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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
On repeat viewing, it strikes me that these guys are going to be spectacularly unposeable too.

Well who can afford to buy multiples anyhow?

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
On repeat viewing, it strikes me that these guys are going to be spectacularly unposeable too.

Well who can afford to buy multiples anyhow?

See, GW thinks of everything.

There does seem to be enough swappable options to make 6+ pretty distinct models. Also...it's plastic.
So when the rail barons get together on their secret island paradise to play AoS, they should have to worry about duplicate Vareindeergamesguards.

 Azreal13 wrote:
On repeat viewing, it strikes me that these guys are going to be spectacularly unposeable too.

Of course. The more locked they are in pose and options the less 3rd party manufacturers can steal GW's hard earned money by making extra bitz for them.

I think you're overthinking it.

It is just easier and cheaper for GW to make single pose models than models with lots of possible variation. It is also easier for the designers to give a fixed model a zarjaz pose.

It's a win-win unless you want to vary or convert your models (which of course is one of the main benefits of plastic over metal.)

Given the price, no-one is going to have lots of copies of these models in their army.

And to think once upon a time GW encouraged conversions...

They still do, they have conversion articles in WD for example.

 Mymearan wrote:
They still do, they have conversion articles in WD for example.

Will be interesting to see if the Varanguard get one

Well, they're just showcases along with WIP pics, so I guess it's as likely as anything else? Might be in Visions nowadays though.

 Mymearan wrote:
They still do, they have conversion articles in WD for example.

The irony being that:

1. Fewer people realize this because WD is generally garbage.
2. Their plastic kits used to be multipose, now they slice them down the middle of the torso or wherever the computer tells them to slice it to maximize production efficiency.
3. They used to sell bitz.

AFAIK most of their kits are still cut the same way, with separate arms, heads and sometimes legs. The monopose models tend to be clampack characters or starter box models. Unless I've missed some truly monopose kits?

 Mymearan wrote:
AFAIK most of their kits are still cut the same way, with separate arms, heads and sometimes legs. The monopose models tend to be clampack characters or starter box models. Unless I've missed some truly monopose kits?

I can give you an example within a Fantasy faction - the HE's. All of the "new" HE units apart from WL and PG's are pretty much monopose. The IoB SM's are just one big cast like their metal predecessors, and the LSG just have the right arm detachable.

The Sisters of Avelorn are particularly egregious in the fact that the upper half of their arms are actually attached to the front torso, while the two forearms (and therefore, their hands) are connected through the flamey bits to make one single piece too.

As I said before, sprues with this level of interchangeability and customization is what GW should've strived for. In that sense, the HE archers and Spearmen are superior to the majority of the more recent casts, even though their casts are over a decade old.

Separate limbs can be monopose. It's just a matter of design. Monopose doesn't mean one piece.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Separate limbs can be monopose. It's just a matter of design. Monopose doesn't mean one piece.

Indeed, but at least allowing the limbs to be assembled apart from the torso is a huge benefit in terms of conversion potential.

I personally don't care that much about multiposing to be honest. Single pose models look better and I've never had a problem with repeating poses. Usually GW provides at least a unit's worth of possible poses and any repeats won't be noticed. Multipose has a big disadvantages in that poses will always look awkward compared to the dynamism that is possible in a monopose model sculpted by a good sculptor. The "charm" that Oldhammerers talk about comes almost entirely from the fact that each model used to be a unique individual back in the day.

Are we sure the knights are monopose? Can hardly tell from the blurry photos, but they look like at the least you have some head switch options and the groups of 5 didn't stand out to me with obvious (on first glance) duplicates. I think they're fantastic, anyway.

Interestingly, you can play each model as a unit on its own, and arm them all differently. These are pretty much 3 mounted characters, going for the mounted character price (or slightly cheaper).

Here's a big one that non necron players probably don't know.

Necron immortals are mono-pose. One of the first kits that started the trend of higher quality sculpt, but monopole build.

