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.

Voss wrote:
If the 'specific thing people keep saying is two boxes of the same kit,' why are you bringing up three different boxes?

Because that's what that individual I was replying to was talking about, whereas Sgt. Cortez was talking about repeats of the same box.
It would have taken you no time at all to read the context. But I guess cheap shots are easier right?

spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
These new models aren't ugly or anything, but you'd only buy every kit once and then look for 3rd party alternatives if you don't want a Clone army while with the old style you'd have several boxes and every Marine/ Ork what have you looking different.

Well, that's just not true at all. Why do people keep parroting this narrative that all the pre-8th kits are super customisable when at best the differences between one unit of Tacticals and another will be the Sergeant and special/heavy weapons i.e exactly the same things that are in the newer kits.

Umm, I'm actually generally fine and even happy in many cases with the single-piece bodies + torsoes, but there really is a difference, especially with Marines. The Badab War was what got me back into 40k in part because of the emphasis in many cases on mixes of armor, and it's rare that any given Marine or CSM model in my collection is made from fewer than three different kits unless it's a monopose or equivalent (which I do sometimes use for cheap filler). I don't esp. care about the poses, but Marine part cross-compatability is a huge part of what I find rewarding about modeling anything in the game. I imagine that for many gamers it isn't a big thing, but my collections actively mixes everything from RT through 8th and fits my vision of both imperial and chaos forces stretched thin (and in the latter case less mutated and spiky than GW's vision), and the loss of those combinations does actually affect my choices. No, it isn't immense, but it's also not nothing.

Just because something isn't relevant to your experience doesn't mean it isn't relevant to others'. People who disagree with you might actually have an informed reason for their disagreement, and aren't just uncritically repeating something they heard.

With the total # of individual MKX Tacticus armoured poses(spread thru ETB, Starter boxes, intercessor, assault & hellblaster) "monopose" is not really a bad thing. I think i have at least a squad of each tacticus pattern sculpt in each role and think the variety looks good. But contrast that to PM & reg CSM kits and the "monopose" butts up into homogeneity when you get into 30+ models.

I wouldn't mind a little of both. Where all(or most) weapons will work with all(or most) bodies but not "rotating waist". If they really wanted to, they could make each individual leg, hip, foot components on sprue. Which would lead to a great deal of pose-ability & coincidentally consternation from everyone.
The new plastic Contemptor/Leviathan will prob lose some of the excellent posing available in the resin kit.

 Gert wrote:
Next time take your own advice and read what was written.

Oh thank you Great One, how foolish of me, when I responded to your claim rejecting false customizability and minor differences made possible through it, to have interpreted it in anything other than the exact context that you intended and favorably, and shamefully responding with a counterpoint which is directly relevant to the discussion but not identical in scope.

I did read what was written.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
responding with a counterpoint which is directly relevant to the discussion but not identical in scope.

It's an entirely different point that has no bearing on that specific argument.

If you have 2 boxes of Tactical Marines, there are not enough parts in those boxes to make 2 entirely distinct units of Tactical Marines. You get 1 special weapon, 1 heavy weapon, Sergeant options, 1 alternate body front, 6 heads, and 1 alternate shoulder pad set. The poses will be similar if not identical with the only "posing" being in head movement and which way the torso is facing, the latter being a false choice as many of the "options" are not suitable for the sturdy construction of the model. At best Marines from squad 1 will be facing left and Marines from squad 2 will be facing right. There will be differences but not to the point where every single Marine in both squads is different in a significant way from another.
So the argument that older kits had superior posing to newer kits when duplicated isn't true.

Your point was about how you mix up to 3 kits per unit, meaning any argument regarding identical models is removed because you have introduced 2 more sets of parts and options not present in the original kit. I am not arguing that the return to single (in essence) body pieces allows for the same level of kit interchangeability because they don't. Hence why your entire argument was entirely irrelevant to the specific criticism of the point Sgt. Cortez made.

