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 the new IG previews have reignited a debate about monopose vs multipose kits and I thought it would make for a good thread on its own.

My first big 40k project was kitbashing Catachans and Zombies (and WWII models and Empire and whatever else I could find) to make a zombie IG army.



For me that initial project is what 40k is all about. From the earliest RT books there were guides on how to kitbash with other GW sets, robot toys, military models and household items, my zombie IG army came because WD had an article on bashing the then brand new Empire and Zombie sets for more diversity. Though it was annoying how zombies and Empire used different arm and head joints.

Since then I've done metal armies, modular armies, full conversions and everything in between.

So some thoughts:

Mono Pose - A figure with one or more parts with minimal options (maybe a choice of heads or weapons). Preferable for dynamic poses and characters.
Multi Pose - Figures with several head and arm options, maybe ball joints or other ways to change poses. Preferable for creating your own characters.
Modular - Multipart figures that are compatible with other figures in the set or in the range. Preferable for customizing troops. This of course can be done well or poorly.
Easy Build - Figure in 1, 2 or 3 parts, easy to build, preferable for mass troops who look more or less identical. This would include metal and resin 1-peice casts.


Generally I would prefer an army offer Easy Build for the troops (maybe with head swaps as an option to diversity), at least one modular set for command/elites/specials and a multipose character pack since you want your general to be YOUR general, not the same one everyone else has. Mono pose is best for special characters who we expect to look the same from army to army.

The worst of all worlds IMHO is when you have multipart mono pose figures for troops. For me the Dark Vengeance Chaos Cultists were perfect, I'd have liked some options but you had 20 easy build cultist ready to go. The newer sets have cultists, a mass combat unit, in several parts BUT with no modularity or options for customization. All the point of assembling complex multipart model but no chance for creativity. Extra points when they have to left half assembled to paint property.

For me personally I prefer Option 3

Modular - Multipart figures that are compatible with other figures in the set or in the range. Preferable for customizing troops. This of course can be done well or poorly.

Just because it is very nice to be able to switch in between different sets. Especially looking at the 8th edition guard codex (I don't know if that was still in the 9th edition version), where there were multiple examples of things like Genestealer legs + Scion Torso + Skitarii Vanguard helmet + Genestealer Arms + Guard Equipment = Indigian Prefect etc.
Especially when there is an option to trade parts, be it Ebay, bitsshops or just a similarly inclined hobby group one can pretty easily puzzle together a bunch of very individual squads. One project I had in my mind for some time was getting a box of Cadians, Genestealer dudes, Skitarii, Scions and Fire warriors, mix and match and see how many different looking minis I can squeeze out of those 5 sets.

While this is of course still possible if one cuts down models that are legs + body combined, it is not as easy.

Mind you: this preference is heavily rooted in me currently being only interested in baseline humans for modelling purposes. I cannot say what I would think about the toppic if I would collect Xenos

Depends on the game system and the number of models to be assembled.

E.g. for a smaller skirmish game a fully modular system is nice, but with a few more fixed poses for some where the modular parts are awkward (e.g. some kneeling poses maybe)

for a game with massed troops in ranks, give me as little assembly as possible - the Warlord Napoleonic models are pretty good, the Victrix ones even better, some variation but not too much, not too many wasted parts.

when assembling orc warrior #124 I had long since given up adding pouches etc

the 40k marine kits of old with 100% interchangeability were very good for a smaller model count army

and totally agree on the idea of a kit with many parts but the flexibility is the head in one or two poses or slight variation with an arm is a case of "make it as few parts as possible", heck simplify the model make it easier to build

Modular. Multipart monopose are just dire. At that point they may as well be single piece lead models as their poses are better for gaming.

I'm fine with Monopose legs/torsos, a sprue of 10 of those sculpted well is going to have more meaningful variety than the classic 4-5 bodies and 4-5 legs that realistically can just be rotated at the belt for maybe 15 degrees before they look like their spine is broken, and can have better detail like dynamic poses, tabards, pouches etc. that would interfere with multi pose building.

I would still want a lot of weapon and head options.

I don't like the hole/peg system of ETB, often it's more trouble than it's worth and causes gaps.