If you don't pose them just right, the hose will not connect.

I agree, monopose is great. These arnt G I Joes. Were the blightkings not monopose? I bought 2 boxes and have 10 unique guys, they came with so many options!! I will be picking up a box of these knights, they are just too cool.

Back to News & Rumors ...

so the GW site has up for preorders a bunch of mortal-based Chaos forces.

Does anyone with knowledge of the Archaon book know if there are new warscrolls for Chaos mortal warbands?

 the_Armyman wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
They still do, they have conversion articles in WD for example.

The irony being that:

1. Fewer people realize this because WD is generally garbage.
2. Their plastic kits used to be multipose, now they slice them down the middle of the torso or wherever the computer tells them to slice it to maximize production efficiency.
3. They used to sell bitz.

I miss that GW got out of selling bitz, but the void has made a lot of companies pop up who make some sick bits...

I really like them - and especially the brilliant one with the axe, bare head and a "horse" posed like the old Dorghar:

With a scratch built skull helmet he will become the perfect general (for my Kurgan tribe):


I don't mind the price. Will probably buy the box and use the minis as three separate Chaos lords.
Will remove some spikes - and might replace the beasts heads (very cool but a bit too chaosy) with (cast) Dorghar heads though.

Too much going on in one model for me.

 LeCacty wrote:
Too much going on in one model for me.

Actually, this is generally my objection with Chaos. But it's totally a personal thing, and I think I'm the exception, being generally a GW aesthetic fan but disliking the Chaos thing.

After seeing it again, I think it would look much less busy if the black plates had a gradient towards the edge (or just solid color) rather than the grey lines. That technique looks really nice on many models but because there are so many plates here and they are all reinforced around the edges anyway I think that element brings the model down as a whole.

 Talys wrote:

 LeCacty wrote:
Too much going on in one model for me.

Actually, this is generally my objection with Chaos. But it's totally a personal thing, and I think I'm the exception, being generally a GW aesthetic fan but disliking the Chaos thing.

I feel like chaos marines (to a lesser extent) and warriors (the current models, that is) are a perfect balance. These on the other hand....... Ugh....

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
As I said before, sprues with this level of interchangeability and customization is what GW should've strived for. In that sense, the HE archers and Spearmen are superior to the majority of the more recent casts, even though their casts are over a decade old.

Those types of kits were pretty damned amazing. I wish we got more of them (and more for 40K - we only got the Marine Commander and the Chaos Terminator Lord, imagine a Warboss or an Autarch kit like that!).

I was a big proponent of the single-frame plastic characters when they first came out. Now they're 2-3 times the price for basically nothing more, I'm steadily going off them.

 kendoka wrote:
I really like them - and especially the brilliant one with the axe, bare head and a "horse" posed like the old Dorghar

I think they look amazing for the most part. They're just 4x more expensive than they should be.

This shot of a Dwarf sprue is making the rounds. Fyreslayer character or?

http://imgur.com/a/ZB9er

Oh snap!

Good find coldgaming.

Looks like normal slayer mohawk and flame imagery. Good.

coldgaming wrote:
This shot of a Dwarf sprue is making the rounds. Fyreslayer character or?

http://imgur.com/a/ZB9er

For the work blocked.

Hey copyright 2016?

They're from the future!!!!

Looks like a standard bearer with the option to be bald or with a mohawk and the main difference with the old aesthetic is the flames on the banner and the beard being partly fire.

I'm curious if other dwarves will get that or if it just a slayer thing.

those mohawk bits are awesome!!!


@jono: honestly, the last round of Dwarf plastics have a great style, so if they just do new plastic Slayers, i'll be fine with that...


i am liking the style of these new Chaos Knights, now that i see some closeups...
the mutated horse is pretty cool...
at first, in the wide shot, i thought i would give them a pass, but now i'm thinking i might have to get a box...
they should make a suitably nasty looking couple of Khorne characters...

cheers
jah