 Gert wrote:

Voss wrote:
If the 'specific thing people keep saying is two boxes of the same kit,' why are you bringing up three different boxes?

Because that's what that individual I was replying to was talking about, whereas Sgt. Cortez was talking about repeats of the same box.
It would have taken you no time at all to read the context. But I guess cheap shots are easier right?

But the argument does apply, because cross-compatibility of parts would allow for substantial variation even with just two of the same box. Use this torso with those legs, that set of arms with that torso, this head with that, swap those shoulderpads around, make the special weapon MK6 in one, MK4+7 mix in the next etc etc. Some of the new style boxes allow some degree of parts swapping, but a lot of them are pretty fixed in what you can do especially for "unique" models - sure you can give Special Weapon Man one of three guns, but they're all the same dude in the same pose.

Further, combining that cross-compatibility with two points of rotation at both the neck and waist did allow for a surprising amount of variation. Of course it was more limited in practice than in theory, not *every* pose you could technically make looked good, and not every combination of bits would work with the poses that did look good, but there absolutely, categorically, demonstrably was more variety in what you could do straight out of the box than with almost any modern GW kit without having to cut or file or sculpt a thing.

If all of GW's modern kits were up to the standard of their better "monopose" efforts, where parts are still reasonably distinct, types of joints are fairly universal, and there's variety in the parts available that would be one thing, but a lot of them aren't even close to it. Instead the pieces on the sprue are often cut for efficiency of casting above all else and can only be put together one way - sometimes only in a particular order - with a very slightly different "alt build" if you're lucky. Given that, people's nostalgia for a time when you could just chop stuff off the sprues and kitbash away is understandable and perfectly justifiable, and it's mystifying to me why some folk are so invested in "proving them wrong" - you're allowed to prefer the new way of doing things without having to deny that there is in fact a new way things are being done.

ERJAK wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ekwatts wrote:
I don't see anything aesthetically or functionally being lost in the modern kits.

With so many ways to build these and all.

This is the very definition of cherry picking.

What's incorrect though?

 Yodhrin wrote:
But the argument does apply, because cross-compatibility of parts would allow for substantial variation even with just two of the same box. Use this torso with those legs, that set of arms with that torso, this head with that, swap those shoulderpads around, make the special weapon MK6 in one, MK4+7 mix in the next etc etc. Some of the new style boxes allow some degree of parts swapping, but a lot of them are pretty fixed in what you can do especially for "unique" models - sure you can give Special Weapon Man one of three guns, but they're all the same dude in the same pose.

Let's take a look into this "substantial variation" shall we?

Wow, look at all those shoulder pads where 90% are exactly the same. And those legs! Wow, almost entirely the exact same pose with minimal differences.

Holy smokes, just look at those Bolters and arms! They are once again almost entirely identical.

Hot damn! Look at all of those parts that are almost entirely identical to the point where there is basically no difference between them!

Amazing! Look at the sheer variety of poses. I can't decide if my Marines should have their guns up or down!

Further, combining that cross-compatibility with two points of rotation at both the neck and waist did allow for a surprising amount of variation. Of course it was more limited in practice than in theory, not *every* pose you could technically make looked good, and not every combination of bits would work with the poses that did look good, but there absolutely, categorically, demonstrably was more variety in what you could do straight out of the box than with almost any modern GW kit without having to cut or file or sculpt a thing.

The variation is not as much as you make out though. The model will face left, right, or straight ahead for the balljoint design models, and that design is a pain in the rear to build since every single one needs to be balanced perfectly or the top half doesn't stick properly and falls off.

If all of GW's modern kits were up to the standard of their better "monopose" efforts, where parts are still reasonably distinct, types of joints are fairly universal, and there's variety in the parts available that would be one thing, but a lot of them aren't even close to it. Instead the pieces on the sprue are often cut for efficiency of casting above all else and can only be put together one way - sometimes only in a particular order - with a very slightly different "alt build" if you're lucky. Given that, people's nostalgia for a time when you could just chop stuff off the sprues and kitbash away is understandable and perfectly justifiable, and it's mystifying to me why some folk are so invested in "proving them wrong" - you're allowed to prefer the new way of doing things without having to deny that there is in fact a new way things are being done.

