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.

Since I can't run multiple polls in one topic, I will have to create two separate topics. One for basically the material preference of miniatures and the other for the type of multi-piece style of miniature.

There are many methods and styles to the design of miniatures. For this we won't be talking about single piece miniatures. This is mostly in reference to a miniature that has been cut into multiple pieces, creating a multi-piece miniature with separate torso, legs, arms, head, etc.

For example WH40K miniatures are known for separate torso, arms, heads which provide a great deal of customization options. At the very least you are looking at 5 separate pieces. It is a multi-piece miniature that is able to posed through a variety of dynamic poses because of the way they have been cut. This provides a plethora of customization and modifications options available. The downside is you have a lot of pieces, some can be fiddly which can make assembly hard for a few. It does let you rotate arms, torsos, heads to create a large amount of different pose possibilities. WH40K isn't the only one that does this but it is just an example of what can be done with the multi-pieced miniatures.

The next example I'll use PuppetWars miniatures and many of Infinity miniatures. They have multi-piece miniatures but they are designed slightly different. There is a separate head and arms but the torso and legs are one piece. A lot of their miniatures are only in 4 separate pieces. Although you can move the arms and heads to create a dynamic pose like the example above, the options are slightly limited more. The legs are static so your poses are limited and you can't rotate the torso.

There are a few miniatures from Warzone (Brotherhood Troopers) that are also multi-pieced. They however have the head, torso and legs as one piece instead of separate. The arms however are separate so you can adjust some posing but not a lot. At the very least the basic miniature is only 3 separate pieces 2 arms, main body (torso/legs/head). It is the less fiddly out of all of them.

What are you preferences for multi-pieced miniatures and why?

Depends on the material. Resin multi part are likely easier to prep than metal.

I actually find metal easier to prep, at least when it comes to cleaning, etc for me. Some resins tend to float so smaller pieces end up hard to keep track of. I don't have to worry about them floating away.

I can't think of any metal miniatures though that are fully multi-piece though like plastic or resin kits though. That is true a complete multi-piece (separate arms, torso, legs, head) tend to be primarily resin or plastic.

I had to clean a bunch of multi-pieced resin pieces which was what got me thinking about... is there a larger preference over the other. I like to have options to customize so, multi-pieced tend to give me those options as opposed to static designs.

Depends on the point of the model and the scale of the game.

For a low model count game with individuals represented by unique models, a single piece, or small part number model is fine.

For a larger model count game with lots of troops, I would like to have some variation in models so would actually prefer a higher part count for those models to allow more variation. Also allows modification to represent different unit types if appropriate.

 Dark Severance wrote:
I actually find metal easier to prep, at least when it comes to cleaning, etc for me. Some resins tend to float so smaller pieces end up hard to keep track of. I don't have to worry about them floating away.

I can't think of any metal miniatures though that are fully multi-piece though like plastic or resin kits though. That is true a complete multi-piece (separate arms, torso, legs, head) tend to be primarily resin or plastic.

You're lucky.
Original Malifaux, Knight Models, large Dark Sword kits, pre-Finecast LotR... Rackham's Confrontation and Cadwallen...

I could go on, but I'd imagine I got at least one shudder out of most people reading.

Raging Heroes comes to mind as a more recent example of the metal multi-part model and oh boy, while the models are nice, it's a horrible retread of why I despise multi-part metals so much.

Yeah, for me it comes down t numbers and material. If I have a lot of troops (say, more than 10 of the same guys), I like to be able to mix the poses up a bit. Preferably in Plastic or Resin.

If they are metal, I might consider gluing on one of their arms.

In as few pieces as possible to get a nice look. I'm not professional sculptor and I kind of suck at posing things. The less cleanup & decision making I have to do with regards to assembly the better. Stuff like the WH40K space marine kits is just too much. It's like 9 pieces (Torso x2, Arms x2, Shoulders x2, Legs, Head, Backpack) not even counting weapons or decorations. Though I find one piece models can often look pretty stuffy, so there's a medium to be found. Ideally I guess I'd have kit that comes in a few pieces 3 or less for a small model, 5 or less for bigger ones that can be posed in or two set ways.

