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.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now that's some spin, D. Holy gak...

Not spin. Just practical applications of technology and design.

The progression from more poseable to less poseable isn't forward progress to better technology and design, it's a decision that GW could have chosen not to make.

I think there is a level of impracticality to how easily they could make cuts and a posable kit and keep other elements of the model like layered pauldrons, capes that aren't simply just straight down the back, etc. They COULD do it, but with more sprue space and that would ultimately mean more cost.

Yeah, and at the bargain basement prices they charge, that clearly isn't economically viable.

Careful D. You'll make yourself dizzy.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'd like to say it'd be unlikely that they'd change the plasma gun from a special weapon option to a sergeant option, but they changed the plasma from a special weapon to sergeant-only and the volkite from anyone in the squad to sergeant-only when they did the 40k Tartaros datasheet, so who knows?

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

I more meant the limitation of the weapon itself, rather than who in the squad could have it. Scions will undoubtedly get the "Death Guard" treatment, as Wyches, Skitarii, Sisters and everyone else (except Marines) is getting.

I started off with static Monopose plastics in Fantasy that got additional dynamic Monopose models in metal

than there was the golden age of multi part kits

and now we are back and have dynamic monopose models in plastic for the price of the old metal stuff


the one problem to make multi-part multipose model kits is simply that you need to have clear cuts to do it
and this something GW designers are now avoiding as best as they can

like the good old gab between shoulder and arm you get if the arm is free to pose

GW does not make gaming models for their wargames but display models for collectors
hence why they don't assume that anyone will ever buy enough of the same to care about duplicates

the big problem now is that those designs take over into rules

I think the most obvious tell is GW themselves back in the 2nd-5th ed era they encouraged kit bashing to the point they even had a bits service. when they killed that as well as giving C&Ds to shops there were piecing out kits to do it themselves the direction became kind of obviouse. but then GW has moved far away from it's roots as a game company by gamers for gamers to a big corporate model maker first (their words) that happens to have a game attached to their models. as for poses one doesn't have to look far at how they moved away from the mono pose 2nd early 3rd



to more dynamic poses from late 3rd-7th



and

pro-
dynamic models
excellent terrain, though you must grab them relatively soon or they go OOP
getting into main stream
influx of new players/interest after getting into main stream

con-
harder to convert models, change pose unless you're a pro
over zealous about their IP, they're a hypocrite
higher cost
unorganized rules(how many books do I need to play a game?, where is Guilliman when we need him most!)
lost of old WD flavor where there are battle reports, conversions, gold daemon competition; for a time it was just printed images for a few years, don't know about current

Extra con: Their efforts to make absolutely sure you can't use minis from other companies in their game also mean I can't buy GW minis to use in other games as easily as I used to be able to (this is more a problem with fantasy than 40k).

I have to say intercesors are a bad example of this. Is exxtremely easy to just give them arms from old marines that completely change the pose.

The only loss from tácticals to intercesors was the separation of torso and legs. And one just has to look at tácticals legs poses to see thats no lose at all.

TBH this is worse in aos. At least most 40k kits have variety of heads etc...

 Galas wrote:
I have to say intercesors are a bad example of this. Is exxtremely easy to just give them arms from old marines that completely change the pose.

The only loss from tácticals to intercesors was the separation of torso and legs. And one just has to look at tácticals legs poses to see thats no lose at all.

TBH this is worse in aos. At least most 40k kits have variety of heads etc...

See that pointing intercessor in the middle?


He is from the ETB set that also has been part of the conquest magazine multiple times and appears in all sorts of paint sets.

I swear, playing against intercessors here essentially feels like this:

I do think going from multipose kits to monopose kits was a serious step backwards.

However, I'd be willing to tolerate it if GW would at least give us some nice mutlipose kits for characters, backed up by a decent number of wargear options (not just Relics).

The aforementioned Exalted Sorcerers of Tzeentch kit is a great example of what I'd like to see and probably sets the bar.

Instead, however, we seem to be increasingly seeing character kits that are just as monopose as the special character kits (sometimes even more so), which then get most or all of their wargear options removed as a result. And IMO the latter is just as important as the former, if not more. I can, after all, convert a character model if the existing one(s) don't suit. But it's a great deal harder to create rules for wargear that no longer exists.