It is objectively wrong to suggest that the Tactical Marine kit is better for posing that the Intercessor kit. The former has set poses because physics and the other has set poses by design and those 5 set poses are far more natural looking that "squatting with gun".

It's amazing how many people try to pretend that the minis today and the minis from them are no different.

Sad, really.

"tHeY aLl LoOk ThE sAmE."

Lack of imagination. Or skill. Or both.

The newer models simply look a lot better. I have not touched a squat marine after seeing the primaris. The fixed waist doesn't make them monopose, like it didn't make skitarii or GSC monopose. And of course the kits are cross-compatible, I have kitbased them a lot.


GW makes actual monopose models, often found in starter sets. So having terminology to be able to distinguish such models from more posable ones often found in full kits is useful, so I don't appreciate the Newspeak mudding up the communication.

 Crimson wrote:
The newer models simply look a lot better. I have not touched a squat marine after seeing the primaris. The fixed waist doesn't make them monopose, like it didn't make skitarii or GSC monopose. And of course the kits are cross-compatible, I have kitbased them a lot.


GW makes actual monopose models, often found in starter sets. So having terminology to be able to distinguish such models from more posable ones often found in full kits is useful, so I don't appreciate the Newspeak mudding up the communication.

I agree that Primaris ruined Firstborn for me. Plus they have a delightful amount of physical mass that just makes them feel nice to paint.

HH plastics are a good second in that department actually.

Dynamic repetition is always worse than neutral repetition as far as posing goes. Newer GW bits are full of extremely dynamic poses that are monopose or difficult to change . Older style tactical marines and the like are all similarly posed, but since the parts are very neutrally positioned you get minor variation in every model if you want, and they're all doing the same action of firing/advancing.

The 2012 Dark Vengeance Chosen are a perfect example. You get two of the exact same marines carrying bolters in the kit. With the same snarling leg daemon and the same chain dangling from boltgun, and the same relatively dynamic pose compared to most other bolter equipped marines at the time. Its very noticeable when looking at the squad as a whole.

Like the new Deathguard Plague marine kit, every single model is doing something different with a different weapon. Its way too busy imo.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Dynamic repetition is always worse than neutral repetition as far as posing goes. Newer GW bits are full of extremely dynamic poses that are monopose or difficult to change . Older style tactical marines and the like are all similarly posed, but since the parts are very neutrally positioned you get minor variation in every model if you want, and they're all doing the same action of firing/advancing.

Bang that drum buddy, for all the good it'll do. I've been saying that for ages, and still people try to pretend that this isn't an issue.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Dynamic repetition is always worse than neutral repetition as far as posing goes. Newer GW bits are full of extremely dynamic poses that are monopose or difficult to change . Older style tactical marines and the like are all similarly posed, but since the parts are very neutrally positioned you get minor variation in every model if you want, and they're all doing the same action of firing/advancing.

The 2012 Dark Vengeance Chosen are a perfect example. You get two of the exact same marines carrying bolters in the kit. With the same snarling leg daemon and the same chain dangling from boltgun, and the same relatively dynamic pose compared to most other bolter equipped marines at the time. Its very noticeable when looking at the squad as a whole.

Like the new Deathguard Plague marine kit, every single model is doing something different with a different weapon. Its way too busy imo.

Your example are pushfit models. Primaris have dynamic bodies, but using different arms and posing the head in different direction can get a lot of work out of the kit without a problem.

Of proper kits Deathguard are definitely the worst of it, but most kits are honestly fine.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Your example are pushfit models. Primaris have dynamic bodies, but using different arms and posing the head in different direction can get a lot of work out of the kit without a problem.

