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.

i have one box of Wargames atlantic germans, i got 4 diffrent head options / model for that one.
A box for 30 dudes at the price that would net me 10 cadians.

Yeah head options or indeed alternate bits are a seriously low commodity and in the case of weaponry GW actively restricts it for artificial scarcity aswell sometimes because feth custommers.

It all comes down to whether or not you want 10 distinct and completely monopose models, or 10 fully customizable models that all look nearly the same per box.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
It all comes down to whether or not you want 10 distinct and completely monopose models, or 10 fully customizable models that all look nearly the same per box.

or we would see propper innovation and get a decent compromise of both?

It isn't like GW hasn't the pricetag for that, it's just that GW often get's not the standards applied to the pricetag for innovation.

Monopose will be great with limited weapon choices per box that you will have to follow as per the new dex.... no funny business converting or different options. Every unit should be as per box set.

I realise in my previous post I wrote "anti-video game piracy measures". I apologise because on second read that makes zero sense.

It should say "video game anti-piracy measures". Still, I'm sure most of you figured out what I meant. Just wanted to clarify.

Head options make all the difference. Not having lots of poses does detract from the value of a box imo, but if I can get different heads, torsos, weapons, etc, I'm usually happy. Sisters are crazy with head options. Look at the Retributors. Five woman squad with over twenty head options.

The question will be how many models come in this squig boyz pack, and how many models will the average player want to include in his army? If we only get five or ten unique models and that's all you'd need for an army, I don't see the issue. But if they want us to have an ork boyz horde level of models, and they're all monopose, that's annoying. Look at how savage orcs turned out. Yeah, you can give them bows, shields, heads, etc. But every model is doing the same pose and it's really obvious. And that's the core unit, so you're stuck getting lots of them

The other problem is that all this mono-pose nonsense is starting to bleed into the rules.

So the regression is not just affecting the miniatures, but the game itself.

But no, I'm sure I'm just "blinded by nostalgia", right?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I realise in my previous post I wrote "anti-video game piracy measures". I apologise because on second read that makes zero sense.

It should say "video game anti-piracy measures". Still, I'm sure most of you figured out what I meant. Just wanted to clarify.

Considering how atrociously virus-like some of them are? Your first version wasn’t exactly wrong about them being anti video games…

JSG wrote:

posermcbogus wrote:Also, like, this dude has actual seams on his trousers, and a feed belt on his slugga, and a screw+bolt holding his armor together, and like a full blown chain blade in his chopper - other than two animal pelts - something loads of orks have, what exactly is savage here? Kinda just looks like a nob that tangled with an exodite dino once and was proud of it.

He's not supposed to be savage. he's is exactly as you describe him. Does no one read the three lines of text they put in these articles?

kodos wrote:

Sasorijap wrote:
With most of the Ork product line outdated do they seriously introduce a new one?
I guess they have to get rid of the old stock first.

No, but GW thinks that they sell more with an additional model line instead of replacing the old one as (they think that) people will not replace models they already have with more expensive but better looking ones or that those people are a minority

Let's not pretend we know GW's business better than they do.

Gw isn't exactly　keeping their strategy secret. If gw shouts it out top of their lungs and you refuse to listen blame for not knowing goes to you

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The other problem is that all this mono-pose nonsense is starting to bleed into the rules.

So the regression is not just affecting the miniatures, but the game itself.

But no, I'm sure I'm just "blinded by nostalgia", right?

It only really affects the characters. Ork boyz weapon options weren't exactly that varied in the end.

But it's a whole another debate, here. So far as I'm concerned, what GW showed about the beast snaggas aren't characters : they look like members of a "core" unit. And we still don't know what they will have as full options.

The new ork looks just like the old orks.....it's an ork.

btw, I loved the new buggies, almost made me start an Ork army.......almost.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Umm. If you are using 3rd party models already, how does GWs new models affect that? Surely GW should be applauded for bringing another product to market that some people will find slots into their collection really nicely.

The issue is that GW is not just screwing over those that intend to use 3rd party bitz, but rather with the monopose screw over those of us which are used to kitbash and also remove the option to modify within the design.

While I understand the concerns about kitbashing, I do wonder at the actual impact. Taking the posted image from above, head swaps and weapon swaps are trivial, provided the weapons are single handed, and most 2 handed weapons could probably be accommodated easily by the stance. shoulder mounted weapons would be harder, but possible with a bit of GS work or adding shoulder plates of some kind. You probably couldn't use the original model arms, but heavy weapons often come with their own arms anyway. Multi-part kits tend to come with pretty fixed leg stance options, so thats not particularly different.

In my view, the only real problem is if you want to use a different combination of torso and legs. The new monopose method allows a great and realistic connection in the model physiology between the pose of the legs and the torso, but also makes it much harder to easily swap between the two. Its not impossible, just harder than if you have a simple belt type join between torso and legs.

