
2022/12/05 13:42:04
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
I changed some of the Plague Marines' heads and magnetized arms were possible. They aren't as bad as the new Boyz I'd say in that at least there are many options in the kit. They were also saved by about 21 additional Plague Marine sculpts that were released alongside the kit, so there are enough out there to prevent repetitions.
To me turning the waist actually does make for additional interesting poses, but the more important aspect probably is the ability to combine with 3rd party Bits, especially with Orks, where GW can't provide stuff for ever Klan, but Kromlech, Spellcrow and STLs can .
2022/12/05 19:23:24
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I changed some of the Plague Marines' heads and magnetized arms were possible. They aren't as bad as the new Boyz I'd say in that at least there are many options in the kit. They were also saved by about 21 additional Plague Marine sculpts that were released alongside the kit, so there are enough out there to prevent repetitions.
To me turning the waist actually does make for additional interesting poses, but the more important aspect probably is the ability to combine with 3rd party Bits, especially with Orks, where GW can't provide stuff for ever Klan, but Kromlech, Spellcrow and STLs can .
'
I did subtle parts swaps with Mk3 on several of my plague marines to tone down the horns/tentacles. It was not difficult. It's been a while, but I do remember that it would have been difficult to reposition some of the arms.
I think a lot of people, when they think plague marine kit, are thinking of the Dark Imperium plague marines, as they were sooooo cheap and easy to get for years. The stand-alone kit has more going for it, but yes it's not as easily customizable without some knife work.
2022/12/05 19:51:05
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I changed some of the Plague Marines' heads and magnetized arms were possible. They aren't as bad as the new Boyz I'd say in that at least there are many options in the kit. They were also saved by about 21 additional Plague Marine sculpts that were released alongside the kit, so there are enough out there to prevent repetitions.
To me turning the waist actually does make for additional interesting poses, but the more important aspect probably is the ability to combine with 3rd party Bits, especially with Orks, where GW can't provide stuff for ever Klan, but Kromlech, Spellcrow and STLs can .
'
I did subtle parts swaps with Mk3 on several of my plague marines to tone down the horns/tentacles. It was not difficult. It's been a while, but I do remember that it would have been difficult to reposition some of the arms.
I think a lot of people, when they think plague marine kit, are thinking of the Dark Imperium plague marines, as they were sooooo cheap and easy to get for years. The stand-alone kit has more going for it, but yes it's not as easily customizable without some knife work.
Probably. The Deathshroud are definitely a worse and more obvious kind of monopose.
2022/12/07 10:21:35
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Nevelon wrote: Is attached torso/legs, but fully swappable arms monopose?
I'd say swappable arms aren't enough. Most Sisters of Battle have swappable arms, yet the models still end up looking very copy-paste (which is emphasized by their dynamic poses). For a model to be poseable, you should ideally be able to rotate the torso or attach it to a different pair of legs.
Daaamn, so pretty much all Tyranids ever have been monopose.
A lot of nids have a ball and socket waist. Medium/big ones at least.
Lots of the little gribbles and some larger kits have a single body though.
No, they don't really have a ball-and-socket waist, at least not in the way most people would imagine that.
Firstly, iirc the balls (on the leg half) have pegs on them that plug into the torso, so unless you cut those off you're not getting any movement at all.
But more importantly, the protrusions at the lower front and lower back of Tyranid torsos mean that there's not very much play for any kind of poseability. On top of that, the fact that their torsos are angled at closer to 45 degrees than 90 degrees means that any rotation on that semi-ball and socket connection is rotation in the wrong direction. Instead of the torso moving side to side it rotates as though it's creepily saying "hi" to the monster next to it.
2022/12/07 11:50:28
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Nevelon wrote: Is attached torso/legs, but fully swappable arms monopose?
I'd say swappable arms aren't enough. Most Sisters of Battle have swappable arms, yet the models still end up looking very copy-paste (which is emphasized by their dynamic poses). For a model to be poseable, you should ideally be able to rotate the torso or attach it to a different pair of legs.
Daaamn, so pretty much all Tyranids ever have been monopose.
A lot of nids have a ball and socket waist. Medium/big ones at least.
Lots of the little gribbles and some larger kits have a single body though.
No, they don't really have a ball-and-socket waist, at least not in the way most people would imagine that.
