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.

Just got a box of start collecting CSM and they are nice models but no longer in the arms legs torso etc fashion. Is this just the trade off

On one side I do miss the feeling of being able to customise every Marine in my army with an individual pose.

On the other side reality was that I usually only did that for squad leaders or hero units.

And I really really like the new kind of sculpts where two parts just "click" together, when positioned correctly. I do not miss the days where every single part of a miniature had to be fixated with Green Stuff to make it hold long enough for the glue to dry up.

My opinion:
As long as squad leaders and hero units are customisable enough (e.g arms and heads are separate from the body), I'm fine with it.

In some ways yes.

The thing is older models often had rather rough shoulder regions in terms of detail and the old ball and socket joint does not easily work on high detail organic models save for Tyranids and other Xenos where it fits their design.

I also noticed that a lot of older models which you could pose often only had a handful of practical poses anyway. So you'd often end up with the "same pose" repeated over and over, or with only tiny arm adjustments.


The newer GW models are very dynamic and some look really fantastic in poses that, whilst you could do free posing, would be very difficult models to assemble if they were built that way

I'd say yes.

I would also say that it hampers the viability of kitbashing/converting outside of arm and head swaps now.

With a lot of the more recent models, they take a lot of chopping to make them unique. This is more an issue with the ETB push fits but it's an issue in the newer kits too.

If GW decide to redo the Dark Eldar or the plastics in the Eldar line, I'm going to be disappointed as while they'll be awesome looking, they'll trade off that kitbashing potential too.

Its certainly one of the factors but it's not intrinsically linked. Mono Pose Press Fit Easy To Build (pick your cheap starter set moniker) models don't look better and can't be posed. The ETB Inceptors were horrible compared to the full kit. But yes, at a certain point they need to restrict how much range of posing is available to get some of the pieces and parts to fit together with things like capes, robes, wings, and so on.

Yeah it is a trade-off.

Just note that the Necromunda kits show that GW cant, when it wants, let you vary arms and poses quite significantly with the right kit and core body types. However GW clearly has conflicts internally between that design approach; mono build approaches and also easy-build kits.

Easy build isn't totally daft, its trying to find that medium between serious wargamers and model builders; and the more casual/younger/beginner market.


Meanwhile Necronmunda is also a game that isn't designed to have lots and lots of kits per faction (at least at its onset). Heck before it really took off GW could have done one plastic kit per house and left it at that and there'd still have been a lot of variety. Regular armies get around this by having lots of unit types and variety in whole kits.

It's a trade-off alright - but one I'm happy with. As an example, the difference in how good the "default" poses look for Intercessors and Tac Marines is night and day.
I get the idea behind ETB, but as someone who likes to be able to pose things a little now and again and mix things up, I recognised straight away that ETB was "not for me". And there's nothing wrong with that as long as we have the more complex full kit available for those of us that want it.

If anything it’s the price we paid for GW going to war with Chapterhouse and discovering they didn’t own half the thing they though they did, such as arrows and Greek symbols...

Whomever won that, we lost as a customer.

Those new Monopose models are okay if you just want to expand an existing collection. For example the new Plague Marines aren't that flexible in terms of posing, but there are 20different versions of them, I have a Bits Box to make them more interesting and since they're just an addition to my existing 50 or so Plague Marines it's okay to have every Marine just once. If I started the army though I'd have a lot to convert and cut to prevent clones. You didn't have that problem with the old Marines. I'd say it's a step back.

 Grimtuff wrote:
If anything it’s the price we paid for GW going to war with Chapterhouse and discovering they didn’t own half the thing they though they did, such as arrows and Greek symbols...

Whomever won that, we lost as a customer.

I feel like I’m missing something

It depend on the model, I’ve just worked in some new XV8 crisis, they’re much more posable than the old ones and are better sculpt. I do agree that most new models are mono posed and would require expert modeling skills to repose them.

mrFickle wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
If anything it’s the price we paid for GW going to war with Chapterhouse and discovering they didn’t own half the thing they though they did, such as arrows and Greek symbols...
Whomever won that, we lost as a customer.

I feel like I’m missing something

Have a read of this:
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/ChapterHouse_Studios
It's often seen as the catalyst for GW's current practice of only allowing options that they actually produce models for, and the reduction of various units' previously available options as a result.