An example of a perfect kit for me are the Rockgut Troggoths. Techinically monopose with 3 sets of legs, but a huge variety of heads and arms, and each arm comes with its own back musculature, so all arm poses look natural (as opposed to a ball and socket shoulder join where the muscles are... random crap). And technically the combinations are finite, but in reality 50 trolls are still going to look way more varied than 50 tactical marines from 2004 that are all in the pooping standing up pose and despite what multipose fanatics will have you believe, really only vary in a few degrees of rotation of the belt and arms.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm fine with Monopose legs/torsos, a sprue of 10 of those sculpted well is going to have more meaningful variety than the classic 4-5 bodies and 4-5 legs that realistically can just be rotated at the belt for maybe 15 degrees before they look like their spine is broken, and can have better detail like dynamic poses, tabards, pouches etc. that would interfere with multi pose building.

I would still want a lot of weapon and head options.

I don't like the hole/peg system of ETB, often it's more trouble than it's worth and causes gaps.

An example of a perfect kit for me are the Rockgut Troggoths. Techinically monopose with 3 sets of legs, but a huge variety of heads and arms, and each arm comes with its own back musculature, so all arm poses look natural (as opposed to a ball and socket shoulder join where the muscles are... random crap). And technically the combinations are finite, but in reality 50 trolls are still going to look way more varied than 50 tactical marines from 2004 that are all in the pooping standing up pose and despite what multipose fanatics will have you believe, really only vary in a few degrees of rotation of the belt and arms.

agree 100% on ball and socket joints for things that are meant to be natural, the old Skaven rat ogres were terrible until the "now you add greenstruff" stage was completed

and yes the old marines could have done with more legs, if you only had a few though and mix/matched especially with the assault marine running pose ones they came out ok.. until you needed loads. My Imperial guard ended up with about a third of most squads being the push fit mono pose models as in a bulk army you just don't notice them and I found them was faster to make.

yoof is currently sticking some Warlord British airborne together, technically multipose, except there are basically six poses and other than that its a different head and weapon pose. shame being if they had say 12 poses at least no duplicates in a squad.

As long as the models look nice it really doesn't matter to me.

I've come around to liking the one-piece bodies and legs, simply because legs and body have to be in harmony for running and other poses.

I've seen some sets where legs and the back were one piece but the torso could be swapped, that might be the best way to go.

Also for some armies one part models just make sense, IF they are done well.

The old easy fit Cadians were... adequate, but they all had the same trotting with guns at belly level pose. 5 guys aiming and firing would have been awesome. Have some firing from the shoulder, some from the hip, some kneeling and no one would comment on repeated poses. That's what soldiers are SUPPOSED to be doing.

I think I can quicker sum up what I don’t like in kits. And it kind of varies.

Having just finished building my second box of the new Eldar Guardians? I love this kit. More dynamic poses than its predecessor, better fits for the Shuriken Catapults.

Yes the preceding kit had ball jointed waists, but it was still limited in poses. And words cannot describe just how much I don’t miss having to glue the backpack vanes on separately.

In fact, the recent Eldar plastics (Jetbikes onwards) have in my opinion been pretty superb kits.

But modularity is a consideration for other armies more than Eldar.

Orks for instance? At least make heads and arms interchangeable across kits.

But it all boils down to how interesting the built models are.

Again, sticking with the Guardians? Yes the leg and torso positions are set - but they’re not Static. And depending on which set of arms you use, you can still get decent variety. So one can build two sets without anything feeling very repetitive.

Ultimately I like whatever has the least amount of gap-filling or difficult to clean mold lines.

Everything has its place.

GW's decision to have lots of small, fragile, parts on plastic models is... frustrating. I like 2nd-hand minis, but the move towards overly detailed and easily breakable plastic kits is not something I'm a fan of.

Modular with other kits and Monopose. Ive done a lot of kitbashing with some of my Guard boxes and Monopose makes that harder to do, especially with increased conversion work. My US Army in the Pacific for Bolt Action is heavily based upon using the two kits, the new Army box and the Marines, with a few from the Airborne kit for other poses.

