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.

Moving because this keeps derailing the N&R thread for psychic awakening.

It is a common complaint that recently released kits contain less customizability/kitbashability than previous kit designs. Current kits certainly seem to have moved away from ball-and-socket torsos in favor of "bespoke leg/torso combinations". This allows for a few poses that were impossible before (most kits of the 5th and earlier era were all standing with the same leg poses, or all running, etc) but does lock you in to a large part of your model being pre-destined.

There are also some kits that are truly monobuild (Ork Buggy release) and some (generally big muscular things like Tzaangors and Abberrants) that have 2-3 possible posing options but you can't put any arms on any body.

It seems to me there were three eras of kits:

1) They're poseable but so what: 3rd ed era kits where you could theoretically make all your guys different poses, but in practice they all looked identical anyay. Examples are Guardians, Guardsmen, Necron Warriors, etc.

2) "The Golden Age" of things looking good but still being totally modular: Oldmarine kits, ork 5th-era kits, drukhari kits.

3) "The new world" of bespoke posing.

Between 2 and 3, which do you prefer? Why? Is it worth it to you to have poses for models kneeling, running, standing, etc all in the same kit but giving up the ability to decide which legs go with which body? did the eternally imperfect ball-and-socket torso joins annoy you, or did you figure that was a generally less important part of the model? How many kits do you think you should be able to build before you have to build two models that look basically the same except for a headswap? How much do you play around with kitbashing modern kits, and how successful are you?

the_scotsman wrote:
Moving because this keeps derailing the N&R thread for psychic awakening.

It is a common complaint that recently released kits contain less customizability/kitbashability than previous kit designs. Current kits certainly seem to have moved away from ball-and-socket torsos in favor of "bespoke leg/torso combinations". This allows for a few poses that were impossible before (most kits of the 5th and earlier era were all standing with the same leg poses, or all running, etc) but does lock you in to a large part of your model being pre-destined.

There are also some kits that are truly monobuild (Ork Buggy release) and some (generally big muscular things like Tzaangors and Abberrants) that have 2-3 possible posing options but you can't put any arms on any body.

It seems to me there were three eras of kits:

1) They're poseable but so what: 3rd ed era kits where you could theoretically make all your guys different poses, but in practice they all looked identical anyay. Examples are Guardians, Guardsmen, Necron Warriors, etc.

2) "The Golden Age" of things looking good but still being totally modular: Oldmarine kits, ork 5th-era kits, drukhari kits.

3) "The new world" of bespoke posing.

Between 2 and 3, which do you prefer? Why? Is it worth it to you to have poses for models kneeling, running, standing, etc all in the same kit but giving up the ability to decide which legs go with which body? did the eternally imperfect ball-and-socket torso joins annoy you, or did you figure that was a generally less important part of the model? How many kits do you think you should be able to build before you have to build two models that look basically the same except for a headswap? How much do you play around with kitbashing modern kits, and how successful are you?

Where would you place the Tempestus Scion kit? I’d imagine between 2 and 3.

It depends on the model.

I want all my necron warriors to look the same.

I want all my cultists to look different.

Overall, I prefer the flexibility to kitbash.

I'm torn because I really like the sculpts GW has been putting out latterly, but at the same time, those limit you to only a few of a thing before it gets repetitive.

A good example is the Chaos Possessed kit vs the Greater possessed. Despite being "greater" and on larger bases, the GPs are close to the same size as regular Possesed yet they look WAAAY better. The detail is so much clearer that in photos alone they do look bigger.
However, you only get 2 before they are obviously the same models. You can paint them differently, but it's obvious because they'll have the same mutations which by their fluff, and the fact that the 2 sculpts are far from identical should be rare.

The Possessed kit otoh, has loads of combinations. You could probably get 10 boxes and still be able to make 50 unique models that do not look like the next. Sure some of the mutaltions, heads, etc will be repeated and recognizable, but if you mix/match them in just the right way in different poses, they'll still look unique at a glance.

Now, one could argue that the GPs and Obliterators are part of a bulk boxset and once they get a full kit, their might be more customization, but it Eliminators are anything to go by, I doubt we'll see much within those kits themselves other than some headswaps and different poses than in Shadowspear

-

 Galef wrote:
I'm torn because I really like the sculpts GW has been putting out latterly, but at the same time, those limit you to only a few of a thing before it gets repetitive.

