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.

 Pacific wrote:

Although I remember at the time people complaining that the 2nd edition box set marine was deliberately poor to push people into buying the metal (and much more expensive) mk7 marines, which had a lot more poses. It did definitely feel like a step back from the posing possibilities of the RTB-01 kit, that was for sure.

Most 2nd edition plastics were a big step back from the Rogue Trader ones in terms of posability. The "Warriors of the Imperium" plastics were probably the best ones across all of the armies, and they look pretty naff by today's standards.



Torso+head in one piece, three different leg poses (two of which look pretty much identical) and the standard plastic arms and bolters of that era, also used for metal miniatures. There's very little you can do to set them apart from each other in meaningful ways, there isn't that much you can even twist the torsos side to side before it looks weird.

The 3rd edition kit, with the two-piece torsos allowing for a head to be socketed in, was a massive evolution in terms of converting freedom. Headswaps had never been easier, and using a dremel to carve out chunks of pewter became a thing of the past.

 Pacific wrote:
I will be honest I remember these guys so have a pretty low bar, so by comparison all of the new poses look great!

Spoiler:

Although I remember at the time people complaining that the 2nd edition box set marine was deliberately poor to push people into buying the metal (and much more expensive) mk7 marines, which had a lot more poses. It did definitely feel like a step back from the posing possibilities of the RTB-01 kit, that was for sure.

Interestingly enough, IMHO those older sets are a much better starting point than the current ones to actually get on and start playing a game:



They really had everything you needed to start with, for a very competitive price (or it felt that way, more than they do nowadays), all the rules, scenery, counters and area markers galore, measuring sticks, dice, two starting "armies"... even though a lot of it was cardboard and the miniatures included were mostly the same sprue over and over... that kept the price at a good enough level for a kid to be able to buy it. And that's this one starter... the Epic 40k one was incredibly good.

So yeah, I don't really begrudge them that much TBH xD.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

Although I remember at the time people complaining that the 2nd edition box set marine was deliberately poor to push people into buying the metal (and much more expensive) mk7 marines, which had a lot more poses. It did definitely feel like a step back from the posing possibilities of the RTB-01 kit, that was for sure.

Most 2nd edition plastics were a big step back from the Rogue Trader ones in terms of posability. The "Warriors of the Imperium" plastics were probably the best ones across all of the armies, and they look pretty naff by today's standards.

Spoiler:

Torso+head in one piece, three different leg poses (two of which look pretty much identical) and the standard plastic arms and bolters of that era, also used for metal miniatures. There's very little you can do to set them apart from each other in meaningful ways, there isn't that much you can even twist the torsos side to side before it looks weird.

The 3rd edition kit, with the two-piece torsos allowing for a head to be socketed in, was a massive evolution in terms of converting freedom. Headswaps had never been easier, and using a dremel to carve out chunks of pewter became a thing of the past.

Those were plastic? Why don't I remember those? I remember going from the terrible single pose statue marines shown on the previous page straight to the multipart ones that are very similar to the ones they still sell today... I never knew there was a plastic iteration between these...

 Crimson wrote:
Those were plastic? Why I don't I remember those? I remember going from the terrible single pose statue marines shown on the previous page straight to the multipart ones that are very similar to the ones they still sell today... I never knew there was a plastic iteration between these...

I think those were a rebox of the starter marines? I don't really remember them, I was all in Necromunda, Epic and orks at that time.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

-snip-

Faces generally have 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth. There are subtle differences between individual's faces that make them distinguishable if you look closely. A sea of slightly different faces looks like a crowd. A sea of faces where there are only 5 types and where every face of a given type is identical looks like a clone army. If on top of that, every third face also has an eye patch and pirate hat then it just looks silly.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Flawless and concise, now watch as it's ignored, sidestepped, or gaslit away just like every other argument that's inconvenient.

I just noticed that MK IV Marines and Tartaros/Catapractii Terminators are gone from the webstore.
Does anyone know how long that has been the case?

