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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 silverstu wrote:
.. he's saying the Sisters box is ETB...

That would surprise me greatly.

You can be surprised. The origin of this rumor is the guy (Kikasstou) "having read somewhere that it would be ETB and the real kits would come later". He never said what the source is.

So, as he said on the french thread, it only engages him.

I wouldn't take that as really serious, he's just a guy like you and me making hypotheses like any other guy on Dakkadakka here.

How do I know it ? Because I'm a follower of that forum and french is my mother language. You believe what you want.

Iracundus wrote:


Mathematically going from 3+ to 2+ is not as good as "re-roll failed to-hit rolls".

Less Rerolls nice though. Game has too many those with end result of 8th being slowest edition ever

 Sarouan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 silverstu wrote:
.. he's saying the Sisters box is ETB...

That would surprise me greatly.

You can be surprised. The origin of this rumor is the guy (Kikasstou) "having read somewhere that it would be ETB and the real kits would come later". He never said what the source is.

So, as he said on the french thread, it only engages him.

I wouldn't take that as really serious, he's just a guy like you and me making hypotheses like any other guy on Dakkadakka here.

How do I know it ? Because I'm a follower of that forum and french is my mother language. You believe what you want.

You know that he has never been wrong so far ? It wouldn't be the first time etb arrive before the normal kits.
He actually said etb like in shadowspears. Were they etb or monopause in shadowspears ? I didn't buy it so idk

Yea kikasstou is worth listening to because he has such a great track record. Everything he has claimed so far, as far as I'm aware, has been spot on.

if the SOB november release is mono-build minis there's gonna be some annoyance I imagine

BrianDavion wrote:
if the SOB november release is mono-build minis there's gonna be some annoyance I imagine

I'm sure people will manage, they've waited 20 years, what's a few more months.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait - its almost certain that the new kits will be mono build. Like all new kits released the last few years.

BrianDavion wrote:
if the SOB november release is mono-build minis there's gonna be some annoyance I imagine

cuz the metal minis are so poseable.

Are any of the models released in 8th posable?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Wait - its almost certain that the new kits will be mono build. Like all new kits released the last few years.

Nah, they've already shown the new Repentia have some options, with different arms and heads on the same torso+legs part. Besides, some recent kits have options - Genestealer Cult characters at least have a few different bits, though variation is pretty minimal.

Yep, it will be like Shadowspear. A box of monopose models first, multipose kits later. If you look a t the pictures of the standard Sister squad they have shown, there are indications that they're monopose. The shoulder joints on the raised arms and the charred corpse look like monopose features to me.

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Wait - its almost certain that the new kits will be mono build. Like all new kits released the last few years.

Nah, they've already shown the new Repentia have some options, with different arms and heads on the same torso+legs part. Besides, some recent kits have options - Genestealer Cult characters at least have a few different bits, though variation is pretty minimal.

Well, with human sized characters, sometimes there is just empty space on the sprue, and you have to fill it with something. But characters arent really the best example for monopose unit kits, especially ones glommed together in a boxed set.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:
-snip-
So yeah, I don't know, but the idea that the Primarchs are "too big for 40k" just seems pretty laughable when you stop to consider all the other rediculous stuff running around gaming tables since the start of the game.

And this is why it was a mistake for GW to make Special Characters the focus of both the game and the lore, rather than opponent's permission only extras meant for narrative games. The idea that stuff like Pheonix Lords and C'tan would show up regularly on the tabletop has *not* been around "since the start of the game". Up until probably 5th edition the focus was very much on Your Dudes and you brought out special characters for narrative campaigns, or "my dad could beat up your dad" joke games, or just for a bit of variety on occasion. Some people certainly tried to bring their favourite snowflake to every game, and some players were willing to accommodate that, but it was very much not the default approach.

40K as saturday morning cartoon where everyone plays along with the story about the Big Hero Punchy Men is still a pretty recent state of affairs.

You are officially considered old when you refer to events that happened a decade ago as "recent". And that's assuming that this actually started with 5th, in my area named characters were pretty normal even during 4th.

And you're officially considered young when you believe ten years is a long time in the grand scheme of things. That said, my wording perhaps wasn't clear, 5th was the abandonment of the previous mentality by GW, and 6th was the adoption of the new strategy by GW. When I say "recent" I refer to 8th and the latter part of 7th, when the combination of churn and conversion to the new faith as it were culminated in making the Saturday morning cartoon approach to 40K the default among fans. It certainly wasn't the default state "from the start of the game" as Jack Flask was claiming.