A good example is the Chaos Possessed kit vs the Greater possessed. Despite being "greater" and on larger bases, the GPs are close to the same size as regular Possesed yet they look WAAAY better. The detail is so much clearer that in photos alone they do look bigger.
However, you only get 2 before they are obviously the same models. You can paint them differently, but it's obvious because they'll have the same mutations which by their fluff, and the fact that the 2 sculpts are far from identical should be rare.

The Possessed kit otoh, has loads of combinations. You could probably get 10 boxes and still be able to make 50 unique models that do not look like the next. Sure some of the mutaltions, heads, etc will be repeated and recognizable, but if you mix/match them in just the right way in different poses, they'll still look unique at a glance.

Now, one could argue that the GPs and Obliterators are part of a bulk boxset and once they get a full kit, their might be more customization, but it Eliminators are anything to go by, I doubt we'll see much within those kits themselves other than some headswaps and different poses than in Shadowspear

-

TBF though: Greater Possessed and Possessed are two different things, right? AFAIK a Greater Possessed is like a lieutenant-level character? I would think with Characters the baseline assumption is that they will usually be mono-pose or very limited in different poses. Nearly every character in the game is like that - you might get a couple head options, maybe a weapon option, but actual character kits with options like the Chaos Terminator Lord and Marine Captain are exceptions, not rules.

The new Oblits are monopose, and they haven't given them a new kit yet. I would assume if they were not fully monobuild they would be a "category 2" kit, where there is just two designated ways to build each model. That's been the standard for a good long while now for anything with any beef to it (See the plastic Ogryns, the new Abberrants, etc. Basically, if you're building a "box" out of your model with airspace in the middle to give them more body mass, you're going to struggle to make anything really poseable)

It does annoy the heck out of me when a unit's fluff is like "They're all super custom and different and they're pieces made by skilled artisans to be unique!" and the kits are basically identical. See: Pain Engines, everything Mek themed for orks, Daemon Engines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Where would you place the Tempestus Scion kit? I’d imagine between 2 and 3.

Scions are more versatile, but they are a third-era kit. Most of the weapons have tubes/wires that lead to the backpacks, which means there is only one arm position available for each gun. The legs, heads and torsos are freely swappable however.

Because of the alternate command squad build though and the alternate head set, you can build two scion squads nearly completely distinct, which is something to be said for the kit. It also has an embedded optional character build as well, which is neat (though it is monopose effectively, since the coat only builds from one body).

Shout out to r/warhammerinstructions by the way, this is a fun subreddit!

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:
I'm torn because I really like the sculpts GW has been putting out latterly, but at the same time, those limit you to only a few of a thing before it gets repetitive.

A good example is the Chaos Possessed kit vs the Greater possessed. Despite being "greater" and on larger bases, the GPs are close to the same size as regular Possesed yet they look WAAAY better. The detail is so much clearer that in photos alone they do look bigger.
However, you only get 2 before they are obviously the same models. You can paint them differently, but it's obvious because they'll have the same mutations which by their fluff, and the fact that the 2 sculpts are far from identical should be rare.

The Possessed kit otoh, has loads of combinations. You could probably get 10 boxes and still be able to make 50 unique models that do not look like the next. Sure some of the mutaltions, heads, etc will be repeated and recognizable, but if you mix/match them in just the right way in different poses, they'll still look unique at a glance.

Now, one could argue that the GPs and Obliterators are part of a bulk boxset and once they get a full kit, their might be more customization, but it Eliminators are anything to go by, I doubt we'll see much within those kits themselves other than some headswaps and different poses than in Shadowspear

-

TBF though: Greater Possessed and Possessed are two different things, right? AFAIK a Greater Possessed is like a lieutenant-level character? I would think with Characters the baseline assumption is that they will usually be mono-pose or very limited in different poses. Nearly every character in the game is like that - you might get a couple head options, maybe a weapon option, but actual character kits with options like the Chaos Terminator Lord and Marine Captain are exceptions, not rules.

