Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know the Drukhari still have highly poseable and customizable models for the most part, because they haven't been updated in a while (except for some elite choices like Incubi). What else is there?

Obviously, I mean models that are poseable by design, so please don't get started with the "carving, green stuff and 3D printing make any model poseable!" argument that always comes up in these discussions. That's tantamount to saying: "This video game is quite playable, actually, if you download this list of 28 third-party mods and patches that may or may not crash your computer!".

.

“monopose” is a term that a lot of people have different definitions of. Please let us know what you consider for this thread.

Is attached torso/legs, but fully swappable arms monopose? as an example. When i hear “mono” I think back to the 2nd ed I <heart> my bolter models or single cast metals. Most modern kits don’t have as much flex as older ones, but are still a far cry from that. Barring some special units and HQs.

I love all the Tau battlesuits in that regard.
Ball Joints for legs and arms, additionally many have ball joints for their feet and poseable elbow joints as well as knee joints.
You want a Commander flying in Superman pose? No Problem.
You want a kneeling riptide with his shield heightened or a sprinting riptide with his Heavy Burst Cannon thrusted out forward? No Problem.
Crisis Suits are also poseable like this.

 Nevelon wrote:
Is attached torso/legs, but fully swappable arms monopose?

I'd say swappable arms aren't enough. Most Sisters of Battle have swappable arms, yet the models still end up looking very copy-paste (which is emphasized by their dynamic poses). For a model to be poseable, you should ideally be able to rotate the torso or attach it to a different pair of legs.

 Nevelon wrote:
When i hear “mono” I think back to the 2nd ed I <heart> my bolter models or single cast metals. Most modern kits don’t have as much flex as older ones, but are still a far cry from that. Barring some special units and HQs.

Yeah, I hear that argument a lot from old-timers. But times have changed, and there is zero reason for GW to reverse some of the progress they've made since "back in your day". For my part, I think the basis for comparison should be the models that were being made 10 years ago, rather than 30 years.

With monopose multi-part models, I feel like we get the worst of both worlds: can't customize them, still have to build them. You might as well buy these guys:



.

This is a fairly hot topic, and the terms are important. Just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

One perk of true monopose is that you don’t need to make compromises for modularity. The parts that are together can flow together better. This scales and you lock in more bits. A torso sculpted into a running set of legs is going to look better than one just stuck on. Especially for bare skin or fabric where things stretch different when twisted at different angles.

The current compromise with limited pose models (arms and heads interchangeable) gives you fewer possibilities, but they flow better IMHO. So something is gained. If that sacrifice in total options is worth it is very subjective.

I do miss the ability to do things like swap veteran torsos with regular kits, and some of the mix and matching.

Orks are pretty good still outside of Beast Snaggas and Buggies.

Firstborn Space Marines

Custodes infantry are very posable, especially when you get into bits from FW units like Venatari.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Orks are pretty good still outside of Beast Snaggas and Buggies.

AND the new boys,....

-Guardsman- wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Is attached torso/legs, but fully swappable arms monopose?

I'd say swappable arms aren't enough. Most Sisters of Battle have swappable arms, yet the models still end up looking very copy-paste (which is emphasized by their dynamic poses). For a model to be poseable, you should ideally be able to rotate the torso or attach it to a different pair of legs.

Daaamn, so pretty much all Tyranids ever have been monopose.

Custodes are fine overall

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Orks are pretty good still outside of Beast Snaggas and Buggies.

AND the new boys,....

Yes, but you still can buy the old boyz which are as good as always. The new ones should be just ignored... Or sold for half price as Easy to build entry sets.

Edit: The new Boyz are basically an updated version of this:

 Altruizine wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Is attached torso/legs, but fully swappable arms monopose?

I'd say swappable arms aren't enough. Most Sisters of Battle have swappable arms, yet the models still end up looking very copy-paste (which is emphasized by their dynamic poses). For a model to be poseable, you should ideally be able to rotate the torso or attach it to a different pair of legs.

Daaamn, so pretty much all Tyranids ever have been monopose.

A lot of nids have a ball and socket waist. Medium/big ones at least.

Lots of the little gribbles and some larger kits have a single body though.

I find Primaris Marine's, besides the characters, to be great kits, with ways to pose them.

I think mostly it's clam-pack characters for the most part (or Easy to build kits from starter sets) which are mono-pose, but that's how it is across all factions. Besides units which are still finecast/pewter.

It's such a troll topic the way it's worded there's only one direction this thread can possibly go.

For a real answer:

All armies haven't gone full monopose.

And that's why this is a troll topic.

GK are fully modular aside for the primaris sized Crow and the metal Draigo.