For 3rd party bits, there is still a design space for adding armour plates to the GW plastics, or even new arms and torsos designed to mesh with legs, or legs with torsos. by definition, there are going to be lots of the same kind of model, and therefore with a bit of a redesign of the connection point, 3rd party producers can still provide conversion bits for GW plastics.

 Jidmah wrote:
I really like that ork, much better than the squig rider.
I do not like the idea of having to rebuy all my troops.

I doubt people will stop you from running old boyz as these guys if they're on 32s. That is if these are troops ( probably ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
As you keep repeating this over and over... do you actually own any of the buggies?

What difference would that make? I wouldn't add those mono-pose abominations to my Orks.

I feel like worrying about monopose is a terrible hill to stand on if you also ignore the benefits of the other side. I have a fondness for my old orks, but I really do not enjoy the seams and the ba-donk-a-donk butts.

Of course everyone has their own taste and that's fine, but the tiny amount of what is, to me, imperceptible variation isn't really a worthy trade off.

I think those kits were a great transition from the old plastics, but we're so far beyond that phase now where all the models are mostly dynamic and interesting. You do make a fair point about the loss of weapon options, but I don't think this is really tied to that.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
It all comes down to whether or not you want 10 distinct and completely monopose models, or 10 fully customizable models that all look nearly the same per box.

lmao, thank you

The Society for the Preservation of Multiposeability don't get called out enough. They like to think that they were being "creative" when they were deciding whether to rotate a model's pistol arm 10 degrees or 12 degrees above the horizontal plane, or pair that pistol arm with the torso that had two grenades, a pouch, and a fang sculpted on it versus the torso that had two pouches, a knife, and a skull sculpted on it, but really they were wasting their time (or not, if they enjoyed the modelling/decision-making process). But their models were altogether indistinguishable from one another, or from any other player's army that used the same models.

The idea of "variance in a large group of models" being important -- or even identifiable -- is another big lie they tell. The only time they're actually consciously thinking about that is when they're posing the unit of models they don't actually play with for their long stay in the great glass cabinet in the sky (well, basement).

I doubt these new orks are monopose except by the bizarre H.B.M.C. definition where 'mononopose' means, 'legs and torso are one piece so that hips and abdomen do not look like total crap.'

 Altruizine wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
It all comes down to whether or not you want 10 distinct and completely monopose models, or 10 fully customizable models that all look nearly the same per box.

lmao, thank you

The Society for the Preservation of Multiposeability don't get called out enough. They like to think that they were being "creative" when they were deciding whether to rotate a model's pistol arm 10 degrees or 12 degrees above the horizontal plane, or pair that pistol arm with the torso that had two grenades, a pouch, and a fang sculpted on it versus the torso that had two pouches, a knife, and a skull sculpted on it, but really they were wasting their time (or not, if they enjoyed the modelling/decision-making process). But their models were altogether indistinguishable from one another, or from any other player's army that used the same models.

The idea of "variance in a large group of models" being important -- or even identifiable -- is another big lie they tell. The only time they're actually consciously thinking about that is when they're posing the unit of models they don't actually play with for their long stay in the great glass cabinet in the sky (well, basement).

Well damn you put that into words better than I ever could.

JSG wrote:

posermcbogus wrote:Also, like, this dude has actual seams on his trousers, and a feed belt on his slugga, and a screw+bolt holding his armor together, and like a full blown chain blade in his chopper - other than two animal pelts - something loads of orks have, what exactly is savage here? Kinda just looks like a nob that tangled with an exodite dino once and was proud of it.

He's not supposed to be savage. he's is exactly as you describe him. Does no one read the three lines of text they put in these articles?

Like, I give it the barest of skim reads, because it's GW's hype goons at their most overbearing, repetitive and often... not even that close to the truth?
If he's not savage, but he is a "beast snagga", and he's not a snakebite, but he's not a regular ork, either, what the hell is this guy supposed to be? Like, my point was exactly that he's been lumped into a really vague design space. What are beast snaggas? Not savage orks, but animal cruelty orks?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
It all comes down to whether or not you want 10 distinct and completely monopose models, or 10 fully customizable models that all look nearly the same per box.

lmao, thank you

The Society for the Preservation of Multiposeability don't get called out enough. They like to think that they were being "creative" when they were deciding whether to rotate a model's pistol arm 10 degrees or 12 degrees above the horizontal plane, or pair that pistol arm with the torso that had two grenades, a pouch, and a fang sculpted on it versus the torso that had two pouches, a knife, and a skull sculpted on it, but really they were wasting their time (or not, if they enjoyed the modelling/decision-making process). But their models were altogether indistinguishable from one another, or from any other player's army that used the same models.