I recently made an army using wargames factory Medieval Japanese soldiers. Took me longer to assemble the army than it did to paint them. At first all the options were great but then it quickly became tedious and time consuming. Not good for a game that requires 150 or so models!

In contrast we are doing some Mantic Undead at the moment (140 models so far) and the separate head, torso and legs are much much better. Now we spend more time painting than assembling.

All in all, context of their use matters. Less models to do, options should increase. More models options should start to decrease.

I enjoy building things and converting (perhaps more than playing or painting) so fully multi part

I also build scale model kits and like lots and lots of parts there too

(except unarticulated single track links all of which need clean up, they are the devils pieces.... Those 1/35 scale Dragon Sherman tanks, Aaaaargh)

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Original Malifaux, Knight Models, large Dark Sword kits, pre-Finecast LotR... Rackham's Confrontation and Cadwallen...

I could go on, but I'd imagine I got at least one shudder out of most people reading.

I shudder even based on those listings. There are a few decent Malifaux sculpts and a couple Knight Models but the rest were a pain. It wasn't that they were fiddly, but the details and designs weren't as impressive as I would have liked. That is mostly though because I've been spoiled by Infinity. They have some of the best designs, in my opinion, when it comes to metal miniatures. The detail on them is almost on par to resin miniatures. I have always been disappointed by Knight Models because I love DC/Marvel, but their miniatures details are way too soft for me.

 BrookM wrote:
Raging Heroes comes to mind as a more recent example of the metal multi-part model and oh boy, while the models are nice, it's a horrible retread of why I despise multi-part metals so much.

I didn't have too much of an issue with the metal Raging Heroes miniatures but I also only had a couple. The early Relic Knight metal miniatures were a pain though, a lot of gaps and pieces not really designed to fit well.

In general, I'm good to see the torso & legs as a single piece, preferably with a peg that goes into a hole in the base. That makes for a strong, stable model.

Then glue on arms and head, and you're good!

Also, because it's closer to monopose, the legs & torso can be sculpted "properly" so that the legs actually flow into the hips and chest and the model doesn't require a diaper to hide the joins.

Still needs shoulderpads and gorget to hide the upper joints, but the head can pivot and the arms can be slightly ball-jointed.
____

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
(except unarticulated single track links all of which need clean up, they are the devils pieces.... Those 1/35 scale Dragon Sherman tanks, Aaaaargh)

Single link track is the devil. If I could get multi-link pre-sagged track to replace my single link, that would be awesome!

I somehow missed this.

I prefer the CB way of doing multipart models single body separate arms head.

Gives enough variety without sacrificing (much) pose or dynamism.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Depends on the point of the model and the scale of the game.

Too right. Infinity and Arena Rex minis come in a million fiddly bits, but that's OK because I only need half a dozen. On the other hand, a plastic Space Marine comes in at least ten bits, which is a pain in the bum when you need to build fifty of them.

For something like Kings of War or Warhammer, single-piece basic infantry are fine. After all, one of the hallmarks of large formed infantry unit is that they're all doing the same thing. Put half a dozen variant poses, or separate heads, if you want.

For me it's less a question of how many parts (unless I'm building a sizeable amount of models in a single sitting), but it's a question of what parts the models are broken into.

For me the biggest example I can give is Privateer Press, I love a lot of their models, but they break them down into parts, rather stupidly for example the Mage Hunter Strike Force, a unit equipped with crossbows, they make the actual arms of the crossbow as a separate piece.

As long as the pieces aren't anything silly like that, than I tend to not have too much of a problem.

In that context, Yan Lo's beard really isn't that bad.