The bodies are relatively the same, with the torso connected to the legs, but the arms and heads are very much changeable, regardless of the body.

The only time I like monopose is typically with Napoleonic and rank and flank, but even then, I like to add a little bit of versatility since i treat the bases as partially mini dioramas.

It should be modular unless you have a really good reason. I can go as far as legs and torsos being 1 piece, because sometimes the style or detail of the models requires it, but that's all. Let me make my dudes how I want them.

For plastic in non-ranked games, I always prefer modular. I don't necessarily have a preference for body/legs separate or one piece. I like to customize though, and often to mix between kits so the harder it is to mix between kits, the less interested I am.

For 3d printed, the verdict is out. So far, I've been pleased with the mostly-monopose figures I've been purchasing, though that's for Rank-and-flank games and for that sort of thing I'm fine with monopose figs.

As for whatever style GW is using, I couldn't care less. There's very little from them I care to purchase especially with the output from companies like WGA and North Star getting so good.

I will say that I have zero love for GW's lean into tiny breakable details on plastic models. Came into an impressive looking Warcry warband, already custom based and Zenithal'ed for basically no money. Would have been an easy paint for some cool figs, but just the thought of trying to keep them from breaking led me to sell them on.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think I can quicker sum up what I don’t like in kits. And it kind of varies.

Having just finished building my second box of the new Eldar Guardians? I love this kit. More dynamic poses than its predecessor, better fits for the Shuriken Catapults.

Yes the preceding kit had ball jointed waists, but it was still limited in poses. And words cannot describe just how much I don’t miss having to glue the backpack vanes on separately.

In fact, the recent Eldar plastics (Jetbikes onwards) have in my opinion been pretty superb kits.

But modularity is a consideration for other armies more than Eldar.

Orks for instance? At least make heads and arms interchangeable across kits.

But it all boils down to how interesting the built models are.

Again, sticking with the Guardians? Yes the leg and torso positions are set - but they’re not Static. And depending on which set of arms you use, you can still get decent variety. So one can build two sets without anything feeling very repetitive.

Ultimately this is correct. Legs and torsos being set is perfectly fine as long as arms + head can be moved around. Intercessors are great looking, and the only people that hate them usually just hate Primaris out of principle with the other half just thinking "set torsos and legs = monopose".

I really like the way WGA does their models where you only have to put on the arms and heads. So they almost but not quite mono pose.

As much as I like multi part models I don't want to build 200 of them anymore.
My hands hurt too much for that.

For mono pose, as long as I only have a small number so I don't get irritated at the number of repeats.

 bbb wrote:
Ultimately I like whatever has the least amount of gap-filling or difficult to clean mold lines.

Everything has its place.

GW's decision to have lots of small, fragile, parts on plastic models is... frustrating. I like 2nd-hand minis, but the move towards overly detailed and easily breakable plastic kits is not something I'm a fan of.

Amen. I just built hexbane gang from warhammer underworld. The title character was a pain to assemble. And it’s allegedly a push fit design.

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
It should be modular unless you have a really good reason.

The simple/universal reason is increased fidelity.

A flat torso connection point that allows rotation often translates to unnatural body position, fabric that drapes incorrectly, etc.
A flat arm/shoulder point often translates to unnatural/unrealized musculature, a deep seam, etc.
A ball and socket head usually means the absence of a neck, etc.

Outside of things like, say, a kit for mechanical creatures, modularity always forces these kinds of compromises in detail and exactitude.

Look at this Cadian, and attend to the position of his belt buckle:



"Posing" the miniature has relocated the belt buckle above his thigh. Go put on a belt and rotate yourself; does the buckle ever move to that position? Or does it stay in line with your groin? This is an example of how modularity/poseability erodes accurate detail.

Personally, I assess the aesthetics of miniatures on the basis of individual models. I do not care what a squad looks like, because the only time miniatures are formed into a squad is when they're serving as markers for gameplay, during which time their aesthetics are subsumed by their functionality. That's the same reason I don't complain about miniatures being on traditional bases instead of paper thin slices of transparent acrylic. The fact that a recognizable single-pose model may appear multiple times in a squad does not trouble me any more than the fact that models oftentimes occupy tiny personal hummocks with surface features that may be at odds with the board they're being played on.