-Guardsman- wrote:
For a model to be poseable, you should ideally be able to rotate the torso

Name one model (outside of robots like dreads or some Tau mecha) in which that doesn't look like utter crap. That's right, it's about zero.

Consider this dude, for one. He has rotated torso, so his belly plate is shifted out of place to both his chest plate and belt. It's also shifted a bit and angled away from his groin plate and neck. Try to rotate uglysquattus model more than 2-3 degrees and the rigid chest, unmoving belt, separate legs (not to mention broken pelvis and lacking half of spine) will look so horrible in practice to anyone with the slightest knowledge of anatomy you might as well not bother. This is made even worse by the fact that a lot of older marks of PA have belly plates and cables shattering the illusion even harder with rigid staticness.



To further illustrate, here's new CSM with very slight torso twist, demonstrating that even such small pose shift has very noticeable change on belly stuff and leg pose, really, straight cables and detached belt on old models look laughable in comparison (even when you try to ignore old legs in taking-a-dump position that really doesn't gel with what the rest of the body is doing) when put next to modern minis:



Then there is the fact new models have tons of arms in different poses allowing you to do any pose you want, as opposed to old uglysquattus having a grand total of ONE (namely, cluthing-me-bolter-across-chest-in-dumb-manner-making-me-look-like-noob-who-never-used-any-guns) and if there is an army of clones on the table, it's uglysquattus even if you try to rotate chests or arms slightly making them look even worse and less natural, not mOnOpOsE new models, TYVM...

 Irbis wrote:

Name one model (outside of robots like dreads or some Tau mecha) in which that doesn't look like utter crap. That's right, it's about zero.

Plastic GK termintors and plastic GK power armoured models. That is 5 units and multiple characters.

All of them?

can't think of any army where every option is monopose....

Karol wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Name one model (outside of robots like dreads or some Tau mecha) in which that doesn't look like utter crap. That's right, it's about zero.

Plastic GK termintors and plastic GK power armoured models. That is 5 units and multiple characters.

But they look like utter crap!

Oh wait we are discussing subjective issues like taste, what I like you might not. And likewise. But one thing is objectively true, models with fixed waists, “monopose” as they are stupidly called, have more natural looking poses and angles to their torsos.

It is not subjective the GK termintors are older and better looking and more modular, then all terminators created by GW, bar FW ones and potentialy custodes, who are not marines.

The only problem GK power armoured squads are the size of their stormbolters. And while this can be fixed with rescaled 3d prints, the flaw still has nothing to do with how modular or posable the models are.

Yeah, Irbis was just trolling, it's everything he does on dakka, really.

Andykp wrote:
“monopose” as they are stupidly called, have more natural looking poses and angles to their torsos.

Erm, what else would you call them? They are one pose.



So "mono" means "one" and "pose" means "pose". Thus concludes our intensive three week course.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Andykp wrote:
“monopose” as they are stupidly called, have more natural looking poses and angles to their torsos.

Erm, what else would you call them? They are one pose.



So "mono" means "one" and "pose" means "pose". Thus concludes our intensive three week course.

The full quote you clipped is

Andykp wrote:
Oh wait we are discussing subjective issues like taste, what I like you might not. And likewise. But one thing is objectively true, models with fixed waists, “monopose” as they are stupidly called, have more natural looking poses and angles to their torsos.

"models with fixed waists” being referred to as monopose I think is the issue, and one I share. In my opinion the ability to swap out arms, heads, and accessories is enough to make something not monopose. Obviously, opinions differ, which is why I wanted to clarify terms at the start of this thread. I don’t think there is a good term in general use for these models. They are not completely modular and posable, but IMHO they are not monopose. I’d refer to them as limited pose. You don’t get the 100% customization of everything in parts, but the models tend to flow better.

Poorly defined terms is one thing that frequently turns this topic into a hot mess.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Andykp wrote:
“monopose” as they are stupidly called, have more natural looking poses and angles to their torsos.

Erm, what else would you call them? They are one pose.



So "mono" means "one" and "pose" means "pose". Thus concludes our intensive three week course.

The full quote you clipped is

Andykp wrote:
Oh wait we are discussing subjective issues like taste, what I like you might not. And likewise. But one thing is objectively true, models with fixed waists, “monopose” as they are stupidly called, have more natural looking poses and angles to their torsos.

"models with fixed waists” being referred to as monopose I think is the issue, and one I share. In my opinion the ability to swap out arms, heads, and accessories is enough to make something not monopose. Obviously, opinions differ, which is why I wanted to clarify terms at the start of this thread. I don’t think there is a good term in general use for these models. They are not completely modular and posable, but IMHO they are not monopose. I’d refer to them as limited pose. You don’t get the 100% customization of everything in parts, but the models tend to flow better.