The new Oblits are monopose, and they haven't given them a new kit yet. I would assume if they were not fully monobuild they would be a "category 2" kit, where there is just two designated ways to build each model. That's been the standard for a good long while now for anything with any beef to it (See the plastic Ogryns, the new Abberrants, etc. Basically, if you're building a "box" out of your model with airspace in the middle to give them more body mass, you're going to struggle to make anything really poseable)

Yes, GPs are characters, but that are not unique and since they are 2 per slot, you can have 6 of them in a game using Ro3. I only use them as an example because they are basically the same as Possessed, but with a bit extra "blessing". Even Primaris LTs can be swapped out for units Sgts with barely any aesthetic difference. In both cases, they are just base size swaps. That's it.
But GPs look awesome, while regular Possessed just look ok and are showing their age. I like their customization though

-

 Galef wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:
I'm torn because I really like the sculpts GW has been putting out latterly, but at the same time, those limit you to only a few of a thing before it gets repetitive.

A good example is the Chaos Possessed kit vs the Greater possessed. Despite being "greater" and on larger bases, the GPs are close to the same size as regular Possesed yet they look WAAAY better. The detail is so much clearer that in photos alone they do look bigger.
However, you only get 2 before they are obviously the same models. You can paint them differently, but it's obvious because they'll have the same mutations which by their fluff, and the fact that the 2 sculpts are far from identical should be rare.

The Possessed kit otoh, has loads of combinations. You could probably get 10 boxes and still be able to make 50 unique models that do not look like the next. Sure some of the mutaltions, heads, etc will be repeated and recognizable, but if you mix/match them in just the right way in different poses, they'll still look unique at a glance.

Now, one could argue that the GPs and Obliterators are part of a bulk boxset and once they get a full kit, their might be more customization, but it Eliminators are anything to go by, I doubt we'll see much within those kits themselves other than some headswaps and different poses than in Shadowspear

-

TBF though: Greater Possessed and Possessed are two different things, right? AFAIK a Greater Possessed is like a lieutenant-level character? I would think with Characters the baseline assumption is that they will usually be mono-pose or very limited in different poses. Nearly every character in the game is like that - you might get a couple head options, maybe a weapon option, but actual character kits with options like the Chaos Terminator Lord and Marine Captain are exceptions, not rules.

The new Oblits are monopose, and they haven't given them a new kit yet. I would assume if they were not fully monobuild they would be a "category 2" kit, where there is just two designated ways to build each model. That's been the standard for a good long while now for anything with any beef to it (See the plastic Ogryns, the new Abberrants, etc. Basically, if you're building a "box" out of your model with airspace in the middle to give them more body mass, you're going to struggle to make anything really poseable)

Yes, GPs are characters, but that are not unique and since they are 2 per slot, you can have 6 of them in a game using Ro3. I only use them as an example because they are basically the same as Possessed, but with a bit extra "blessing". Even Primaris LTs can be swapped out for units Sgts with barely any aesthetic difference. In both cases, they are just base size swaps. That's it.
But GPs look awesome, while regular Possessed just look ok and are showing their age. I like their customization though

-

Sure, but I think you can count the number of CHARACTER keyword models that have any customizability at all in their kits on one hand. 99% are completely monopose. comparing a MPPK unit to a character and saying the character has no customizability is kind of similar to saying that modern kits have way more customizability and comparing them to an old metal monopose elite unit.

And I would say I'm not too perturbed about the monoposeness of line infantry stuff:

You can double up most infantry poses 2 to 3 times before it looks weird, unless they're something stand-out like the pistol Infiltrator or a guardsman throwing a grenade. I don't like those single models that look different from their friends anyway, they don't look coherent with the unit.

There's a band of optimum variance, IMO. You want enough poses that a squad looks not completely identical, but you want all the poses to have the same traits. Pistol Guy in the Eliminators is bad because he's too different, but a Seraphim squad of 10 models with 2 unique poses also looks weird. I think Guardsmen are probably about in the right place; the type of joint leaves room for every one of them to be posed about the same but slightly off enough to demonstrate a human degree of variance so they don't look too uncannily identical.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
And I would say I'm not too perturbed about the monoposeness of line infantry stuff:

You can double up most infantry poses 2 to 3 times before it looks weird, unless they're something stand-out like the pistol Infiltrator or a guardsman throwing a grenade. I don't like those single models that look different from their friends anyway, they don't look coherent with the unit.