That doesn't really counter what he said.

He's talking about dynamic repetition vs neutral repetition. A lot of GW's current minis are dynamic - far more than they used to be - but option poor in the realms of poseabilty (push fit or otherwise).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Your example are pushfit models. Primaris have dynamic bodies, but using different arms and posing the head in different direction can get a lot of work out of the kit without a problem.

That doesn't really counter what he said.

He's talking about dynamic repetition vs neutral repetition. A lot of GW's current minis are dynamic - far more than they used to be - but option poor in the realms of poseabilty (push fit or otherwise).

When the only missing pose ability option is a waist swivel that results in a more natural body line and no one standing around like they got a full diaper I'd argue that for Primaris at least the trade off was worth it. Most of the dynamic poses are walking or standing poses so it doesn't exactly cause the same issues like we see in Deathguard who are some of the most mono build option models in the game.

There is a spectrum here and it feels like everyone wants to lump everything down on the Deathguard end of the spectrum when most of it sits around the middle just a smidge to the opposite direction of the middle than the older plastic kits were.

I agree that the old chosen aren't a great example, as they were doomed to be dramatic monopose models, as they were released as a starter set with no options.

However, over dynamic standard kit models do stand out like a sore thumb. Especially if one or more model is posed on a piece of very unique scenery that can easily be identified if you have more than one of that model's body.

Primaris don't have the issue, because they tend to be standardized, so the whole unit will have the same weapon. Plague marines, like he mentioned, all have random weapons and don't have a cohesive feel to them. It tends to be a more common issue with elite units, or basically any set that has five or few models in it.

Look at the new eldar rangers. They have options for guns, or pistols and swords. But at least one is doing the weird splay leg pose on scenery, so it's obvious that it's a repeat model, despite the head and arm swap

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Your example are pushfit models. Primaris have dynamic bodies, but using different arms and posing the head in different direction can get a lot of work out of the kit without a problem.

That doesn't really counter what he said.

He's talking about dynamic repetition vs neutral repetition. A lot of GW's current minis are dynamic - far more than they used to be - but option poor in the realms of poseabilty (push fit or otherwise).

What H.B.M.C. said is where I lie.

New models are better visually and much more dynamic.
BUT reposability/conversion options are severely limited.

I prefer a balance of the 2 where the bodies are set but the arms or weapons can be change between models such as in necromunda for the vast majority of the range.

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Your example are pushfit models. Primaris have dynamic bodies, but using different arms and posing the head in different direction can get a lot of work out of the kit without a problem.

That doesn't really counter what he said.

He's talking about dynamic repetition vs neutral repetition. A lot of GW's current minis are dynamic - far more than they used to be - but option poor in the realms of poseabilty (push fit or otherwise).

What H.B.M.C. said is where I lie.

New models are better visually and much more dynamic.
BUT reposability/conversion options are severely limited.

I prefer a balance of the 2 where the bodies are set but the arms or weapons can be change between models such as in necromunda for the vast majority of the range.

That's where I tend to favor it as well and it seems GW sticks with that more than they do monobuild dynamic kits, but that isn't to claim said monobuild kits don't exist (Aggressors for example don't have a lot of freedom in posing but the walking poses hide the issue since they don't have anything else going on there).

Honestly the worst of it has to be units with sculpted terrain on their bases because without cutting them off their special ruins or rocks and putting them on something else it's hard to hide the repeated bit of ground over and over again if it's too unique.

 Crimson wrote:
The newer models simply look a lot better. I have not touched a squat marine after seeing the primaris. The fixed waist doesn't make them monopose, like it didn't make skitarii or GSC monopose. And of course the kits are cross-compatible, I have kitbased them a lot.

Just for a tangent here (or back to HH as the case may be), this doesn't strike me as primaris vs oldmarine issue. The new beakies also look a lot better, and I think any new oldmarines that GW would have done rather than primaris would also have been better in much the same ways.