Poorly defined terms is one thing that frequently turns this topic into a hot mess.

What he said ^^^^^

Having a fixed waist doesn’t mean a model can only be posed in 1 way. You can pose them In multiple ways using different arms and arm positions and head positions. So I would call the. “Multi” pose, as in “multi” and abbreviation of multiple, as opposed to “mono”.

There are monopose models, new ORK boyz for example. Primaris marines and new guard aren’t that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
It is not subjective the GK termintors are older and better looking and more modular, then all terminators created by GW, bar FW ones and potentialy custodes, who are not marines.

The only problem GK power armoured squads are the size of their stormbolters. And while this can be fixed with rescaled 3d prints, the flaw still has nothing to do with how modular or posable the models are.

“It’s not subjective” hmmmmm

“GK terminators are older” objectively true! Bravo.

“And better looking” Oh no. That’s pure subjective opinion right there. How are you measuring better-ness??

“And more modular” probably right, in that they have a possible waist, one more piece that can be changed.

To me, the grey knights look really bad. That’s my opinion. Yours is they are great. That’s yours. Neither are fact.

Even though for me the peak of the hobby experience is when you can also turn the waist, it's true that many miniatures in the hobby aren't that and have fixed torsos. So whether something is monopose more depends on how the arms connect to the body.
But GW also started to have fixed arms, meaning that it's not possible without conversion or Green Stuff to put arms from one model to the next. So new Kultists, Possessed, I think Kommandos? (they have a lot of options but every option is tied to a specific model), Plague Marines would all be monopose.

The Plague Marine kit is a blight to model design.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Even though for me the peak of the hobby experience is when you can also turn the waist, it's true that many miniatures in the hobby aren't that and have fixed torsos. So whether something is monopose more depends on how the arms connect to the body.
But GW also started to have fixed arms, meaning that it's not possible without conversion or Green Stuff to put arms from one model to the next. So new Kultists, Possessed, I think Kommandos? (they have a lot of options but every option is tied to a specific model), Plague Marines would all be monopose.

There’s more scope with the Kommandos without cutting or anything than the instructions have you believe.

As for plague marines, I’ve built and painted those, there were some options for arm swaps but I can see why the went the way they did with them as a design choice, they wanted things like tentacles wrapping round guns coming from the bodies and and things like that, and all that has to limit “posability”. If they had gone the other way then plague marines would have been a lot more like normal chaos marines with some boils on. Which is best is up to you but for me I like the kit as is, but then I didn’t want loads of them, just one squad, so less of a problem for me.

Andykp wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Even though for me the peak of the hobby experience is when you can also turn the waist, it's true that many miniatures in the hobby aren't that and have fixed torsos. So whether something is monopose more depends on how the arms connect to the body.
But GW also started to have fixed arms, meaning that it's not possible without conversion or Green Stuff to put arms from one model to the next. So new Kultists, Possessed, I think Kommandos? (they have a lot of options but every option is tied to a specific model), Plague Marines would all be monopose.

There’s more scope with the Kommandos without cutting or anything than the instructions have you believe.

As for plague marines, I’ve built and painted those, there were some options for arm swaps but I can see why the went the way they did with them as a design choice, they wanted things like tentacles wrapping round guns coming from the bodies and and things like that, and all that has to limit “posability”. If they had gone the other way then plague marines would have been a lot more like normal chaos marines with some boils on. Which is best is up to you but for me I like the kit as is, but then I didn’t want loads of them, just one squad, so less of a problem for me.

Considering how good they are at making these kits now, I think they could have made tentacles separate and able to be put where you want, without it looking rubbish. I likewise felt the same with regards to spikes, trophy racks etc with the standard chaos marines. Eye of Horus glyphs are all over the standard chaos range, I think they could have been a separate option too.
I do like the modern kits, but agree that they don't look good when two identical models are on the table.

I want to add my opinion about monopose:
Just because the waste can't be rotated it is not monopose.
The high interchangeable in the primaris marine kits has allowed me a ton of conversions. Angling the gun and had adds way more character to a model then rotating the waste.
I also build 60 guardsmen, 20 old and 30 new Orks.
The new Orks are monopose with me redeeming feature except that the look cool (personal opinion). The old ones are highly customizable but I had issues fitting a head over the gun in some instances.
But, for the old Orks as well as the old guard kit, the least used feature is the rotatable waste. In most cases I glued the waste to the legs for all minis in basically the same angle, and worried about the pose later.
And if anyone wants to claim that the ork nob kit is monopose ...