Stick me in the "monopose is bad" boat. I love kitbashing and reposing stuff. Honestly if I could still do it easily I'd probably still be playing the game. That said the issue of prices raises its ugly head again and I just can't afford to buy multiple kits to turn 30 monopose models into 10 dynamic ones.

Monopose is good for starting kits to help new players and get them actually playing.

But that is where they should stay.

For me, it depends on the kit. I've built 'golden age of reposing' armies like dark eldar and harlequins, as well as 'monopose' armies like idoneth deepkin.

If a kit is monopose but provides me with more meat as a converter - i.e., different body types, drastically different torso positions, drastically different arm positions, then I prefer that to a multipose kit where you're hard-limited by the fact that all the legs and torsos are in the exact same position and there's only so many ways to hold a weapon. The kabalite warrior kit, for example, all the miniatures are standing, and theyre all holding guns in two hands. theres only so many subtle variations of that you can do.

The Namarti Thralls kit, by contrast, is one of those 'each model has 1-2 preset arm setups, with a couple of points of true freedom, usually head and some accessory.

But the Namarti Thralls kit comes with two drastically different body types (male and female models) and a wide variety of different walking and standing poses. Additionally one of the two points of true freedom in the kit is kind of a tassel thing hanging off their collars, which allows you to indicate the motion of the model you're posing. Also, the weapons the models are equipped with range from halberds, battleaxes, spears, swords, big glaives, etc rather than just one single type of weapon you swing one single way. Even some of the totally monopose models, like one taking a big, sideways swing with a two-handed weapon, are just so evocative and awesome that you can easily replace the weapon with one that looks totally different, swap the head and swap the tassel around to create a completely different looking figure. With one tassel and the default axe, you've got a figure just finishing the backswing of a motion trying to chop somebody in half. With a different tassel, a head looking the other way, and the wapon reversed, the model is now winding up for a swing. With another different tassel and the head of the weaon changed out again, you've got a model that's getting ready to thrust a spear.

It does take more effort to repose them - you have to do more than just take arm A and attach to torso B to make a different looking model - but you're able to get much, much more fundamentally distinct looking poses, and I happily kitbashed an extra set of every single generic idoneth character using spare bits from the other kits as well as 40 completely distinct, noticeably different namarti.

When GW locks a special weapon - like the aforementioned Scion plasma gun - to a single pose, that does suck absolute ass. And when a model you need to have a ton of just has a highly limited, distinctive pose, I do hate that. And I definitely do not get quite as many easily reuseable bits from my more recent model kits than from older ones. But I don't think it's fair to say GW is actually regressing, just because back in the 'golden age' most armies still had a significant portion of their units in really truly monopose kits.

I can be annoyed as much as I like by the limited poseability of, say, the Wrack kit (which I hate) but I can't say it's not better than the previous wrack kit...which was finecast and totally completely monopose. Similarly would I rather try to get distinct poses out of two boxes of the new Incubi than two boxes of the old Incubi? Yeah, every day of the week, I actually CAN get new poses from the new incubi.

I will say that converting is harder for me, but not because of the poses. It is because of how the kits come.

If you buy a Guard Squad, everything just kinda is obvious what it does.

If you buy a Blissbarb Archer squad, they essentially come powdered. There are bits that are literally incomprehensible until you find where in the directions it says to use them.

Both of these are horde boxes for their respective armies.

Blissbarb Archers undeniably look cooler "stock" then guardsmen, but converting a mini where any given bit might be structural or not and even what that bit IS is a mystery is much more difficult.

Yes we seem to be stuck in a weird transition from too many wargear options (in practice only a handful were worth it), to too few. With different kits getting nonsensical limitations. My favourite is my deathwatch - I can't use my chainsword guys in kill team because there it isn't on the kit so can't be a wargear option, but because in 40k its thought you might use the regular kit, it is...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I will say that converting is harder for me, but not because of the poses. It is because of how the kits come.

If you buy a Guard Squad, everything just kinda is obvious what it does.

If you buy a Blissbarb Archer squad, they essentially come powdered. There are bits that are literally incomprehensible until you find where in the directions it says to use them.

Both of these are horde boxes for their respective armies.

Blissbarb Archers undeniably look cooler "stock" then guardsmen, but converting a mini where any given bit might be structural or not and even what that bit IS is a mystery is much more difficult.

My method is typically to take my first box, build them completely stock to find out where my points of true freedom are and then you know where you need to cut to easily modify.