The idea of "variance in a large group of models" being important -- or even identifiable -- is another big lie they tell. The only time they're actually consciously thinking about that is when they're posing the unit of models they don't actually play with for their long stay in the great glass cabinet in the sky (well, basement).

Well damn you put that into words better than I ever could.

I kinda agree with the exageration that some people make about how the new GW kits are all similar (I mean, some are horrible like new slaangors, but many others are completely fine like primaris intercessors, etc...), but you are underselling old kits:



Just making a good amount of variety of heads and arms positions is good enough even if torsos and legs are 5-10 fixed poses. Thers some new kids that make that, so they are very good and have the best of both worlds. Then theres a ton of kits that are a puzzle, a bad one.

 Galas wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
It all comes down to whether or not you want 10 distinct and completely monopose models, or 10 fully customizable models that all look nearly the same per box.

lmao, thank you

The Society for the Preservation of Multiposeability don't get called out enough. They like to think that they were being "creative" when they were deciding whether to rotate a model's pistol arm 10 degrees or 12 degrees above the horizontal plane, or pair that pistol arm with the torso that had two grenades, a pouch, and a fang sculpted on it versus the torso that had two pouches, a knife, and a skull sculpted on it, but really they were wasting their time (or not, if they enjoyed the modelling/decision-making process). But their models were altogether indistinguishable from one another, or from any other player's army that used the same models.

The idea of "variance in a large group of models" being important -- or even identifiable -- is another big lie they tell. The only time they're actually consciously thinking about that is when they're posing the unit of models they don't actually play with for their long stay in the great glass cabinet in the sky (well, basement).

Well damn you put that into words better than I ever could.

I kinda agree with the exageration that some people make about how the new GW kits are all similar (I mean, some are horrible like new slaangors, but many others are completely fine like primaris intercessors, etc...), but you are underselling old kits:

Spoiler:

Just making a good amount of variety of heads and arms positions is good enough even if torsos and legs are 5-10 fixed poses. Thers some new kids that make that, so they are very good and have the best of both worlds. Then theres a ton of kits that are a puzzle, a bad one.

To be honest, i gotta say i'm a fan of the old Boyz kit in terms of customizibility and options, i'm just really, reallly not a fan of how each of them is doing The Games Workshop Combat Squat, and all of them look like they got kicked in the back by a Terminator. If only we got a Boyz kit with like, ten distinct bodies, that look like they're not permanently crippled a bunch of head and arms options that can go on whatever body, and some gak to attach whenever, then they'd be perfect.

God almighty you "anti-posing modern GW design is excellent, I can't wait for when they make an even larger version of heavy primaris marines" boys complaining about how much you dislike when someone has an opinion different from you sure are a sad bunch.

What's wrong with people wanting the option for a bit more creative freedom with their minis? What's wrong with wanting to be able to take some plastic parts and push them as hard as you can to make something unique, without having to spend all evening drilling and cutting and filing and dry fitting and pinning and aligning and greenstuff filling?

The most modern minis I've ever put together were the GSC aberrants. I love the GSC cultists, they're packed with character, and even if you can't do too much with the legs, the options one has for arms is truly astonishing.
The aberrants, while beautiful, are a really paradigm of modern GW design. Each torso is limited to 5-2 of the many heads included in the kit. Each torso has a choice of 2 arm options, one of which is usually shared with another model in the unit, constraining you further. You've gotta plan your building, but rather than the use of bits, or poses, or squad composition, it's this shallow, unrewarding "well, who do I want to give the squid face from these three, and which of these two gets this monster sledgehammer?".
Each torso is made of a slew of parts, but they are entirely structural, and guarantee that, for all the work that went into assembly, if I ever go toe-to-toe with another guy with aberrants, I'll have a few models that, other than paint scheme, look IDENTICAL to his.

You all might sneer at "ooh, I rotated my orks arm 10 degrees" but like, that creative control, and that freedom is well loved by fans for a reason.

The ork boyz kit is getting on, but it's a raucous little box of chaotic freedom. I think all of us in the "monopose orks bad" camp would've much preferred a kit that was going to be slightly more slickly tooled, so there was less cleanup on mold lines, and maybe a few more ball-socket arm joints. Instead we're getting slugga boyz +1, and it's a really cynical, boring move by GW, because across all the ranges, GW is just "make minis bigger, increase price, make more killy" and it's fething exasperating to be constantly disappointed because you want the thing you like to be better than that.

TL;DR?

 posermcbogus wrote:
God almighty you "anti-posing modern GW design is excellent, I can't wait for when they make an even larger version of heavy primaris marines" boys complaining about how much you dislike when someone has an opinion different from you sure are a sad bunch.

What's wrong with people wanting the option for a bit more creative freedom with their minis? What's wrong with wanting to be able to take some plastic parts and push them as hard as you can to make something unique, without having to spend all evening drilling and cutting and filing and dry fitting and pinning and aligning and greenstuff filling?