Now, the leaked pictures show a lot of repeated poses, so I don't expect a lot of customization options with the new HH starter (certainly not at the waist), but there's a lot of opportunity for GW to redo the oldmarine range better than before. And keep a lot of the functionality that the primaris range abandoned (in terms of gear options)

I agree that we need to better distinguish between true monopose, and the somewhat limited pose figures.

When Primaries first came out I made an entire Ultramarines army almost entirely made from starter set marines I got on the cheap. The army looks good too, but that's because it's easy to hide repetition in Marines with limited bling on them.

True monopose I like for filler guys, if they are cheap. GW has had a few true monopose filler guys in the past that were almost as expensive as the stardard kit with options, and that's just silly.

When it comes to Primaris vs Tactical, the Primaris look a bit better, but are less poseable.That is just a fact. It's not much, but that little twist in the torso can be just enough to justify a new position for the head,and little variations add up. They also have just a bit less part interchangeability, which is what really matters to me.

My perfect kit would have back halves of torsos locked to the legs for a dynamic pose, with interchangeable chests, heads, arms, weapons, and shoulder pads. And not just within a squad, but across the entire army, or in the case of SM/CSM across both armies for parts swapping.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Dynamic repetition is always worse than neutral repetition as far as posing goes. Newer GW bits are full of extremely dynamic poses that are monopose or difficult to change . Older style tactical marines and the like are all similarly posed, but since the parts are very neutrally positioned you get minor variation in every model if you want, and they're all doing the same action of firing/advancing.

The 2012 Dark Vengeance Chosen are a perfect example. You get two of the exact same marines carrying bolters in the kit. With the same snarling leg daemon and the same chain dangling from boltgun, and the same relatively dynamic pose compared to most other bolter equipped marines at the time. Its very noticeable when looking at the squad as a whole.

Like the new Deathguard Plague marine kit, every single model is doing something different with a different weapon. Its way too busy imo.

Your example are pushfit models. Primaris have dynamic bodies, but using different arms and posing the head in different direction can get a lot of work out of the kit without a problem.

I knew someone would focus on the fact that they're push-fit lol. It's an example showing two dynamic models that are exactly the same pose and how much they stick out. You could achieve the same example with the modern CSM kit with the models that force a certain set of arms on a body, buying two kits, and having the exact same terminator pose twice in the same squad.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Dynamic repetition is always worse than neutral repetition as far as posing goes. Newer GW bits are full of extremely dynamic poses that are monopose or difficult to change . Older style tactical marines and the like are all similarly posed, but since the parts are very neutrally positioned you get minor variation in every model if you want, and they're all doing the same action of firing/advancing.

The 2012 Dark Vengeance Chosen are a perfect example. You get two of the exact same marines carrying bolters in the kit. With the same snarling leg daemon and the same chain dangling from boltgun, and the same relatively dynamic pose compared to most other bolter equipped marines at the time. Its very noticeable when looking at the squad as a whole.

Like the new Deathguard Plague marine kit, every single model is doing something different with a different weapon. Its way too busy imo.

Your example are pushfit models. Primaris have dynamic bodies, but using different arms and posing the head in different direction can get a lot of work out of the kit without a problem.

I knew someone would focus on the fact that they're push-fit lol. It's an example showing two dynamic models that are exactly the same pose and how much they stick out. You could achieve the same example with the modern CSM kit with the models that force a certain set of arms on a body, buying two kits, and having the exact same terminator pose twice in the same squad.

You undermine your own argument when you use push fit models when complaining about pose ability. They're that way by design to make it easier to build, even without glue. That's like complaining that a bicycle doesn't come with a two stroke motor.

Death Guard are already a perfect example of repetitive poses with next to no options on a multipart kit that make the models look a lot like clones of each other. You don't even need a second example because that one is so damned good it outlines the extreme of dynamic versus pose ability perfectly. That's the only reason I focused in on it, because you weakened your own argument when you have better options to work from.

