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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Let's remember that the Imperium is basically what you get when the Nazis win, when the CCP runs things. It's an extremely brutal, xenophobic, racist dystopia, excused only by the extreme existential threats popping up from all corners, where your child might be a mutant, your sister a latent gateway to Chaos, and your father a cultist of the Allfather - all while under threat of 7-foot fungus monsters and devouring bugs from another galaxy. In the 40k universe, the Nazis are the good guys. The Soviet military are our saviours.

Now available in children's books! Let your 8 years old daughter learn about that universe where the Soviet Nazi of Death are the good guys!
The world is a weird place.

 Manchu wrote:
SW are an interesting case (as are Necrons). They underwent a series of releases that took their established aesthetic in a markedly different direction than previously. And some people have complained that this is the wrong direction, in their opinion. They already liked SW; they consider dramatically changing the faction focus to emphasize some kind of cartoonish werewolf theme as a negative. I certainly sympathize with people who like SW less because of the changes. I symapthize with people who would like to see development BACK to the previous direction.

I was not a SW player before, and I will not be in the future: I'm not building any more Marines. However, as a dispassionate observer with no skin in the SW game, I think the models got objectively stupider. As HBMC said, it went to a very silly and dumb place.

 Manchu wrote:
Going back to Necrons. I like the changes GW made to them. But I will readily admit that’s because I thought they were reallly boring before, despite the fact I liked the basic design of the Necron Warrior. I didn’t like Necrons as a faction, however (I certainly didn’t claim to be a fan) — which is exactly why I like the fact that GW changed them. But I didn’t show up in every Necron thread arguing that they should be radically redesigned to suit my taste because I’m a fan and I have special insight into how they should be. Rather, the changes came around and I took a greater interest in Necrons than previously.

Well, what also made the Necron revamp more palatable, if you will, was that there was nothing stopping you from playing them as you did before while still being in-line with currently lore. They added the option of many new dynasties and fluff, but also alluded to malfunctioning dynasties that worked... well, pretty much as Necrons did before. The only really negative things in the revamp were (imo) the way the screwed up the C'tan, but again, that wasn't a retcon so much as actually moving the story forward, something fans have been clamoring for for decades. So it would be pretty squirrely to complain they don't move the story forward and then complain you didn't like where they took it when they did.

Also helping that go down a little smoother would be that, with a single exception, Necrons had a very limited range and now had and much larger and better one. Yeah, you lost Pariahs, but was anyone really salty about the $14 monopose metal models that you needed 10 of to field, and oh, by the way, you can use them as Lychgard now if you did buy them?

I think there were a lot of things about how the Necron revamp went that made it a success. I also think that by and large, their range revamps have been very successful as a rule, except for SW really. I don't like Primaris but they are objectively good looking. The "new" Dark Elves look way better. So on, and so forth.

I am looking forward to collecting Sisters when they finally launch.

I like the Intercessors and Hellblasters but am pretty dubious about how the rest of the Primaris range is unfolding.

With Necrons, it’s true that the newer units don’t force one into playing the more, er, lively type of dynasty. The units look cool to me. But again my main point was, I’m not and wasn’t previously a fan of Necrons the same way I am a fan of Sisters. Additionally, there really was never the same amount of commentary from people unhappy with how Necrons previously were as there has been from folks who currently wither just don’t like Sisters and hope they are significantly changed or, if you prefer, people who “like Sisters BUT” want them significantly changed anyhow.

So you are saying that nobody pushed for a change among Necron and yet they still got a change, and now lot of people call for a change for Sisters?
Food for thought, Manchi, food for thought!

Well, if I understand it correctly, the people who want different Sisters want different looking Sisters rather than different Sisters fluff. The Necron example was quite different: they needed an expanded background, which generated new units.

Sisters will probably also get some new units but I don’t think their background needs to be changed to do this.

And certainly nothing about their iconic design needs to change.

I hope there's lots of gothic bits for conversions in their sprues.

Not going to play them, but I will pillage a sprue.

For me this is a chance at getting a modular, customisable Sisters kit that can do a variety of weapon and wargear combinations, all perfect for Dark Heresy.

Of course, this is modern GW, so we're just as likely to get a mono-pose optionless kit as we are something actually modular like the GSC or Skitarii kits.

Monopose seems very probable.

We actually got a couple options on the GSC characters, so I wouldn't be surprised to at least get a couple weapon/head options.

As much as I am loving some of what they doing now, the two things I really dislike are monopose, and how busy some models have been (although they seem to have started backing off of this maybe a little).


Still, if it's plastic can't cry too much. Hardly difficult to alter to your liking.

 Manchu wrote:
Monopose seems very probable.

Which would be a tremendous shame.

 Ouze wrote:
As much as I am loving some of what they doing now, the two things I really dislike are monopose, and how busy some models have been (although they seem to have started backing off of this maybe a little).

Say that again once Fulgrim comes out.

Well the old chestnut we mulled over for years was Jes Goodwin talking about how the sleeves were hard to square with multipose. And it looks like our girls still have their sleeves.

Anyhow, I do not mind monopose as much when the poses are so good.

 Manchu wrote:
Monopose seems very probable.