There's a band of optimum variance, IMO. You want enough poses that a squad looks not completely identical, but you want all the poses to have the same traits. Pistol Guy in the Eliminators is bad because he's too different, but a Seraphim squad of 10 models with 2 unique poses also looks weird. I think Guardsmen are probably about in the right place; the type of joint leaves room for every one of them to be posed about the same but slightly off enough to demonstrate a human degree of variance so they don't look too uncannily identical.

I gotta disagree hard on guardsmen being an example of a good kit. They're just a victim of heroic scale in the EXTREME where they have impossibly stubby limbs and ginormous heads, so there is no way to pose them at all that looks natural. They're either holding their gun horizontally across their collarbone or trying to pull some grotesque approximation of aiming with their hip join misaligned and their head out of the little groove socket. ugh.

I do have a little bit of a thing about wanting to have my basic troops somewhat distinct, but I've also been pretty easily able to get that done even with the more monopose models. Just recently I did an army swap for some Idoneth Deepkin and I have 30 Namarti Thralls, which have 2 or 3 poses in the box that are monopose except for the head and the trailing streamer thingy. By clipping the weapons off at the handle and replacing them with spare weapons from the other sprues I was able to make distinct poses really easily without much more effort than clipping the models from the sprues in the first place.

I found it easier to make a believably distinct model from a fixed, but dynamic pose (a model holding his sword back over his head in a ninja pose pretty easily became a model throwing a harpoon, for example) than from older models that have flexible limbs but exactly the same pose (There's only so many ways I can make a Kabalite warrior aiming or holding a rifle look distinct).

I had a similar experience with the twenty-man pack of kairic acolytes that I used for my Thousand Sons army. they were dynamic monoposes up to the wrists, but a model with one arm up and one arm down can be easily made as a model holding up a dagger for a downward stab, a sword or axe for a slash, or holding two weapons across himself. Also, it helped that those were shirtless humans so I could make them distinct just by making their skin tones totally different.

The new Death Guard stuff, I can definitely feel peoples' frustration on. The issue with them is that the sculpted details are so noticeably unique - a model with a nurgling crawling out of his near and tentacle nipples is pretty distinctive, so when you see two of those it immediately stands out as a duplicate.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
And I would say I'm not too perturbed about the monoposeness of line infantry stuff:

You can double up most infantry poses 2 to 3 times before it looks weird, unless they're something stand-out like the pistol Infiltrator or a guardsman throwing a grenade. I don't like those single models that look different from their friends anyway, they don't look coherent with the unit.

There's a band of optimum variance, IMO. You want enough poses that a squad looks not completely identical, but you want all the poses to have the same traits. Pistol Guy in the Eliminators is bad because he's too different, but a Seraphim squad of 10 models with 2 unique poses also looks weird. I think Guardsmen are probably about in the right place; the type of joint leaves room for every one of them to be posed about the same but slightly off enough to demonstrate a human degree of variance so they don't look too uncannily identical.

I gotta disagree hard on guardsmen being an example of a good kit. They're just a victim of heroic scale in the EXTREME where they have impossibly stubby limbs and ginormous heads, so there is no way to pose them at all that looks natural. They're either holding their gun horizontally across their collarbone or trying to pull some grotesque approximation of aiming with their hip join misaligned and their head out of the little groove socket. ugh.

I do have a little bit of a thing about wanting to have my basic troops somewhat distinct, but I've also been pretty easily able to get that done even with the more monopose models. Just recently I did an army swap for some Idoneth Deepkin and I have 30 Namarti Thralls, which have 2 or 3 poses in the box that are monopose except for the head and the trailing streamer thingy. By clipping the weapons off at the handle and replacing them with spare weapons from the other sprues I was able to make distinct poses really easily without much more effort than clipping the models from the sprues in the first place.

I found it easier to make a believably distinct model from a fixed, but dynamic pose (a model holding his sword back over his head in a ninja pose pretty easily became a model throwing a harpoon, for example) than from older models that have flexible limbs but exactly the same pose (There's only so many ways I can make a Kabalite warrior aiming or holding a rifle look distinct).