There were always people who liked SCs and brought them to every game, and groups who'd allow that - as I said in the post you're quoting - but that wasn't the assumption that the designers or most of the players were working under. Now the situation has reversed, the game and the fiction are designed around SCs and other "centrepiece" units, and players by default expect 40K to be Big Name vs Big Name and even outright "mirror match" affairs.

Some folk consider that an improvement, and to each their own, but I miss seeing people come up with their own stories and characters and armies and think it's lamentable that a lot of the time now the most individual thing you can hope to see if you rock up for a pickup game is Guilliman painted in a different colour.

 Platuan4th wrote:


Ummmm, no. This is very much a thing that will vary by locale and is not universally true. For example, several areas in the US had wide usage of Special Characters way back in 3rd, which was 20 years ago. It's not something new or recent and your local area's idea of "default approach" was and is not everyone's.

I really don't get what's difficult about this idea. Any given individual area's "default approach" has nothing to do with it, the point is what the assumptions were on the part of the people writing the game and how that shaped how people in general approached it. "Several areas in the US" could do what they like, as we can now, but in those days the rules specifically made "no special characters" the default that you had to ask your opponent to modify. Now the opposite is true. That shift has had an impact on how the game is made and how people approach it.

I think for the sake of conversation it may help to differentiate between ETB, which use plugs and don't require glue to assemble, Monobuild, like shadowspear and the starters where glue is required but each model only goes together one way, and Monopose like Necromunda models and SM eliminators, where the body has a fixed assembly but there are various options for head and weapons.

I don't understand the difference between monopose and monobuild ?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I think for the sake of conversation it may help to differentiate between ETB, which use plugs and don't require glue to assemble, Monobuild, like shadowspear and the starters where glue is required but each model only goes together one way, and Monopose like Necromunda models and SM eliminators, where the body has a fixed assembly but there are various options for head and weapons.

You're just adding to the confusion. Torso and legs being in one piece doesn't make something monopose.

 godardc wrote:
I don't understand the difference between monopose and monobuild ?

Well, this terminology doesn't help, but the core of the issue is that GW has at least partially abandoned the variety with which you could assemble their older kits. Easy to Build, or snapfit as it used to be called before GW came up with a marketable term, is sensible enough. The same without the holes and pegs is better described as multipart monopose, whereas kits with actual options should be called multipart multipose kits. that's accurate to what the kits are (with the occasional exception like extra heads that give a model options but don't really change its appearance like differently posed arm options would, for instance).

The thing that's really confusing the issue is that many of GW's individual kits lost much of their posability with set assemblies of the models that offer no or very little variation if you double up on the kit, combined with dropping the snapfit peg and hole approach on some of their starter or battle boxes. It's introduced a new category of models while moving what used to be considered the full kit closer to that category. It's not really ideal.

It's why I don't get any meaningful value out of rumors like the one about the Sisters box. It's impossible to tell what the rumormonger is actually talking about because the issue is fairly new and there's no standardization in terminology.

 godardc wrote:
I don't understand the difference between monopose and monobuild ?

Monobuild is like the models in shadowspear, requires glue to assemble, but each model is made up of parts a, b, c, and d, no variation.

Monopose (effectively) is like the eliminator kits. Body a goes with legs b and tactical rock c, but you can choose between heads d, e, or f, and then a rifle arm, Las fusil arm, or rifle plus scope arm. They aren't strictly monopose, but they are designed to only be built a handful of exact ways without cutting and conversion.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Monopose (effectively) is like the eliminator kits. Body a goes with legs b and tactical rock c, but you can choose between heads d, e, or f, and then a rifle arm, Las fusil arm, or rifle plus scope arm. They aren't strictly monopose, but they are designed to only be built a handful of exact ways without cutting and conversion.

That's a multipose model with somewhat limited set of multiple poses.

I prefer the term monobuild myself. it's more accurate.

Monopose: Nearly all edition starter kits: They are normally kits with 0 options and divided in less pieces, even if they are the same unit as the multipart proper kit. They normally could be assembled without glue but this wasn't always the case (Special characters or generic characters were like this, specially the ones without options like the dark elf sorcerres, but nearly all of them needed glue to be assembled)

ETB: A new Label GW made a couple of years ago for Monopose kits specifically made to be built without glue.