I grew up with green army men and lead RPG miniatures. I think the first multipose kit I ran across was the RTB-001 marines.

Monopose & Easy build don't bother me, but given the choice, I'll take multipose if it is available.

 Altruizine wrote:

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
It should be modular unless you have a really good reason.

The simple/universal reason is increased fidelity.

A flat torso connection point that allows rotation often translates to unnatural body position, fabric that drapes incorrectly, etc.
A flat arm/shoulder point often translates to unnatural/unrealized musculature, a deep seam, etc.
A ball and socket head usually means the absence of a neck, etc.

Outside of things like, say, a kit for mechanical creatures, modularity always forces these kinds of compromises in detail and exactitude.

Look at this Cadian, and attend to the position of his belt buckle:



"Posing" the miniature has relocated the belt buckle above his thigh. Go put on a belt and rotate yourself; does the buckle ever move to that position? Or does it stay in line with your groin? This is an example of how modularity/poseability erodes accurate detail.

Personally, I assess the aesthetics of miniatures on the basis of individual models. I do not care what a squad looks like, because the only time miniatures are formed into a squad is when they're serving as markers for gameplay, during which time their aesthetics are subsumed by their functionality. That's the same reason I don't complain about miniatures being on traditional bases instead of paper thin slices of transparent acrylic. The fact that a recognizable single-pose model may appear multiple times in a squad does not trouble me any more than the fact that models oftentimes occupy tiny personal hummocks with surface features that may be at odds with the board they're being played on.

As for the belt buckle, I do think that a belt attached to a jacket (as opposed to pants) will have a fair amount of motion if the torso is moved. Button up your jacket and then turn your torso to the right and watch your buttons move over your thigh. Of course on an IG figure, the overlapped jacket portion molded to the legs doesn't move, but that's less noticeable. Regardless, relating to your valid point about fidelity...

If fidelity to reality of that type is what you're looking for in your line troops, then monopose or limited-pose figures are going to be ideal for you. I have similar preferences for individual characters in small warband games but once my force is larger than a dozen figures on the table, my calculus changes.

For massed line troops like IG, modular allows you to achieve a certain balance. You can make changes in pose obvious enough that it doesn't appear that you're simply repeating the same 10 miniatures across at 100 figure force. An issue that is clearly more important to some folks than others. At the same time, the "tabletop" nature of such large units means that small incorrect details stemming from modularity like belt buckles don't bother most folks.

I am not necessarily consistent in this however, with rank-and-flank game figures I don't really care much about fidelity or diversification as long as they rank up right, look good in a big block, and ideally don't cost me much $. Hence the proliferation of single-sculpt, monopose Battle Masters figures in my Chaos/Varangur army.

 Stormonu wrote:
I grew up with green army men and lead RPG miniatures. I think the first multipose kit I ran across was the RTB-001 marines.

Monopose & Easy build don't bother me, but given the choice, I'll take multipose if it is available.

RTB-01 was pretty limited even then. Certainly without cutting and re-angling parts, the all looked pretty much the same.

I like dynamic poses, which lends itself a bit towards monopose, but personally, I think I'm most happy with kits that use interchangeable parts. The Boingrot kit is one of my favorite examples. The riders and faces and weapons and heads all work on one another, so while the kit has the dynamic look of a monopose kit, but you can still make 20+ variants of the same 5 models with significant variance between.

I like miniatures with tons of options, where weapons, equipment, heads and other things are all easily swappable between different models within the kit and with other kits within the same range.

I despise the current jigsaw puzzle style minis where half an arm, a shouler and a head connect between the back of the body, one leg and half a shin, and the front of the body, the missing parts of that half-shin, and the foot from the first foot. All that effort to give you a model that cannot be posed any differently, has no options to speak of, and will look extremely odd if there's more than a few of them floating around in your army.

I already really dislike kits that include fiddly small bits that you basically can't see. Yes, Triarch Praetorians/Lychguard and your weird chest insert, I'm talking about you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


I despise the current jigsaw puzzle style minis where half an arm, a shouler and a head connect between the back of the body, one leg and half a shin, and the front of the body, the missing parts of that half-shin, and the foot from the first foot. All that effort to give you a model that cannot be posed any differently, has no options to speak of, and will look extremely odd if there's more than a few of them floating around in your army.