Firstly, iirc the balls (on the leg half) have pegs on them that plug into the torso, so unless you cut those off you're not getting any movement at all.
But more importantly, the protrusions at the lower front and lower back of Tyranid torsos mean that there's not very much play for any kind of poseability. On top of that, the fact that their torsos are angled at closer to 45 degrees than 90 degrees means that any rotation on that semi-ball and socket connection is rotation in the wrong direction. Instead of the torso moving side to side it rotates as though it's creepily saying "hi" to the monster next to it.
The legs being fixed is true (at least for the kits I’m familiar with) but that’s not different from most other kits from a points of articulation stand point.
Tyrants/carnafexes/warriors/trygon are about as multipose as you can get*
While the waist dose have issues (the back ridges do get in the way of a LOT of the potential options) it’s a flexible join. Due to the clipping we loose a range of what otherwise would be more natural poses.
Below the waist is fixed, but this is normal.
The arms are all ball and socket. This gives us a lot more room to pose than flat torso connections.
Heads also have a good range of motion,
Pretty much all the guns and claws are part of the arms, so as an army it does not make sense to be able to do hand-swaps. That’s one point where other armies have an edge in customization.
Nids have a range of scale, so not every kit is cross compatible. Things like the firstborn marine range have a major edge there, just from the options of parts that you can put together. But from an individual model POV, I think the Nids have the edge. The waist is more restricted, but still has some wiggle, and you can do a lot more with the arms. Which is more important is debateable.
* I don’t think I’ve put together a kit with more possibility options then the new 30k contemptor dread. That thing is insane for the number of places you can tweak its posture.
i do not like monopose for non characters. however, i think possible to do monopose without ruining the spectacle, 20 2nd marines and gretchin dont look that bad to me as they have like a standard military pose with standard uniforms
but for example 5 of the new chaos reaper autocanon dudes look kind of dumb all next to each other (but this was also a "problem" with some units in retro 40k, but easier to hack and convert in those days)
Spoiler:
i think the old company command kit compared to modern various monopose primaris captains demonstrates the old 'modularity' many people like compared to the new style monopose which has completely turned me off
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/12/08 04:09:32
2022/12/08 13:17:40
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Andykp wrote: Just put the reaper on a different body, it’s perfectly possible.???
or 3d print some because buying 4 boxes of havoc to get one squad is dumb as feth
Or just take a variety of weapons and don’t spam one thing.
yeah, i sure like my squad that i kitted out to deal with :
tanks (lascannon)
heavy infantry (autocannon)
light infantry (chaincannon)
that can't actually deal with any of them because a single weapon has terrible odds even in its optimal target.
I think the game would be so much better if assault intercessors could take a lascannon too, don't just spam chainswords, you WAAC player
/s
All of this, 100%. I know GW wants us to take variety but I'd be laughed off the table if I actually brought something like that. If they really want us to not take the same option across a full unit, they need to build the rules to support such a thing, not this afterthought of "oh yeah this would be cool, huh?," and assuming player will handicap themselves by taking fully useless units cause the rule of cool.
Also, feth monopose - it's literally the number two reason I stopped buying models. I used to buy several of everything just so I could adjust and convert to my hearts content (blew a lot of money that way), but working with the pin-mono pose crap is like shoving needles into my own eyes.
Badablack wrote: 40k starts with the question, “Who is worse, Satan or the Nazis?” And goes from there. It’s a big colorful ball pit full of horrible people screaming and shooting each other.
PenitentJake wrote: It doesn't matter if you're not dominating the game; if you have 3-4 x as many models and options than the rest of us and you're still getting new kits, we're still gonna rip on the faction. If I had 100 + Drukhari kits all in plastic to choose from, or 100 + Sisters kits, I think I'd be more likely to be receptive to Space Marine player's complaints about anything.
chromedog wrote:From the Fuggly DEldar of the time, before they let Jes goodwin have his good and proper way with the entire faction design.
HoundsofDemos wrote: The game doesn't need super space marines, it needs more variety.
I don't want the best army, just one that isn't an exercise in picking up my models by turn 3.