A multipart kit with limited poses or torso-legs as one piece: Normal kit. Just like nobody called the old Ogre Kingdoms kits "Monopose" even if they had the body as a single piece and they were basically monopose. People just like to label new kits as monopose as a peyorative, and even if I agree with how dissapointing is the lack of variation in newer kits (When it isn't neccesary, I can understand it in kits like the nurgle ones full of chainmails, cloth, etc... but not in normal space marines), using this as much as people is using only generates confusion.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 godardc wrote:
I don't understand the difference between monopose and monobuild ?

Monobuild is like the models in shadowspear, requires glue to assemble, but each model is made up of parts a, b, c, and d, no variation.

Monopose (effectively) is like the eliminator kits. Body a goes with legs b and tactical rock c, but you can choose between heads d, e, or f, and then a rifle arm, Las fusil arm, or rifle plus scope arm. They aren't strictly monopose, but they are designed to only be built a handful of exact ways without cutting and conversion.

That's splitting hairs though. In my book those are both monopose - additional heads are nice, but two of the same model still look like twins.
Weapon options are not customization.

Thing is, as much as some people want to pretend that it isn't real and that nothing has changed with GW minis, we can pinpoint exactly where it changed en mass for 40K.

It was between the 1kSons and Death Guard releases:

We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.
We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.
We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.

And whilst you can forgive most of the EZ2B kits, it started impacting the rules thanks to the "no model = no rule" kick GW's been on since the CHS debacle, so because this kit can only be built one way, it's rules only allow for that exact config. And kits are no longer able to work with one another in quite the same way (with some exceptions, like Skitarii/GSC, which were designed to fit) to discourage kitbashing, again, because no model = no rule, and if there's no rule for your fancy model, you don't need to kitbash.

It's awful.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Thing is, as much as some people want to pretend that it isn't real and that nothing has changed with GW minis, we can pinpoint exactly where it changed en mass for 40K.

It was between the 1kSons and Death Guard releases:

We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.
We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.
We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.

And whilst you can forgive most of the EZ2B kits, it started impacting the rules thanks to the "no model = no rule" kick GW's been on since the CHS debacle, so because this kit can only be built one way, it's rules only allow for that exact config. And kits are no longer able to work with one another in quite the same way (with some exceptions, like Skitarii/GSC, which were designed to fit) to discourage kitbashing, again, because no model = no rule, and if there's no rule for your fancy model, you don't need to kitbash.

It's awful.

I prefer it this way. Despite people pretending otherwise no one every did anything worth while with a tactical squad kit, I've seen maybe two examples of good Ork kitbashing in twenty years and every TS army looks the same anyway. I'd rather just have better looking base models to convert as the mood strikes me. As for CH, the community only has itself to blame.

Nah. Community has the culprit aka GW to blame. GW gets no shield for them being culprits.

I think the decision to limit the modularity of the Deathguard specifically was the right one as they were able to make much richer, more complex minis than they ever would if every arm/leg/head/torso etc had to work with each other,

that said rolling the same thing out to most of the more recent kits is a shame as there isn't the same need for it (I think the recent GSC stuff would be my ideal in terms of modularity compared to complexity)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Thing is, as much as some people want to pretend that it isn't real and that nothing has changed with GW minis, we can pinpoint exactly where it changed en mass for 40K.

It was between the 1kSons and Death Guard releases:

We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.
We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.
We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.

I do't think that is really a trend, these models were released pretty close together. The Death Guard are like that because they have all sorts of tentacles and such wird details that would not work a lot of customisation. Some kits released after those are more customisable. They just design the models, and then cut them into sprues in the way that makes most sense for that particular design.

And whilst you can forgive most of the EZ2B kits, it started impacting the rules thanks to the "no model = no rule" kick GW's been on since the CHS debacle, so because this kit can only be built one way, it's rules only allow for that exact config. And kits are no longer able to work with one another in quite the same way (with some exceptions, like Skitarii/GSC, which were designed to fit) to discourage kitbashing, again, because no model = no rule, and if there's no rule for your fancy model, you don't need to kitbash.

It's awful.

The no model, no rule extremism however is probably my biggest peeve with GW right now. However, half of the time it really isn't due how the models are designed. For example the multipart Primaris kits are fully kit-bashable. You can easily mix bits between kits, and most importantly the weapons from the upgrade sprues fit every other PA Primaris multipart kit. Yet for some completely inexplicable reason the rules only allow you to put those weapons on Intercessor Sergeants, and that's it. It is pure lunacy.

JSG wrote:
Despite people pretending otherwise no one every did anything worth while with a tactical squad kit, I've seen maybe two examples of good Ork kitbashing in twenty years...