Do we need to kick this particular ball around again? Slow news day maybe but this dead horse is so dead and has been beaten so much it’s practically mince.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do we need to kick this particular ball around again? Slow news day maybe but this dead horse is so dead and has been beaten so much it’s practically mince.

It does feel like old ground at this point and honestly I think we're not looking at Death Guard levels of posing, but rather Primaris levels where you can swap all the arms around and repose the heads. Then again, GW does love their cross compatibility between kits and it could be made intentionally compatible with MkIII and MkIV kits which would give seperate torso and legs (though despite the ballsocket waists MkIII is kind of swiveless due to the plate tabards).

Now getting back to the rumors, I have mixed feelings about the rules staying with a variant 7th edition. Age of Darkness did do a lot to help fix jank, I don't know enough to comment about things like how it handled psychic powers or the way 7th ed handled "barrage" weapons (looking at you Hydra Flak Cannon), and honestly I don't know if I want to deal with template arguments again.

That said I've been looking at a reason to buy some Primarchs (I want to do a diorama with Dorn and Pert as well as maybe pick up Lorgar as well) and honestly if I ever did a Word Bearers army in 40k I'd pick up Erebus just because he's got one hell of a sculpt and would look great on the table as a Dark Apostle, but triggering my desire to throw money at GW for models I like isn't a high bar to clear. I'm hoping we hear a bit more about the game over the next four weeks and get confirmation on how things will be playing out. Like maybe a free "how to play" video on their streaming platform they love so much.

 Crimson wrote:
The newer models simply look a lot better. I have not touched a squat marine after seeing the primaris. The fixed waist doesn't make them monopose, like it didn't make skitarii or GSC monopose. And of course the kits are cross-compatible, I have kitbased them a lot.

I agree that the Primaris look better. I disagree that the reason is due to fixed waist instead of to proportions.

I do agree that in general "fixed pose" bodies look better in a void, and if you then make sure that any body can get any arms/heads, it's usually great (and most historicals do this, as well as Stargrave, etc.). Problem for me starts when you get pose locked to a specific body to one or two specific sets of parts.

Also, as has already been said, fixed poses are perfectly great when there's no repetition, and it gets worse the more you see of them.

The Psychic phase and the way powers work with the 7th style is only really an issue if Tsons or Ruinstorm Daemons with loads of wizards are on the table. For the former it can be irritating while you wait for them to do their turn but IMO it's the same as any other phase where an army has specialised into using said phase. As long as power generation is still rolled for I wouldn't mind a switch to the 2d6 to get X result for casting but it's not a massive concern for me.

FW are putting up some new Horus Heresy Bundles:

Prepare for the coming battles of the Horus Heresy with a selection of bundles – from an Imperial Fists Legion Command to Leman Russ and his Wolf-Kin.

I've not checked to see if any of them have a discount yet, but it doesn't look like it...

The latest rumour on B&C seems to indicate that a huge amount of Legion units and Characters are getting dumped as well as some generic Legion units, including additions that were made very recently.
I mean it's also April 1st so I'm hoping it's some stupid joke but if not then it looks like I'll be sticking to the current edition.
Link for those interested:
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/369602-state-of-the-union-heresy/page-115

beast_gts wrote:
FW are putting up some new Horus Heresy Bundles:

Prepare for the coming battles of the Horus Heresy with a selection of bundles – from an Imperial Fists Legion Command to Leman Russ and his Wolf-Kin.

I've not checked to see if any of them have a discount yet, but it doesn't look like it...

No discounts at all...

 zedmeister wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
FW are putting up some new Horus Heresy Bundles:

Prepare for the coming battles of the Horus Heresy with a selection of bundles – from an Imperial Fists Legion Command to Leman Russ and his Wolf-Kin.

I've not checked to see if any of them have a discount yet, but it doesn't look like it...

No discounts at all...

Which is standard fare for GW/FW by now, to be entirely honest.