I had a similar experience with the twenty-man pack of kairic acolytes that I used for my Thousand Sons army. they were dynamic monoposes up to the wrists, but a model with one arm up and one arm down can be easily made as a model holding up a dagger for a downward stab, a sword or axe for a slash, or holding two weapons across himself. Also, it helped that those were shirtless humans so I could make them distinct just by making their skin tones totally different.

The new Death Guard stuff, I can definitely feel peoples' frustration on. The issue with them is that the sculpted details are so noticeably unique - a model with a nurgling crawling out of his near and tentacle nipples is pretty distinctive, so when you see two of those it immediately stands out as a duplicate.

I was referring to the kit's posability, not the actual quality of the poses in question. I don't disagree that they're definitely weird looking.

I don't really want distinct troop models, so much as troop models with just enough variation to not fall into being uncannilly identical but everybody is still standing up and aiming over the sights in a firing line, or the whole unit is advancing together, etc.

I like most kits GW has released recently from a visual perspective. However I am not so keen on the rise of monopose models, sure they all look nice, but you can rarely kitbash them well.

For me the best kit they released in the last couple of years is the custodian guard kit. It has very nicely detailed models and you really have a lot of options in terms of posing. Also you can kitbash the kit extremely well with the wardens kit, which is also superb. I've built 13 custodian guards with spears so far and they all look very distinct in terms of their pose.

These two kits represent a very good balance in my opinion in terms of customizability, while still having intricate details.

For me personally having different posing options for a model is very important, also the compability for kitbashing.

Sure monopose models almost always look very good, but if you can only build 5 of them before you get duplicates it sort of diminishes the nice details of the model, because you just have clones basically.
Interestingly this was not as much of an issue with the first category of kits you described. Like you said with those kits you had many options in terms of posing, but the details of the models all looked very similar, having a duplicate of a model with intricate detail just stands out a lot more.

I certainly prefer 2, especially in the case of SM kits where literally every part, be it loyalist or CSM was interchangeable with one another. For a mad kitbasher like me that was heaven.

However, there are some kits in the 3 category I adore, case in point (which I've used before) the Putrid Blightkings. That is a category 3 kit done right. There are so so many parts that no two will look the same. There are so many parts you can use them on loads and loads of other projects. This is the mark of a good kit for me with the multiple secondary uses that the parts can feasibly be used for (same goes for the category 2 SM kits, Dark Eldar and Ork kits).

On the other end of the scale with Nurgle again, we have some of the worst category 3 kits- The Blightlords and Plague Marines. Blightlords are one of the worst offenders- no variant bodies, so if you have two boxes one always has to be the very distinctive fly guy. No ability to make a squad with the default weapons (you only get 3 of each in the box) and all of those leg poses are locked making for less variation possibilities.
The Blightking box get around this by having a wealth of variant torsos to choose from, so although you only have 5 bodies the combos you can make are far more variable.

What I will praise the Blightlord box on though is the shoulderpads. That is where the kit shines IMO. There are so many and this is a bonus for someone like me who likes to use them in other projects.

The plague marines stand out for me as some are locked into bizarre weapon combos due to how the kit is laid out- why can I only take a bubotic axe when I take a mace? As the kit was laid out like that with no room for variation.

GW has shown they can do these newer kits well, but right now it is incredibly hit or miss to see if they can actually do it every time.

3 plus knives plus putty = metal minus the satisfying heft

The current kits are fine. The lack of customisability is not a model issue, it is a rule issue.

 jeff white wrote:
3 plus knives plus putty = metal minus the satisfying heft

I'd take that over metal. The "satisfying heft" isn't really worth the fact that it's far easier to use the aforementioned knives and putty [and of course do so cleanly] on plastic over metal, and the fact that the actual shapes of multipart monopose plastics tend to be easier to cut and re-do anyway much more than the monopose metals, and the fact that the reduction of the "satisfying heft" also improves the structural integrity of the results of said cutting and putty.

 Crimson wrote:
The current kits are fine. The lack of customisability is not a model issue, it is a rule issue.