OMG yes.

I just got the Star Striders set and I want to do a simple head swap on the Rogue Trader, but you can't because the head is attached to half of an arm. There is no need for this!

(yes, yes saws and knives and putty can make anything modular, but at that point why don't I just 3D print my own models)

Often GW is producing models that are the worst of both worlds. Generic riflemen and cultists come in a dozen parts with no modularity. The current $45 cultist sprue with options for 2 of the 10 models is especially egregious. All the work, none of the creativity.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I like miniatures with tons of options, where weapons, equipment, heads and other things are all easily swappable between different models within the kit and with other kits within the same range.

I despise the current jigsaw puzzle style minis where half an arm, a shouler and a head connect between the back of the body, one leg and half a shin, and the front of the body, the missing parts of that half-shin, and the foot from the first foot. All that effort to give you a model that cannot be posed any differently, has no options to speak of, and will look extremely odd if there's more than a few of them floating around in your army.

I already really dislike kits that include fiddly small bits that you basically can't see. Yes, Triarch Praetorians/Lychguard and your weird chest insert, I'm talking about you.

^I second/third this.

One of the best kits of recent years that I've built is the Genestealer Cult Neophytes box. Lots of parts, easily swappable and modifiable, and also very compatible with the Acolytes box set.

Northstar the current kinds of modular/cross compatible sets. Their Frostgrave, Ghost [Bunch of Islands, can't spell it] and Star Grave lines go together great (even non-humans like Gnolls look fine) and I assume Oathmark will too.

The only thing that disappoints is the sculpts have been rather mundane. The SG crews all look samish, and none of the FG or GA kits have that little spark of extra that makes them mandatory buys. And actually the FG/GA kits seem to have a bit of sharper resolution than SG where the details look softer.

Don't get me wrong, I like them a lot, but they could be... better.

I like to view models as part of a range.

GW stuff is increasing stand alone boxes.

Compare to the fun to be had mixing stargrave and frostgrave kits together.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

I just got the Star Striders set and I want to do a simple head swap on the Rogue Trader, but you can't because the head is attached to half of an arm. There is no need for this!

(yes, yes saws and knives and putty can make anything modular, but at that point why don't I just 3D print my own models)

Because polystyrene is still many times easier and more pleasurable to work with than either PLA or resin.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I like miniatures with tons of options, where weapons, equipment, heads and other things are all easily swappable between different models within the kit and with other kits within the same range.

I despise the current jigsaw puzzle style minis where half an arm, a shouler and a head connect between the back of the body, one leg and half a shin, and the front of the body, the missing parts of that half-shin, and the foot from the first foot. All that effort to give you a model that cannot be posed any differently, has no options to speak of, and will look extremely odd if there's more than a few of them floating around in your army.

I already really dislike kits that include fiddly small bits that you basically can't see. Yes, Triarch Praetorians/Lychguard and your weird chest insert, I'm talking about you.

Pretty much this.

I cant remember which model I wanted to convert (think it may have been Sigvald) and totally went off the idea when I saw the sprue and the head is moulded to a shoulder pad or something bizarre like that.

Just a general weigh-in on design preference.

Arms.

Poke your socket joints. And Poke your graspy hand sculpt.

Having just built new Guardians and the existing Dire Avengers? Gimme the Guardian design paradigm any day.

Both kits rely on Paired Arms. But a flat joint torso and arm connection point, and a simple socket to join wrist stump to hand sculpted on weapon is just…..so much bloody easier and less pointlessly fiddly


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For Rifles anyway. Not too worried when the arms don’t particularly interact in that way.

 Insectum7 wrote:
One of the best kits of recent years that I've built is the Genestealer Cult Neophytes box. Lots of parts, easily swappable and modifiable, and also very compatible with the Acolytes box set.

I 100% agree! Quite possibly my favorite plastic kit. Also, that kit also gave me so many extra arms, I was able to update all my metal RT GSC hybrids.