Also anyone know why they are gone since if its just a reboxing that normally only means they go no longer available instead of completely deleting the webstore-page.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

-snip-

Faces generally have 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth. There are subtle differences between individual's faces that make them distinguishable if you look closely. A sea of slightly different faces looks like a crowd. A sea of faces where there are only 5 types and where every face of a given type is identical looks like a clone army. If on top of that, every third face also has an eye patch and pirate hat then it just looks silly.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Flawless and concise, now watch as it's ignored, sidestepped, or gaslit away just like every other argument that's inconvenient.

 Crimson wrote:

And for the actual topic, I think the new beakies look absolutely marvellous. I'm not sure what I will do with them, but I will definitely be getting them. I'm not getting the crazy expensive starter box though. I wonder how long it will be until they're sold separately?

It took around 12-18 weeks for the base troops to be available outside of Indomitus/Dominion so it will probably take around that long to get the beakies by themselves but if that rumour about 3 tiers of smaller starter sets is true those happened only 3-4 weeks after Indomitus/Dominions so I would expect the same here

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

-snip-

Faces generally have 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth. There are subtle differences between individual's faces that make them distinguishable if you look closely. A sea of slightly different faces looks like a crowd. A sea of faces where there are only 5 types and where every face of a given type is identical looks like a clone army. If on top of that, every third face also has an eye patch and pirate hat then it just looks silly.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Flawless and concise, now watch as it's ignored, sidestepped, or gaslit away just like every other argument that's inconvenient.

RazorEdge wrote:

I measured them from Foot to Head and the Terminators are much taller than the MkIII. The issues also featured the new CSMs in 100% printed and they are same tall than the Terminators.

I have both the new csm and the current plastic heresy terminators. And if the new beakies are the size of the new csm, then they will be about the same size as the plastic heresy terminators. With the new csm terminators being much larger and bulkier than the plastic heresy terminators.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

-snip-

Faces generally have 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth. There are subtle differences between individual's faces that make them distinguishable if you look closely. A sea of slightly different faces looks like a crowd. A sea of faces where there are only 5 types and where every face of a given type is identical looks like a clone army. If on top of that, every third face also has an eye patch and pirate hat then it just looks silly.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Flawless and concise, now watch as it's ignored, sidestepped, or gaslit away just like every other argument that's inconvenient.

I mean it works as an arguement for more variety in face options, but when talking about near identical suits of armour?

Identical suits of armor in slightly different poses look like 2 dudes wearing the same suit of armor. Identical suits of armor in exactly the same dynamic walking pose with exactly the same leg and body orientation look like copies. If the kit doesn't have enough variability to break up the poses, then it's preferable to have all poses be as neutral and indistinct as possible so they all blend together and the repeats are less noticable.

But you know, that's just like my opinion, man.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

-snip-

Faces generally have 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth. There are subtle differences between individual's faces that make them distinguishable if you look closely. A sea of slightly different faces looks like a crowd. A sea of faces where there are only 5 types and where every face of a given type is identical looks like a clone army. If on top of that, every third face also has an eye patch and pirate hat then it just looks silly.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Flawless and concise, now watch as it's ignored, sidestepped, or gaslit away just like every other argument that's inconvenient.

I mean it works as an arguement for more variety in face options, but when talking about near identical suits of armour?

 xttz wrote:
But spotting two identically posed 1cm tall power armoured legs in a 10+ strong unit, partly obscured by other parts of the model, obscured by other models or by terrain, on a table with scores of other models on it? That's something you actively have go to looking to find. You need a conscious effort to find them, especially if you're not standing right next to the unit in question.

I agree, duplicates are difficult to spot when you hide them behind terrain. Also, if you don't look at them they disappear entirely!

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 xttz wrote:
But spotting two identically posed 1cm tall power armoured legs in a 10+ strong unit, partly obscured by other parts of the model, obscured by other models or by terrain, on a table with scores of other models on it? That's something you actively have go to looking to find. You need a conscious effort to find them, especially if you're not standing right next to the unit in question.

I agree, duplicates are difficult to spot when you hide them behind terrain. Also, if you don't look at them they disappear entirely!