Personally I think that the reduction in options not modelled wasn't a bad thing all told. Sure it cut down on options, but at the same time GW was starting to put more and more things into codex that they weren't modelling. Tyranids had at least two Codex with special character Tyranids that had no model what so ever as well as multiple gaunt weapons that had no model.

Now for an experiened player with a huge bits box and skills/experience its not a huge issue; but for the less experienced and those without a huge bits box it meant some things were just not accessible to them unless they used "counts as".



Once or twice its not an issue, but it was getting increasingly worse. Plus it made armies look like they were getting ignored and heading toward being shelved. It's one thing to get no release; its another to go for years with a "teased" release that never comes.

The TOP of new GW design that every box should try to achieve is Putrid Blightkings levels of variety without any kind of possability, basically because they were full flesh and nurgle tentacles, and with that you can't have that much freedom of poses.


But one needs to try to make two putrid blighkings look the same. Phenomenal kit.

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think that the reduction in options not modelled wasn't a bad thing all told. Sure it cut down on options, but at the same time GW was starting to put more and more things into codex that they weren't modelling. Tyranids had at least two Codex with special character Tyranids that had no model what so ever as well as multiple gaunt weapons that had no model.

Now for an experiened player with a huge bits box and skills/experience its not a huge issue; but for the less experienced and those without a huge bits box it meant some things were just not accessible to them unless they used "counts as".



Once or twice its not an issue, but it was getting increasingly worse. Plus it made armies look like they were getting ignored and heading toward being shelved. It's one thing to get no release; its another to go for years with a "teased" release that never comes.

The non-modelled characters back in the day were always problematic. Lady Valys, Sgt Bastonne, all those models with pretty neat backgrounds and no way to represent them on the tabletop. I started playing back when those things were in swing and it was daunting as a new player. Honestly I appreciate the fact that all the things I want to run in the codex is available to me. Now conversions are something you do for fun instead of a necessity. While it did force me into some levels of creativity I should never had had to struggle to field an autocannon dreadnought in the first place. Heck, we can all agree that the old marine legs looked very.....full diaper at best unless they were monopose.

On the other hand I am not always overjoyed at the prospect of having to do extra work for conversions with the monopose models but at least there is always a ton of extra bits to compensate.

The old metal kits weren't just mono-pose, a lot of them were single-piece. People still cut those up for weapon swaps or just to pose them differently. A mono-pose plastic kit is worlds easier to do that with.

Personally I haven't had much issue with kit-bashing off the current set of Marine kits.

The Newman wrote:
The old metal kits weren't just mono-pose, a lot of them were single-piece. People still cut those up for weapon swaps or just to pose them differently. A mono-pose plastic kit is worlds easier to do that with.

Personally I haven't had much issue with kit-bashing off the current set of Marine kits.

Not to mention the utter horrors of assembling metal models like a Bloodthirster or Abaddon the armless. I had to learn how to use tiny drills and pins just to HOPE that the model stays put.

mrFickle wrote:
Just got a box of start collecting CSM and they are nice models but no longer in the arms legs torso etc fashion. Is this just the trade off

I disagree. Most of the more recent kits look like trash compared to plder ones IMHO. Deathguard, primaris, some of the new necrons, etc.... on the other hand GW also released Sororitas' kits which have tons of bitz to customize the models and make the models look very different. Just think about the heads: between just 3 kits (battle sisters, retributors, seraphims) there's like 50-60 different heads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think that the reduction in options not modelled wasn't a bad thing all told. Sure it cut down on options, but at the same time GW was starting to put more and more things into codex that they weren't modelling.

Reduction in optiosn is one thing and I can accept it, reduction in bitz/poses to customize the models is awful. I mean, I love SW but all the new primaris kits have nothing to do with SW, except for two characters, and the upgrades is just 8-10 shoulder pads and a couple of heads, really? And primaris models all look the same, like they were tyranids or necrons. Older kits allowed more unique models, even with just sticking with basic weapons.

 Blackie wrote:
And primaris models all look the same, like they were tyranids or necrons. Older kits allowed more unique models, even with just sticking with basic weapons.

You've clearly not seen what people have been doing to the Primaris models.