I definitely think it is more people complaining about something they would not ever have really noticed in the old system where a models rules were only quasi limited by the model.

If ork buggies were a single statine and you could buy one primary gun, onw secondary gun, a melee rig and a special rule item I doubt you'd hear hardly as many complaints about the monopose nature of the kits.

But, then again, the complaint above about the blight lords is that the models don't exactly match the rules. I think the thing preventing them being built with their basic load out is axes v swords? I was just looking at those instructions and I think there are five bolter arms.

It is. Basic profile for a Blightlord is a combi bolter and bubotic axe or the sword. The kit prevents you from building a squad with all axes or swords. I had to convert mine from various sources to get the axes on all of them, which I preferred ruleswise.

It also has the typical one of each combi-variant (melta, plasma, flamer) which is extremely annoying if you really want WYSIWYG. There is no reason to ever outfit a unit with a mix of those weapons and the bits are tiny. Just put four of each on the spure.

 Grimtuff wrote:
It is. Basic profile for a Blightlord is a combi bolter and bubotic axe or the sword. The kit prevents you from building a squad with all axes or swords. I had to convert mine from various sources to get the axes on all of them, which I preferred ruleswise.

So....a gw kit doesn't allow you to build the models in a coherent, solid configuration rules wise.

And this is.....a new development?

My first gw kit was El classico multimelta/lascannon/plasma cannon/heavy bolter devastators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The death watch veteran kit, a fully modular, swappable old marine kit allows you to build zero models with the basic load out. You cannot make bolt gun marines out of that box.

I thought we wanted rules disconnected from kits?

As long as a model is plastic, conversion/customization is pretty darn easy even if they aren't designed to be modular. Yes, oldmarines were peak interchange-able, but I just put a plasma pistol (from Hellblaster kit) and a power fist (from MkIV marine assault weapons Forge World resin kit) onto a Primaris Captain model and it went pretty smoothly. https://imgur.com/lRIk1LP

But isn't the problem that if GW only giving options to stuff that is on the models, converting stuff to make it look like you may want it to look like is not really an option.

If GW decides that a librarian for here on out will come with a sword, and you like staffs better, then your in trouble.

It also hurst factions that aren't updated with as many models as marines, because if they miss their codex window it may take years for them to get new models.

More options = better.

Karol wrote:
But isn't the problem that if GW only giving options to stuff that is on the models, converting stuff to make it look like you may want it to look like is not really an option.

If GW decides that a librarian for here on out will come with a sword, and you like staffs better, then your in trouble.

Yes, this is the real problem.

 Insectum7 wrote:
More options = better.

No, more bitz = better. There's a big difference.

For the most part, I have to say 2. IMO the 5th edition DE range was (and still is) one of the best model lines in all of 40k. The minis have aged very well, there's a nice amount of detail, and near enough every part is compatible with the entire range. The only sad part is that rather than making more kits in this style, GW simply deleted half the DE unit entries in subsequent codices. Not to mention shredding their wargear sections.

I'm not a Thousand Sons player but they also seem to have some fantastic kits in terms of customisation - especially the Exalted Sorcerers.


In terms of option #3, I think it can work for big, centrepiece models and/or special characters, but it's typically not something I want for basic infantry or generic HQs. If they're basic infantry, then you usually need quite a few of them and I don't want to end up with several clones wandering around. If they're generic HQs, then I want to be able to customise them without needing to be an expert at carving them up with a hobby-knife (because all the limbs attach in odd places and the head is built directly into the model), and also a master at sculpting green-stuff to hide the collateral damage.

Also, I might well be in the minority here but I find a lot of the newer, monopose models to be too busy for my tastes. I think GW have a tendency to just keep adding more and more crap to them (like Drazhar's stupid soulstone necklace), which ends up detracting from their appearance and feel, rather than enhancing it.

The new way of producing models helps GW avoid third-party interference. Heaps of companies took advantage (logically) of the ultra-modular nature of things like Space Marines, Imperial Guard, etc. The new models make it much harder to do that, so it trims some of the lost money from third-party competition.