Sadly.

You will when Squad X can't get Storm Bolters because it's only on the sprue for Squad Y, even when both units end up being reasonably identical Sisters in Power Armour.

Robes means legs+torso go together. But as long as they let variety for heads and arms then is all good. (I know SoB don't use robes but with all that cloth is like Death Guard with their chain mal and tentacles)

The problem with the Skitari kit is not that legs and torsos go a fixed way, is that arms go too.

The Dark Angel Veteran kit, as old as it is, allows for customization even when you only really have 5 bodies (But you have options for the chest part)

 Galas wrote:
Robes means legs+torso go together.

Um, not only do minis exist that this is not true, but even *I* can sculpt a mini that this is not true. You put the break directly under the belt and cinch the robe in there. Voila! Multipose robed figures. If Jes Gooswin can't figure this out, it's time GW got a new art department.

Yeah thats how Dark Angel Veterans work and to be honest it doesn't make that much of a difference.

 Manchu wrote:
Monopose seems very probable.

Appropriate song.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Robes means legs+torso go together.

Um, not only do minis exist that this is not true, but even *I* can sculpt a mini that this is not true. You put the break directly under the belt and cinch the robe in there. Voila! Multipose robed figures. If Jes Gooswin can't figure this out, it's time GW got a new art department.

These sort of part breakdowns has more to do with the number of sprues in the kit than the miniatures aesthetic design. We’ve seen kits both ways.

 Manchu wrote:
Monopose seems very probable.

What is so odd about this to me is that
the people who have been waiting for these kits for so long
want to model the kits.

There is the no model no rules issue,
I guess this motivates to monopose fixed wargear named unique plastics for every unit,
and the move into Hasbro toyland with 40k which is
... not a good use of flagship resources
but sure, if the short-sighted aim is to sell lots of IP plastics
then make them obsolete and retool yet again for ever younger kids with credit cards,
then I suppose I can see why GW has done what it has been doing.

On the other hand, if they include the options in the box
then they make the model, right?
I don't understand their legal problems,
but when it comes to no model no rules
why not allow for both by crafting genius multipose everything?
People will pay more for the flexibility
and never use most of it, but, when torsos and left arms become the limiting factors,
more box sets must sell...

I'm gonna have to stop ya there; monopose doesn't necessarily mean fixed wargear for every model. Even with Sisters pewter you could swap out what weapons they held most of the time for basic battle sisters as the bolter, flamer, or melta basic weapons were separate parts.

 Manchu wrote:
Monopose seems very probable.

Well, that's not much different from the metal sisters. I'll be happy with weapon swaps (including alternate weapon holding) and being able to pose the head. Look at Eldar Guardians - they're pose-able models, but the posing is basically head position and a torso twist and how high the gun is held. I'll be surprised if Sisters come with a torso twist option, but I won't be disappointed if they cannot.

I don't need to be able to pose my models, I don't need every person in the unit in some special snowflake pose or dabbing or what ever. What I need is a full range of plastic Sisters of Battle. Make that, and I don't care if they are plug and play like the Macragge set.

 Just Tony wrote:
I don't need to be able to pose my models, I don't need every person in the unit in some special snowflake pose or dabbing or what ever. What I need is a full range of plastic Sisters of Battle. Make that, and I don't care if they are plug and play like the Macragge set.

See, I'm the flip side of that. For me the art is primary and the actual gaming something of an afterthought. Customization, creativity, painting, these are all the important bits. Mono-pose sisters would be a worse letdown than no sisters at all.

But then, players like you are now banned from all GW events, since the new requirements for minis. Ironic that.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
But then, players like you are now banned from all GW events, since the new requirements for minis. Ironic that.

Meaning?



My main thing is I still play 3rd Ed. so ANY plastics that can be used for that will be fine in my book.

I'd prefer multi-pose models. I love arranging the pieces how I like, and having to saw everything apart like I do with mono-pose is a chore.

 Melissia wrote:
I'm gonna have to stop ya there; monopose doesn't necessarily mean fixed wargear for every model. Even with Sisters pewter you could swap out what weapons they held most of the time for basic battle sisters as the bolter, flamer, or melta basic weapons were separate parts.

But it means that one torso/set of arms gets the Melta, rather than there being generic arms that fit everyone, meaning the Melta can go on everyone.

It's the difference between these kits and these kits.

To me it means all the work of a multipart model and none (or very little of) the fun. If I have to worry about arm 43 only going with torso 13 then I may as well be making WWII models.

Going all the way back to RT the ability to kit bash models and pick and choose the bits I was to use has been the fun of GW models. If a model can only be built one way, I'd rather have a one piece metal model so I can get to painting.

Yeah with a file and green stuff and work anything can be converted, but I want kits that are ready to bash from the get go.

Agreed a 100%

No point in doing multi part plastic models if they are monopose and can only be armed one specfic way. One of the great advantage of GW kit is the kitbashing potential, and they seem to insist on losing it

I remember when I was building my fantasy orcs (A kit that sadly was discontinued a couple of weeks ago after so many years of good service on the frontline), how you basically clip out of the sprue all parts, put them in little bit-piles, and then just take one of each to start making truly random and unique orcs.