I have two main thoughts on this:
1. It sucks when generic characters or other, larger, single-model-units aren't designed to be fairly easily poseable regardless of equipment. You may have a couple of these types of models with the same loadout and it's lame if they look identical. Not having much option on Named Characters isn't so bad, since you'll only have one ever.

2. With troops, where you might have 30 models, getting stuck with 3 of the same "style-pose" sucks. 3 of the same grenade-thrower sticks out to me while 25 dudes in more generic poses does not. I think, generally, troops should be pretty uniform but not identical. It also sucks when the fixed-poses cause issue with special/heavy weapons . The Battle Sisters box is an example of on that looks really good but also annoys me in minor ways if I were to build a ton of them. The Tau Pathfinders box may not look quite as cool overall but is really more of what I'd want.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
And primaris models all look the same, like they were tyranids or necrons. Older kits allowed more unique models, even with just sticking with basic weapons.

You've clearly not seen what people have been doing to the Primaris models.

By conversions though, not simply by gluing what it's in the box or kitbashing from other kits. Older kits could be converted as well

Yes and no. Perhaps no and yes.

Compared to the early early days, we have a far easier time converting a plastic model than a metal model.

We also tend to get more dynamic models with their current ethos.

Now, were the ‘mid-times’ multi-part plastic kits a joy to work with? Of course they were. They also led to odd products, like the sadly limited Lost & Damned baggies, which featured a mishmash of sprues (Ork, Chaos Marauder and Zombie, if memory serves?) to kit bash with.

However, whether a design limitation or an active design choice, that eras models weren’t especially dynamic by today’s standards.

Nothing a converter of middling ability couldn’t work with though.

Now of course we have less instantly flexible kits, but they come in typically more dynamic and interesting poses. But being plastic, they’re still infinitely easier to convert than the old old old kits.

Hope this makes sense!

 Blackie wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
And primaris models all look the same, like they were tyranids or necrons. Older kits allowed more unique models, even with just sticking with basic weapons.

You've clearly not seen what people have been doing to the Primaris models.

By conversions though, not simply by gluing what it's in the box or kitbashing from other kits. Older kits could be converted as well

You're seriously telling me that the bog standard squatting tacticals looked more unique than Primaris Intercessors do now? Barely any moving poses, barely any aiming from anywhere beyond waist height - sure, you could grab one or two beaky helmets, a Mark V shoulder pad, and the sergeant had more going on, but the rest? Barely any dynamism.

Simply from what's in a core box of Intercessors though, I can make a whole squad look unique. More shoulder pads, tilting shields, pouches, arm poses, the torsos and legs actually having momentum that can be redirected from a head, and what a range of heads!

Absolutely. Maybe regulars tacs were a bit dull about the heads but SW have something like 30 different bare heads between 3 kits (Grey hunters, TWC, termies).

I also have to say that some of the new parting designs are fantastic in terms of naturally hiding join lines on the model. They still happen of course, but a great many are very craftily hidden which shows that some of the quirky shape's aren't just GW trying to fit odd poses onto moulds or "lock out 3rd parties" but also a big part I think is trying to make models easier to build for a novice who might not have liquid putties, tools and skills to hide seam and join lines in the model.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
And primaris models all look the same, like they were tyranids or necrons. Older kits allowed more unique models, even with just sticking with basic weapons.

You've clearly not seen what people have been doing to the Primaris models.

By conversions though, not simply by gluing what it's in the box or kitbashing from other kits. Older kits could be converted as well

You're seriously telling me that the bog standard squatting tacticals looked more unique than Primaris Intercessors do now? Barely any moving poses, barely any aiming from anywhere beyond waist height - sure, you could grab one or two beaky helmets, a Mark V shoulder pad, and the sergeant had more going on, but the rest? Barely any dynamism.

Simply from what's in a core box of Intercessors though, I can make a whole squad look unique. More shoulder pads, tilting shields, pouches, arm poses, the torsos and legs actually having momentum that can be redirected from a head, and what a range of heads!

I have a hard time believing that. And with or without tooling with a knife?

 Overread wrote:
I also have to say that some of the new parting designs are fantastic in terms of naturally hiding join lines on the model. They still happen of course, but a great many are very craftily hidden which shows that some of the quirky shape's aren't just GW trying to fit odd poses onto moulds or "lock out 3rd parties" but also a big part I think is trying to make models easier to build for a novice who might not have liquid putties, tools and skills to hide seam and join lines in the model.