I agree as well. You only notice it when you hyper focus on it in glamor shot pictures where each model is separated and individually highlighted. On the table top, no one notices or cares. Which is the exact same sentiment for the kitbashed models people spent a bucket of money on and several extra hours on. It still looked the same as the guy next to it from across the table.

Honestly they all end up looking the exact same regardless of effort for the guy who made them because on the table you spend all your time looking at the exact same power plant on the model's back.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 xttz wrote:
But spotting two identically posed 1cm tall power armoured legs in a 10+ strong unit, partly obscured by other parts of the model, obscured by other models or by terrain, on a table with scores of other models on it? That's something you actively have go to looking to find. You need a conscious effort to find them, especially if you're not standing right next to the unit in question.

I agree, duplicates are difficult to spot when you hide them behind terrain. Also, if you don't look at them they disappear entirely!

I agree as well. You only notice it when you hyper focus on it in glamor shot pictures where each model is separated and individually highlighted. On the table top, no one notices or cares. Which is the exact same sentiment for the kitbashed models people spent a bucket of money on and several extra hours on. It still looked the same as the guy next to it from across the table.

Honestly they all end up looking the exact same regardless of effort for the guy who made them because on the table you spend all your time looking at the exact same power plant on the model's back.

I know, right? Why do we even care what the models look like anyway as long as they're the official GW models that we paid lots of money for and spent days assembling and painting and basing? You can't even tell from far away!

I guess the takeaway is that nothing matters if you don't care. Glad we can all agree.

I care how the models look lie a lot. Thus I'm extremely pleased that these days we have marine models that do not look like misshapen squats that struggle to stand.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

...
I guess the takeaway is that nothing matters if you don't care. Glad we can all agree.

Exalted



Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

...
It was really a general critique about one side of the argument and the hypocritical mental gymnastics they use to try to justify the supposed superiority of their multipose waifus. In this case it has nothing to do with you doing anything differently (by all means, they are cool minis), but rather that you've sided with the "multipose miniature master race" crowd while aptly demonstrating that the indistinct sameness of those same minis has driven you to make an added effort to attempt to differentiate them with more distinct posing, not long after another poster suggested that the more distinct and differentiated poses offered by monopose minis are a problem, rather than a feature, because they make the models stand out more amongst the unit rather than blending in with one another.

I refuse to take any such sides. Both types of kits are cool. I don't have a problem with the current GW modelling way per se (style where the torso is one piece instead of two), as a matter of fact I'd say the singular torso piece miniatures look more natural most of the time. But I also enjoy the modularity of the old multipiece kits when there are enough compatible kits to mix and match with. It's like legos man, addictive trying to come up with new combos, buying all the kits with cross compatible pieces, hunting for bits etc. Monopose gets you better looking models out of a single box, but multipart kits make you a friggin collector man! You start buying hideously expensive kits just to use a few bits out of them, its not for sane people and I love it.

If we are talking about poses in general, I can understand why someone would want as neutral poses as possible for a large unit of models, where repeated poses, if overly distinctive, stick out quite a bit. Let's take the current Harlequins kit as an example - imagine having 30 of those models in a unit - I bet that'd look hella derpy.

But numbers do matter. If a unit is on the small side, even more dynamic poses can look aight as long as they are not repeated many times.

Then there is context to consider - I think the combat role of a unit should also factor in to its pose to a degree. Every model running or leaping? Far more appropriate for an Assault squad than a shooty one. Everybody kinda still and slowly advancing? Far more appropriate for a shooty unit. But even this guideline should ideally be broken up a bit IMO, in order to add visual interest.

My point with the HH 2.0 MkVI tac kit was this: With only 5 poses across 40 models, the 8 copies of the " /\ " stance is going to stick out. I hope there will be at least one more set of 5 poses getting added to the pool eventually via a new kit, this could cut the amount of repetition to just 4 models out of a potential pool of 40 instead of 8. Assuming you buy 2 10-model kits of both variety, of course..

But then again, this will mostly be an issue with large squads.

I still stand by my opinion that the KT21 Veteran Guardsman kit is among the best ones, because it features 10 discreet poses, in all theee main flavours: Running, Static, Kneeling. This is what I personally hoped from the new MkVI kit, but didn't get. I am still going to buy the kit anyway because of the vastly improved proportions, but I do not consider the kit ideal in this regard, and this is why I'm leaning towards not buying the launch box after all.