The most modern minis I've ever put together were the GSC aberrants. I love the GSC cultists, they're packed with character, and even if you can't do too much with the legs, the options one has for arms is truly astonishing.
The aberrants, while beautiful, are a really paradigm of modern GW design. Each torso is limited to 5-2 of the many heads included in the kit. Each torso has a choice of 2 arm options, one of which is usually shared with another model in the unit, constraining you further. You've gotta plan your building, but rather than the use of bits, or poses, or squad composition, it's this shallow, unrewarding "well, who do I want to give the squid face from these three, and which of these two gets this monster sledgehammer?".
Each torso is made of a slew of parts, but they are entirely structural, and guarantee that, for all the work that went into assembly, if I ever go toe-to-toe with another guy with aberrants, I'll have a few models that, other than paint scheme, look IDENTICAL to his.

You all might sneer at "ooh, I rotated my orks arm 10 degrees" but like, that creative control, and that freedom is well loved by fans for a reason.

The ork boyz kit is getting on, but it's a raucous little box of chaotic freedom. I think all of us in the "monopose orks bad" camp would've much preferred a kit that was going to be slightly more slickly tooled, so there was less cleanup on mold lines, and maybe a few more ball-socket arm joints. Instead we're getting slugga boyz +1, and it's a really cynical, boring move by GW, because across all the ranges, GW is just "make minis bigger, increase price, make more killy" and it's fething exasperating to be constantly disappointed because you want the thing you like to be better than that.

I think the weakness of your position is revealed by your opening salvo having to include two completely unrelated accusations (large models? Primaris?)

You do accidentally approach an unspoken truth, though; the people who tirelessly cry about monopose models don't really miss the models. They miss a process of assembly that required/incentivized a person to sit down, inventory all the bits in a kit, do a bunch of speculative dry-fitting, and make choices about what to glue where. They miss the (illusory) sense of creativity and individuation that that process provided a shortcut to. But the results of that process always looked nigh indistinguishable from the same models assembled by another person.

Except the mono-posting is creeping into the rules. It's not just impacting miniature design. It's now part of rules design.

I always thought it was models first then the rules team try to make the rules to fit. Could have changed over the years though.

Sounds like we may get an apothecary like character for them too?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
It all comes down to whether or not you want 10 distinct and completely monopose models, or 10 fully customizable models that all look nearly the same per box.

or we would see propper innovation and get a decent compromise of both?

It isn't like GW hasn't the pricetag for that, it's just that GW often get's not the standards applied to the pricetag for innovation.

The problem with Orks is the muscle structure. With exposed muscles there is a limitation on posing because it’s not just the orientation or the bones that change, it’s the muscles too.

It’s why so many orc conversions end up looking crap, the muscles aren’t realistically positioned for the pose.

Things like Tyranids can somewhat get around the problem by using ball joints because they have an exoskeleton instead.

I'm not a multiposer, nor am I really a monoposer though I will admit that the monopose concept has more advantages than disadvantages relative to the multipose concept...

BUT, I will say the ultimate crowning appeal of the multipose minis is the flexibility they offer... for kitbashing. As others pointed out theres a negligible difference in the actual builds that come out of the box on a multipose mini, but when you start taking parts from another box and using things in ways they weren't intended it was a lot easier to get a quality result with minimal effort. The monopose minis take a lot more work in that regard and sometimes can require significant cutting and sculpting to get a conversion to sit right that probably would have been otherwise achievable with just a bit of glue had the kit been multipose.

So in a way, I guess thats the main crux of the debate whether the either side realizes it or not. Monopose minis prioritize out-of-the-box builds that are quick to assemble and have dynamic posing and highly detailed sculpts. Multipose minis prioritize flexibility and interchangeability with other parts at the expense of static posing, lower levels of detail, and longer build times.

what I recall is that GW wants to keep things as easy as possible
any model that it more flexible to build is a problem for those who don't like building stuff and therefore it must be as simple and fast to build as possible

less variation, still visible seam, always the same pose for similar model type etc. is still there with the new style


and I have seen those things done with kits that have more poses possible/are more flexible to build but those are not that easy any more

Sarouan wrote:
It only really affects the characters. Ork boyz weapon options weren't exactly that varied in the end.

Can go even worse. New snagga boyz have no option for rokkit? Or even not at all. Or maybe it has big shoota per 10 models and you HAVE to take that because model has only that way to build it...

 posermcbogus wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:
I thought it was obvious.

Nah mate, not really. Might've got lost in all the snark. Maybe try a little harder to communicate in future - might help if ya typed more?

My bad, I assumed you would have looked at or handled both multipose and monopose models before entering into a discussion about the differences between them.