If GW is trying to make minis easier to assemble for new players, they aren't succeeding. I ended up with the Skorpekhs and their Lord from Indomitus, and those dudes are a PITA to clean up. Glue is the easiest part of building a mini.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think that the reduction in options not modelled wasn't a bad thing all told. Sure it cut down on options, but at the same time GW was starting to put more and more things into codex that they weren't modelling. Tyranids had at least two Codex with special character Tyranids that had no model what so ever as well as multiple gaunt weapons that had no model.

Now for an experiened player with a huge bits box and skills/experience its not a huge issue; but for the less experienced and those without a huge bits box it meant some things were just not accessible to them unless they used "counts as".



Once or twice its not an issue, but it was getting increasingly worse. Plus it made armies look like they were getting ignored and heading toward being shelved. It's one thing to get no release; its another to go for years with a "teased" release that never comes.

The non-modelled characters back in the day were always problematic. Lady Valys, Sgt Bastonne, all those models with pretty neat backgrounds and no way to represent them on the tabletop. I started playing back when those things were in swing and it was daunting as a new player. Honestly I appreciate the fact that all the things I want to run in the codex is available to me. Now conversions are something you do for fun instead of a necessity. While it did force me into some levels of creativity I should never had had to struggle to field an autocannon dreadnought in the first place. Heck, we can all agree that the old marine legs looked very.....full diaper at best unless they were monopose.

On the other hand I am not always overjoyed at the prospect of having to do extra work for conversions with the monopose models but at least there is always a ton of extra bits to compensate.

I do disagree with the bold part, actually. Marines should be bending their knees a good bit in a combat stance to present a smaller target, while remaining mobile. Soldiers do not stride across the battlefield at full height like most Primaris do.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Simply from what's in a core box of Intercessors though, I can make a whole squad look unique. More shoulder pads, tilting shields, pouches, arm poses, the torsos and legs actually having momentum that can be redirected from a head, and what a range of heads!

I have a hard time believing that. And with or without tooling with a knife?

I can vouch for this, having put together a box very recently. I was pleasantly surprised by how varied the poses do turn out - it must be said, there's only so much you can do with the classic two-hands-aiming-bolter, but that's an issue the Tactical box has as well. The variation in Intercessor legs does make up for it and the models do genuinely look unique enough to tell apart at a glance. There are also a few bits you can use for single-arm poses - bolter slung over one shoulder by the strap, using an arm-panel auspex, or holding a knife for example.

Comparing the sprues to the Tactical squad directly, not counting the special weapons, there's only a couple of options that the Intercessors don't have. Moreover - it's all too possible with that kit to align the arms slightly wonky and as a result the whole model looks "wrong", which only becomes more obvious the more dynamic you try to get with them. The Intercessors just... don't really have that problem. Which I suspect is accidental as a result of the proportion change than anything else, but if so it's a happy accident.

Blackie wrote:Absolutely. Maybe regulars tacs were a bit dull about the heads but SW have something like 30 different bare heads between 3 kits (Grey hunters, TWC, termies).

Well, that's heads from three different kits, not from one, which was the discussion. And were we not talking about *Tacticals*?

Insectum7 wrote:I have a hard time believing that. And with or without tooling with a knife?

No knives, just glue from the sprue. You ought to pick up a box, even just a half squad, for a painting project or whatnot.

The sprue is duplicated in a 10 man box, so you have a guaranteed double of everything, and even with that, it still looks distinctive.

Reloading gun? You got it.
Holding gun under arm? You got it.
One handed gun? You got it.
Pointing finger? You got it.
Auspex arm? You got it.
Slung bolter and pistol drawn? You got it.
Gun aiming down sights? Gun aimed down at hip? Gun angled upwards? Gun in relaxed waist height? You got em.
Older head? Younger head? Angry head? Mohawk head? You got em.
Helmet with a hole in specifically to be hung on the waist? You got it.
A wide range of shoulder pads with Mk.V, amulets and ropes hung from them? Miniature reliquaries and comms devices? Pouches and holsters for every model? Tilting plates and custom purity seals? All there.


And I'm sure you're aware of the power of what simply moving the head can do for a model's momentum, right?