2022/12/08 21:29:12
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
I get why GW is going monopose, or producing models that are largely fixed in their pose and or loadout. It makes it easier to design something that looks dynamic without it becoming clumsy looking (and reduce the ability to use 3rd party bitz same reason they have tactical rocks and uneven footing vs 3rd party bases) And for some models, smaller models usually it becomes harder to do. I think you can get around it by allow the builder to change out arms, head and backpacks, or having a side kit that has different poses. Like, you can drag out the intercessors and assault intercessor kits by swapping arms in between.
But, some of the best kits out there would be the Ork dreads and Kans (IMO). You can switch the arms between kits and positions, pose the legs fairly well, it comes with enough plates and details to make a full squad look fairly individual. It almost encourages you to buy more, just cause you wanna mork around with the kit some more, try out another build, pose or such. Where as the monoposes? Well you'll probably buy 1, or just enough for your army build, then not bother with the kit again.
2022/12/09 11:39:35
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Andykp wrote: Just put the reaper on a different body, it’s perfectly possible.???
or 3d print some because buying 4 boxes of havoc to get one squad is dumb as feth
Or just take a variety of weapons and don’t spam one thing.
Lol.
Every time someone makes this recommendation it always comes off sounding like the advise of a desperate opponent - trying to talk you out of doing something that'd adversely affect them.
2022/12/10 09:29:53
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Brickfix wrote: I want to add my opinion about monopose:
Just because the waste can't be rotated it is not monopose.
The high interchangeable in the primaris marine kits has allowed me a ton of conversions. Angling the gun and had adds way more character to a model then rotating the waste.
I also build 60 guardsmen, 20 old and 30 new Orks.
The new Orks are monopose with me redeeming feature except that the look cool (personal opinion). The old ones are highly customizable but I had issues fitting a head over the gun in some instances.
But, for the old Orks as well as the old guard kit, the least used feature is the rotatable waste. In most cases I glued the waste to the legs for all minis in basically the same angle, and worried about the pose later.
And if anyone wants to claim that the ork nob kit is monopose ...
This is the truth. In reality, and the monopose haters won’t admit it, but anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way.
Ohhh reeeeeaaaalllly????
I could use words, but I think an image will serve much better here.
Rotation in roll pitch and yaw, and I'd estimate about 70-90% of yaw available for a still decent looking miniature.
Crimson wrote: Those pictures are an excellent demonstration of how tilting the torso results the abdomen and waist looking unnatural.
Falls into the category of IDGAF. I've literally never thought it looked out of place, especially on models the scale that they are, and intended for tabletop play. I still think they look great, too! Putting the image together even made me want to buy more to play around with posing.
I get that if you're more into the hobby side for taking closeups and posting them, (which is truly how a lot of people engage) then the "belt buckle displacement" could matter to you. But to me? I've never cared, and I much prefer the ease of posing and customizeability.
Besides my primary use viewing experience is this:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/10 22:25:30
Brickfix wrote: I want to add my opinion about monopose:
Just because the waste can't be rotated it is not monopose.
The high interchangeable in the primaris marine kits has allowed me a ton of conversions. Angling the gun and had adds way more character to a model then rotating the waste.
I also build 60 guardsmen, 20 old and 30 new Orks.
The new Orks are monopose with me redeeming feature except that the look cool (personal opinion). The old ones are highly customizable but I had issues fitting a head over the gun in some instances.
But, for the old Orks as well as the old guard kit, the least used feature is the rotatable waste. In most cases I glued the waste to the legs for all minis in basically the same angle, and worried about the pose later.
And if anyone wants to claim that the ork nob kit is monopose ...
This is the truth. In reality, and the monopose haters won’t admit it, but anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way.
Ohhh reeeeeaaaalllly????
I could use words, but I think an image will serve much better here.
Rotation in roll pitch and yaw, and I'd estimate about 70-90% of yaw available for a still decent looking miniature.
I like Primaris. And I like my two pieces torso and legs (Even if I can't stand anymore old marines proportions), but before people comes to tell you how unnatural and ugly those look (They don't and even less from a table) those are great!
I believe Primaris aren't that bad in the conversion and posability front. Other newer kits are much, much worse , being basically puzzles with 0 options. But I surely miss the old kits, my fantasy greenskins etc... of just making a pile of bodies, legs, arms, and heads, and going wild with each combination. And yeah some poses were a bit unnatural. But those were gaming pieces, they looked really cool from the normal distance.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2022/12/12 23:47:53
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
If they stop doing it, will it become know as the Monopause? If I wasn’t already wearing my coat because of the cold, I would proceed to get it immediately.
Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!
Intercessors at least can have their arms swapped around between the bodies, so you do get more variety with them than some kits. Battle Sisters, on the other hand, pretty much require a bespoke set of arms for each body due to how the arms have indentations for how they fit over the body, although many of them can be holding different guns in their hands. And the heads are fully swappable/poseable and there are a lot of them in the kit. The more dynamic the poses of a kit, the less customizability you'll get, at least that's how I would understand it. Primaris Marines have somewhat more static poses, allowing for greater flexibility. The Leagues of Votann Hearthkyn Warriors are kind of a middle ground, as while some arms will only work well with one torso, others can be swapped around to give variety.
A far bigger issue is the whole "Only what comes in the box" thing, which leads to janky loadouts for units like Plague Marines and Skitarii, but that is a discussion for another thread...
My armies (re-counted and updated on 11/1/23, including modeled wargear options):
Dark Angels: ~15000 Astra Militarum: ~1200 | Adeptus Custodes: ~1900 | Imperial Knights: ~2000 | Sisters of Battle: ~3500 | Leagues of Votann: ~1200 | Tyranids: ~2600 | Stormcast Eternals: ~5000
Check out my P&M Blogs: ZergSmasher's P&M Blog | Imperial Knights blog | Board Games blog | Total models painted in 2023: 40 | Total models painted in 2024: 12 | Current main painting project: Dark Angels
Mr_Rose wrote: Who doesn’t love crazy mutant squawk-puppies? Eh? Nobody, that’s who.
2022/12/13 10:36:38
Subject: Re:Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
<snip>
A far bigger issue is the whole "Only what comes in the box" thing, which leads to janky loadouts for units like Plague Marines and Skitarii, but that is a discussion for another thread...
This completely drove me out of current 40k.
Converting, cutting and sculpting miniatures to get something unique is a big part of the hobby enjoyment for me, and now I own a lot of minis that are just straight up not represented with any rules.
Additionally to some squats that suddenly miss some models as current weapons aren't allowed anymore.
I prefer a fixed waste on minis because of the way I work on things and how the finished mini looks, I also don't mind don't monopose figures to get some minis cheaper on the table, but ugh I despise those weird rules.
2022/12/13 17:35:20
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Brickfix wrote: I want to add my opinion about monopose:
Just because the waste can't be rotated it is not monopose.
The high interchangeable in the primaris marine kits has allowed me a ton of conversions. Angling the gun and had adds way more character to a model then rotating the waste.
I also build 60 guardsmen, 20 old and 30 new Orks.
The new Orks are monopose with me redeeming feature except that the look cool (personal opinion). The old ones are highly customizable but I had issues fitting a head over the gun in some instances.
But, for the old Orks as well as the old guard kit, the least used feature is the rotatable waste. In most cases I glued the waste to the legs for all minis in basically the same angle, and worried about the pose later.
And if anyone wants to claim that the ork nob kit is monopose ...
This is the truth. In reality, and the monopose haters won’t admit it, but anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way.
Ohhh reeeeeaaaalllly????
I could use words, but I think an image will serve much better here.
Rotation in roll pitch and yaw, and I'd estimate about 70-90% of yaw available for a still decent looking miniature.
They look ok despite being horrible old marines but they look no better than the newer assault intercessors even though they have the same posed bodies twice over for a ten man squad. And your models there don’t look that different as to make the unrealistic lack of dynamism in the pose worth having split waist for.
Marines are one unit where the lack of realistic movement in the torso and abdomen is mitigated slightly by the armour. But the primaris waists still make more sense and look much more functional than the old marines. The belt buckles are off variation isn’t as obvious as you think (they pretty much look the same!). I’ve built enough of the old style marines over the decades to know which I prefer, and it isn’t the old ones.
Unit’s with out armour, catachans and chaos marauders are the worst examples of how a two part body is not good.
I’m building the new cadians at the minute and they look so much more realistically posed due to the “monopose” bodies.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/12/13 21:35:47
.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
2k Points
Competition Index
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
~1200 | Adeptus Custodes: 
~1900 | Imperial Knights: 
~2000 | Sisters of Battle: 
~3500 | Leagues of Votann: 
~1200 | Tyranids: 