Well that's clearly nonsense.

JSG wrote:
As for CH, the community only has itself to blame.

Yeah. How dare the community go out and seek Tervigons and Mycetic Spores and the scores of other things GW didn't make.

Seriously. You just blamed the players for Chapter House. Well done sir.

 Jidmah wrote:
Are any of the models released in 8th posable?

It seems like there's a few categories.

There are models that are truly monopose, literally only one way to build them out of the box.

There are models where each torso has 2-3 designated arm poses included in the kit, and free headswaps (this is the most common)

and then there are models where arms and heads are freely swappable (with the gun arms paired). Necromunda Gangs, new GSC bikers, that sort of thing.

The biggest "loss" in poseability from the 5th ed era kits has been the ball-and-socket joint torsos that were on Drukhari, Necrons, oldmarines, etc. The flat join torsos on Orks, Guardsmen, Tau etc are theoretically poseable, but in practice since torsos are not perfectly round pillars they look really stupid if you rotate them about that join.

If you gave me a choice between one of the third category 8th era kits, and a ball-and-socket 5th era kit, I'd choose the 8th era kit. The real choice you had with the 5th era kits were "Horse Riding Stance/Horse Riding Stance But Sideways". Now I get models walking, standing and kneeling who actually look like what humans look like when they do those things.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Thing is, as much as some people want to pretend that it isn't real and that nothing has changed with GW minis, we can pinpoint exactly where it changed en mass for 40K.

It was between the 1kSons and Death Guard releases:

We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.
We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.
We went from this kit, with sprues like this, to this kit, with sprues like this.

And whilst you can forgive most of the EZ2B kits, it started impacting the rules thanks to the "no model = no rule" kick GW's been on since the CHS debacle, so because this kit can only be built one way, it's rules only allow for that exact config. And kits are no longer able to work with one another in quite the same way (with some exceptions, like Skitarii/GSC, which were designed to fit) to discourage kitbashing, again, because no model = no rule, and if there's no rule for your fancy model, you don't need to kitbash.

It's awful.

I know you went to a lot of effort to put this post together, but it kind of...doesn't really prove your point here.

Sure, the Exalted Sorcerors kit is more customizable than the Deathshroud Terminator kit. Love the exalted sorceror kit.

But the Plague Terminator kit looks *exactly* as customizable as the Scarab terminator kit (Much more so, honestly, because the bits in the kit actually look different from one another) and the Death Guard kit looks to be similar. Like I said before - the only difference appears to be monopose legs (with swappable chest plates unless I'm understanding wrong) vs ball and socket joint legs.

I've built the new rubric kit. It is very much not a particularly poseable kit. Your choice for each miniature is "Aiming" or "Standing" and all the rubrics look the same (that is kind of the point). You maybe should have gone for Deathwatch Vets to make this point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Monopose (effectively) is like the eliminator kits. Body a goes with legs b and tactical rock c, but you can choose between heads d, e, or f, and then a rifle arm, Las fusil arm, or rifle plus scope arm. They aren't strictly monopose, but they are designed to only be built a handful of exact ways without cutting and conversion.

That's a multipose model with somewhat limited set of multiple poses.

Unlike what we had in the good old days when kits were customizable and possibilities were endless!

Should I assemble this guardsman holding his rifle sideways facing forwards? Or should I turn him 90 degrees on his torso so you can clearly see the flat join on the model on the sides of his hip and his head doesn't seat properly in the groove? or should I turn him around 180 like hes grand emperor scroob in spaceballs after a transporter accident?

the possibilities were literally endless!

Looks like I'm going to be in the minority here but to me those Thousand Sons kits look vastly better than the Death Guard ones.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
Looks like I'm going to be in the minority here but to me those Thousand Sons kits look vastly better than the Death Guard ones.

Same. And this is coming from someone that prefers Nurgle and the Deathguard over Tzeentch. The only 1k kits I don't like are the tzaangors. The Death Guard models are too busy and cartoony. And one of the sculptors added designs from his own Nurgle army, such as the "one-eye, spiky mouth" helmet and what looks like a shoulder pad behind their helmets (the guy's models literally used shoulder pads for this.) The Death Guard also lack a lot of options. They have a ton of HQs, but model wise, there's only so much you can do. The most annoying thing is the models you'd want a ton of, ie, pox walkers, you can only buy 6 snap fit models, or buy the 10 from Dark Imperium online.