I think keening poses on Space Marines look wrong. I think general that kneeing poses only look good on Snipers.

Apologies for going off topic and not discussing the poseability or lack thereof of these figures.

Does anyone have an idea of the contents and price of this starter box that has been occasionally referred to?

 Crimson wrote:

I care how the models look lie a lot. Thus I'm extremely pleased that these days we have marine models that do not look like misshapen squats that struggle to stand.

Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that GW could easily have made the new kit two different sprues, giving ten different poses, rather than a repeated sprue.

But oh noes! They wouldn't have made such fat stacks doing that!

angryboy2k wrote:
Apologies for going off topic and not discussing the poseability or lack thereof of these figures.

Does anyone have an idea of the contents and price of this starter box that has been occasionally referred to?

240 British Pounds for

40 Mk6 Marines
10 Cataphractii Terminators
2 Characters
1 Dreadnought
1 Spartan Tank
Rulebook
Campaign Booklet

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I care how the models look lie a lot. Thus I'm extremely pleased that these days we have marine models that do not look like misshapen squats that struggle to stand.

Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that GW could easily have made the new kit two different sprues, giving ten different poses, rather than a repeated sprue.

Sure, that certainly would have been preferable.

RazorEdge wrote:

angryboy2k wrote:
Apologies for going off topic and not discussing the poseability or lack thereof of these figures.

Does anyone have an idea of the contents and price of this starter box that has been occasionally referred to?

240 British Pounds for

40 Mk6 Marines
10 Cataphractii Terminators
2 Characters
1 Dreadnought
1 Spartan Tank
Rulebook
Campaign Booklet

Thank you for that. It’s a shocking price, even if we all know that when released separately these figures will probably be £320 without the rules.

Hopefully a side effect of the box will be some cheaper Cataphractii on eBay.
My Archangels need a relic squad.

RazorEdge wrote:

angryboy2k wrote:
Apologies for going off topic and not discussing the poseability or lack thereof of these figures.

Does anyone have an idea of the contents and price of this starter box that has been occasionally referred to?

240 British Pounds for

40 Mk6 Marines
10 Cataphractii Terminators
2 Characters
1 Dreadnought
1 Spartan Tank
Rulebook
Campaign Booklet

Are they abandoning templates in the 2nd edition? if not I would think the box would also have templates

I kind of hope the rules don’t rely on templates.

I know this isn’t representative of most games you’ll play, but when you’re up against TFG, they’re just another thing for them to bore to you to tears over.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I kind of hope the rules don’t rely on templates.

I know this isn’t representative of most games you’ll play, but when you’re up against TFG, they’re just another thing for them to bore to you to tears over.

That defeats the point of 30k though,being more simulationist like 40k in the past was.

When the Mk6 Power Armor Marines have only 5 Models per spure, it fits to the Rumor of a Smaller Starter Set with just 10 Tacital Marines.

BrianDavion wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

angryboy2k wrote:
Apologies for going off topic and not discussing the poseability or lack thereof of these figures.

Does anyone have an idea of the contents and price of this starter box that has been occasionally referred to?

240 British Pounds for

40 Mk6 Marines
10 Cataphractii Terminators
2 Characters
1 Dreadnought
1 Spartan Tank
Rulebook
Campaign Booklet

Are they abandoning templates in the 2nd edition? if not I would think the box would also have templates

I just listed the Rules and the MIniatures. The leaked rulebook pages shows the use of templates.

RazorEdge wrote:
When the Mk6 Power Armor Marines have only 5 Models per spure, it fits to the Rumor of a Smaller Starter Set with just 10 Tacital Marines.

Except 10 Marines isn't a starter for anything so either the people designing the HH starter set decided to make it worthless as a starter set (unlikely) or the rumour is wrong.

There's nothing at all to indicate that the 240 quid (Faeit) source is anything more than somebody taking guesses based on existing leaks, so I wouldn't take that price as gospel. At least some of the accompanying information already looks suspect.