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.

So, this seems to have come up more, more recently. I get that some people have objections to "tactical rocks" but I want to ask, like, what do people who do propose instead? I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm curious. What's like a smarter way of handling models instead of scenic elevation props? Like, should all models exist on a flat plane, whether they have two feet planted on it or are leaping/running across said plane? If not, what's a better alternative to the maligned moving rock?

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
should all models exist on a flat plane, whether they have two feet planted on it or are leaping/running across said plane?

Yes; broadly.

tactical rocks exist to enable dynamic posing. No tactical rock = no dynamic pose. Its that simple.

"It's complicated". I love themed bases and think that any kind of basing will always need some kind of suspension of disbelief in-game - I mean, even the most mundane 'grassy plain' base will look out of place in the middle of a road or on a rooftop, and vice versa. So that's not really a problem, and there's a lot of tactical rocks that make sense to me (the new Warhammer Quest älf, for example, she's awesome!). I'm rather bothered when each and every mini in an unit comes with its own rock, like the current Eldar banshees or Harlies - it seems too much like a prop, then, and not a part of their environment?

chaos0xomega wrote:
tactical rocks exist to enable dynamic posing. No tactical rock = no dynamic pose. Its that simple.

Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic

well, theres always an exception. In the case of those sculpts theres not much justification other than to give the mini a larger surface area to adhere to the base... which is also a valid use

chaos0xomega wrote:
In the case of those sculpts theres not much justification other than to give the mini a larger surface area to adhere to the base... which is also a valid use

Wut?
Because the cadre Fireblade would totally fall over without his rock..? Just like all of those Fire Warriors which are notorious for not attaching to their bases well enough...

What kind of 'dynamic' are we talking about here, though? I think the new Slaanesh archer minis make very good use of tactical rocks to create the feeling that they're agile combatants who make use of a complex 3d environment - but then we have the new Primaris assault intercessors which seem pretty dynamic without rocks (just a small one for the sarge, I think?) - but then, a SM being 'dynamic' means being a well maneuverable human tank ...

Like, the most dynamic thing you can do with a rock is perch on it, or leap off of it, and at this stage, surely there are enough minis doing those two poses? Like, it's gotten a bit oversaturated, even when you overlook asinine stuff like random non-dynamic minis posed unnecessarily on rocks.

Tbh, I think it'd be better to see more benign poses, but with a bit more thought put into their composition, rather than dude-flying-through-the air-shooting-with-swirly-gak-and-smoke/flame-effects #247. Like, for example, the older metal Typhus, with his simple, but sinister lowering.

I don't mind tactical rocks for some models. I actually like them on Harlequins; it sets them apart and helps with unified basing.

My problems is when everyone in every army is doing it. It's over-saturation, pure and simple.

I think standard DE Wyches are plenty dynamic (especially for a multi-part kit) and they don't have tactical rocks.

Having a 3d base allows a different set of poses for a model. In some cases it just allows a.different configuration of body parts compared to standing walking or.kneeling. In others it allows a particular aspect of the model.or army to be shown off. A Jackie Chan film is largely incomplete unless he runs up.at least a couple of walls. So agility is shown in those models that are known for it by balancing in precarious positions. Equally such stance can be used to make an exception of an otherwise non agile, or not normally agile model for.effect.

The vampire in the links above probably take it to extremes as it seems like there is no tactical or.combat stance.advantage to.standing in an apparent combat stance with feet so close.together on such a small.rock. but then again its a legendary monster somehow knows what advantage it could provide. I would suggest a larger, or.at least a.wider rock that makes.sense to step onto, rather than stepping over or.around.

As I understand it,.battlefields have rather a lot of debris and therefore it would be unrealistic for troops.not to.be stepping or jumping over.stuff. And sometimes you just want your cool model to pose in a manner that appeals to.you.

Ultimately it's a personal aesthetic choice and cannot be wrong. Good on GW for.catering to.all.tastes is all I can say.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
In the case of those sculpts theres not much justification other than to give the mini a larger surface area to adhere to the base... which is also a valid use

Wut?
Because the cadre Fireblade would totally fall over without his rock..? Just like all of those Fire Warriors which are notorious for not attaching to their bases well enough...

I've been playing Tau since they launched, I've had issues with firewarriors coming loose from their bases a number of times over the years. Tau feet have about half the surface area in contact with the base as regular humanoid feet.

 Flinty wrote:


Ultimately it's a personal aesthetic choice and cannot be wrong. Good on GW for.catering to.all.tastes is all I can say.

They're great until you have to cut them off and figure out how to get the mini balancing on a conveniently-place pile of something else because it doesn't fit your basing scheme...

Thats the point at which you start pinning your minis to the base

Does the prop serve to enhance the miniature? If yes, then its fine. If no, then it needs to go.

Here is a bad example of a Tactical rock.


It serves no purpose other than to distract from the boring pose of the model.


Here is a good Tactical rock.



This rock actually provides character and tells a story.


Now the latter rock is obviously horrendous for actual gameplay, but if we're just talking about the aesthetics it is far superior.

I wonder if its a symptom of GWs digital design of models? If they are doing digital design then even if the files go from the computer straight to the mould cutting machine (ergo no master model is required); they might still use 3D printers to create master copies prior to making a mould and such to test the model in the real world and see how it looks. Tactical Rocks might well be another means to having a base area for the 3D printed model to be printed too, since a rock gives a thick base to help the model stick to the printing plate (its held upside down and printed in layers from the bottom up - so the feet have to hold it on). Granted you can use supports, but a thicker base naturally on the model would help.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
tactical rocks exist to enable dynamic posing. No tactical rock = no dynamic pose. Its that simple.

Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic

Okay, sure, in counterpoint:

-Shrike is jump infantry; it creates a little bit of a narrative, and mostly shows off his claw feet in a way that wouldn't read if it were flat.
-Archon, I agree that his feet didn't need to be tilted, but the rocks contribute to the tall/thin profile. I'd argue that relatively bland model would look even blander if he were a little lower. The vampire is the same basic principle but more justified. In either case, they're both pretty clearly referencing or inspired by dramatic old book cover/movie poster designs where height is part of that composition.
-Yeah the Tau guy is clunky. The stride wouldn't be as visible without the rock, and presumably that vs. standing still was part of the sculptor's intent, but it's hardly necessary. Also, the cape would have needed to be shorter.
-The marine, like the Tau guy, it does change the composition; his leg would have needed to be straight and that redistribution of weight would have meant his gun arm, would be lower, making his main feature (his gun) less prominent or awkwardly raised despite his resting position. One could argue that that shift would have made his gun less visible and would have made his shoulders, hips, knees, and feet flatter, and in the process made a standing model appear more static than it already is, and, frankly, he needs the help because he's a clunky, static model already. People generally don't put weight evenly on both feet when standing naturally; this is one way of getting that unevenness. Was this the only way of giving him that movement? No. Is it one way to add some movement for a very limited armor design? Yes.

Rules (guidelines, observed technique, whatever) of composition don't necessarily mean that a model needs to jump all over the place to increase a sense of movement. Right now, there are a series of triangles one could form based on that captain that would, if the feet were flat, include a heavy base but, as they stand, create a vague sense of motion.

I think a tactical rock is a great idea for a diorama, they don't look very good on based models though.

I think 'tactical rocks' are powerful tools to allow designers to vary the post of a miniature. Something as simple as raising one leg a little can have a big effect on the overall composition.

In terms of ruining any immersion, IMO they don't do anything that every model dragging around the same 4' circle of earth everywhere does. I view the base as a backdrop for the mini.

Does this count for the inceptors?

They are quite high off their bases