What I find hugely lame with the new kits, is that they've gone to monopose (which is fine) ...and then decided to not take advantage of it. We still don't have sporadic kneeling or crouching marines, nobody is ever running, no one is doing a magazine change, etc. We're still stuck with awfully stale poses/choices because they're "safe". The only "dynamic" models seen involve: A) leaping off something ridiculous, B. screaming, C: Flailing arms wildly.

I'm 100% fine with minimal posing for infantry models, but the characters are where I have absolutely lost any faith in GW. We've done nothing but lose options since the $30-40 plastic heroes started showing up...

When we had metal models, even if they were monopose (or bodies/legs/heads were for metal based marines, etc.), GW would release numerous sculpts. The release of Chaplains in the mid-90s saw three or four models on foot, followed by a chaplain on bike, and a Terminator chaplain within a month. Options. Same thing with Librarians; four separate Librarians, followed by a Terminator, etc. The "hero" options for armies in 40K right now is comical and dire - combined with the lack of any wargear unless you're modeled with it, they've gutted the personality from character models.

^ Six power armored librarians from the 90s. Two each for Codicer, Lexicanum, Epistolary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More options = better.

No, more bitz = better. There's a big difference.

Bits are a type of option.

Well....

With more parts, you can do more things, but you can't use all the parts to make your models in the box. So now what do you do with the remainder?

For some of us, we will use parts in creative ways with other models/factions/scenery etc.

But I'd wager that alot of people do not use them, can't re-sell them and so they waste them.

If GW makes kits with less, and prices go down to reflect that, sorta streamlining the kits so that only what you need to get going is in there. I could see that from a business perspective.

I bought the starter set of tau, and a box of fire warriors to make a kill team. In matched play you can only have 20 models max in the base game. But i'm not likely to field 20, so what do I do with the left over parts? I choose to make my models all with faces for my kill team. Then i made the rest with helmets after I used all the heads. I really don't know what to do with the helmets.........

For the record, i do like seeing lots of parts and choices.

Maybe, for example make the following:

Tau Firewarrior box - models few options
Tau Fire warrior accessory - options!

This would probably raise costs for the company thou....

What about a box of 5 models (cheaper) and a big box of ten (normal price) with lots of parts?

 Elbows wrote:
What I find hugely lame with the new kits, is that they've gone to monopose (which is fine) ...and then decided to not take advantage of it. We still don't have sporadic kneeling or crouching marines, nobody is ever running, no one is doing a magazine change, etc. We're still stuck with awfully stale poses/choices because they're "safe". The only "dynamic" models seen involve: A) leaping off something ridiculous, B. screaming, C: Flailing arms wildly.

?


Granted it is not sporadic.





I think Option 3 and many posters understanding of it is underselling what the new model kits have within them and what can be done without needing much modeling skill. It is a lot easier to prevent 'cloning' within these kits that what is being conveyed in this thread. The torso and legs would require some work, but the head and arms still have some options and posing that can be done pretty easily to mask the same leg torso base repeats pretty well for enough models to field an army.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ Six power armored librarians from the 90s. Two each for Codicer, Lexicanum, Epistolary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More options = better.

No, more bitz = better. There's a big difference.

Bits are a type of option.

I disagree.

When people want options with their weapons, they want rules to go with them, which is gonna be a complaint in this thread as we both know. While that's perfectly fine and all, at some point a consolidated profile just makes a lot more sense, and thinking about best representation.

Look at the weapons available to Marines from FW for example. I did my Shrike stand-in using a Power Scythe from there. I don't NEED rules for a Power Scythe though, do I? I just need a generalized representation. Same thing with the guy I made that's either:
1. Terminator Deathwatch Captain w/ Relic Blade + Dominus Aegis
2. Stand-in for Asterion
I'm using a Grey Knight halberd on that one, but I don't NEED rules for a Power Halberd (which is honestly best forgotten from the last two editions).

In the case I'm presenting, more bitz is great. It's very easy to procure bitz though and stick them on any Marines because Marines are pretty forgiving. Hell most of my HQs are just different helms and arms and weapons. Not hard to do whatsoever that even a 10 year old can do, but I still like them anyway and what my eventual plans for the bases are. We don't need more codex options for the sake of options though. Does the Primaris Captain really need to be able to take a Thunder Hammer per codex, and can't we just use a giant thing you wack people with to represent your Power Fist on him?