I tend to favour classic GW approach rather than Privateer or Infinity. I want to see a themed kit from which a player can make half a dozen similar regiments that won't look like they were cloned by Ctrl+C - Ctrl+V. (Privateer Press mentioned above)

I designed several infantry kits for my future projects that currently exist as blueprints (by design I mean concept, style, components break down), and the number of components ended up close to the GW kits.

I think a finely designed kit's value goes beyound a single game system while a poor design is hardly worth anything even if forced on the player by the armybook. What I'm saying is - designing a good set of miniatures that will be of limited use to players because they can't be converted, customized, randomized, etc - is kind of a waste. It can't live to its full potential both as a piece of art and as a product you can sell.

Denis Nazarets wrote:
I think a finely designed kit's value goes beyond a single game system while a poor design is hardly worth anything even if forced on the player by the armybook. What I'm saying is - designing a good set of miniatures that will be of limited use to players because they can't be converted, customized, randomized, etc - is kind of a waste. It can't live to its full potential both as a piece of art and as a product you can sell.

This is ultimately how I feel at the heart of everything. I enjoy miniatures as art and a product. I enjoy the ones that I can use for multiple purposes as opposed to only being stuck for one design because it can't be modified well enough to be considered diverse. Since I'm not a talented sculptor, then it is much easier to modify a miniature when I can exchange arms or maybe legs or head.

For assembly I tend to like fully multiple kits to be able to get the most use out of the kits. That doesn't necessarily mean I need to include 30 options for weapons. There are some kits I think that go overboard in that aspect. A one piece model can be modified but for someone with less experience, multiple piece kits allow a novice to easily modify pieces.

When I started working on a miniature line the kits I was designing were going to have separate head, torso, arms and legs. There was some issues with the heads so that design had to change. There isn't enough room to do a clean separation of head, there are cloth overhangs of the torso (capes, face masks, cloaks) that if you swapped heads don't make sense. We then made the change to have torso with attached an head but separate arms and legs. Then after after going through the designs I've been starting to lean towards a single body/legs/head with separate arms. However I'm not fully decided on that yet. It is clear once we finish these 2 fireteams, we need to take a step back and look at ultimately what we want to do. If trying to stick to a multi-piece impacts any uniqueness we could deliver to the miniature by making it less pieces or if we do both, keeping it multi-piece when we can. Infinity has done similar where some designs are broken up with single body with legs, while arms and heads are separate. Others have separate body, head, legs and arms as well.

The main reason is the idea I had was that the torso would have more rotation options to change the stance to make them more dynamic. The reality at least with one of the designs, is that the arms are able to be swapped, moved easily but the torso has a limited turn space. The separate torso does give it added ability to swap with other troops though.

Example of current design:

Did you see the sprue KK posted in the other thread?


In general, I prefer smaller (<30mm) minis using that type of design, with legs & torso as a single piece, preferably with a foot peg that goes into the base. This makes for a strong, solid, stable model that features proper neck-to-foot anatomy. Add heads & separate arms with weapon(s), and it's a total of 4 parts, which is good.

In your example, it's still a 4-part model, so that's fine. I'd be happy with that.

If the arms/ torso just get swapped, better go for square pegs instead of the ball socket, it will be easier to assemble and not slip out of pose.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If the arms/ torso just get swapped, better go for square pegs instead of the ball socket, it will be easier to assemble and not slip out of pose.

This was actually discussed and considered and is one of the things on the docket to re-evaluate once we get the initial batch in. We initially chose for round sockets to allow movement of arms from moving poses around from aiming, to ready position, to standby position or rotating to allow differences in stance from similar design. Since we're made changes we now have to look at how it effects assembly and if we care about rotating some parts to allow for pose adjustments.

Make a round post with a square key sticking out. Like a capital Q.

Players who want to pose the model can cut off the key, and it's no problem.

Others can snap it in and be done fast & easy.

Fixed poses allow you to have details cross from one piece to another (although you may end up with gaps, or distortions from the casting process). With joins that let you adjust the pose, there needs to be a clean break between the details on the two parts. Things like Space Marine shoulder pads are design choices to allow that freedom of movement.