See, I would so much rather convert new poses from this kit than guardsmen. I could get so many interesting alternate poses so much more easily, simply because I have fully separated limbs and open stances, while guardsmen...basically never look good, or distinct.

The biggest problem that exists in this discussion is how interchangeably people seem to use the term "multipose" for kits that are really just "multipart".

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I will say that converting is harder for me, but not because of the poses. It is because of how the kits come.

If you buy a Guard Squad, everything just kinda is obvious what it does.

If you buy a Blissbarb Archer squad, they essentially come powdered. There are bits that are literally incomprehensible until you find where in the directions it says to use them.

Both of these are horde boxes for their respective armies.

Blissbarb Archers undeniably look cooler "stock" then guardsmen, but converting a mini where any given bit might be structural or not and even what that bit IS is a mystery is much more difficult.

My method is typically to take my first box, build them completely stock to find out where my points of true freedom are and then you know where you need to cut to easily modify.

See, I would so much rather convert new poses from this kit than guardsmen. I could get so many interesting alternate poses so much more easily, simply because I have fully separated limbs and open stances, while guardsmen...basically never look good, or distinct.

See, I want to give them all guns to use them as 30k cultists. I can figure it out, but it is much more difficult than, say, adding guns to High Elf Spearmen.

*That said*, you are right, if you are after multiple boxes and are okay having an AoS unit built before you can move on to your 40k unit.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The biggest problem that exists in this discussion is how interchangeably people seem to use the term "multipose" for kits that are really just "multipart".

I think only problem the new models have is that for some armies the units look wierd. 20 "identical" intercessors, where you have to be told which has a fist or hammer, is not a problem. But having one model in five do a hand stand, when you are running 3-4 of such unit, just looks bad. Plus the what is in the box equals unit load out, that thing is a horrible idea.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The biggest problem that exists in this discussion is how interchangeably people seem to use the term "multipose" for kits that are really just "multipart".

People also mix in "interchangeable with other kits" and a bit of "no model, no rules" for extra spice.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The biggest problem that exists in this discussion is how interchangeably people seem to use the term "multipose" for kits that are really just "multipart".

I cant tell if youre using this as an opportunity to dunk on the old 'golden age' kits that are like "you can make any pose you want, as long as it's a variation on standing with your legs farther apart than your shoulders!" or the new kits that are like "we have artisanally crafted two specific poses that your aberrants can be in, they are completely different looking but totally fixed unless you're willing to get chopping."

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The biggest problem that exists in this discussion is how interchangeably people seem to use the term "multipose" for kits that are really just "multipart".

I cant tell if youre using this as an opportunity to dunk on the old 'golden age' kits that are like "you can make any pose you want, as long as it's a variation on standing with your legs farther apart than your shoulders!" or the new kits that are like "we have artisanally crafted two specific poses that your aberrants can be in, they are completely different looking but totally fixed unless you're willing to get chopping."

More dunking on the people that insist that the former are somehow superior, because "omg the heads can look whatever way you want them to!" or whatever and use "multipose" to talk about those kinds of kits while insisting newer kits are "monopose" because they're easier builds

Your method of "first box is built generic, rest are open play" is about where I've been at of late. I sold them off ages ago, but it was unbelievable how simply trimming a bit of the Cairn Wraith's arms down could make dramatically different poses for the scythes in their hands.

Honestly it isn't even the posing that bothers me, it's that the kits basically come powdered. Building minis used to be fun for me, but after building some of the new AoS kits, I actively don't want to suffer that much anymore.

Building Slickblade Seekers was suffering...

...Though they are Slaanesh so I suppose appropriate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Honestly it isn't even the posing that bothers me, it's that the kits basically come powdered. Building minis used to be fun for me, but after building some of the new AoS kits, I actively don't want to suffer that much anymore.

Building Slickblade Seekers was suffering...

...Though they are Slaanesh so I suppose appropriate.

I'll be honest I don't really know what you mean by 'powdered.' Personally I'll take 'it isnt exactly clear to me how to assemble each model' over trying to figure out which melon-fething god damn shoulder-to-wrist arm segment even comes close to lining up properly with which arm-with-a-gun-with-a-sculpted-on-hand and whether I've got the wrong one or if I'm just not supposed to be rotating it as far as I am, and it's intended to be posed as "holding the gun down at the waist" rather than "holding the gun in a firing position."

Current assembly can be confused and a bit unintuitive - what exactly am I looking at here, is this "part of a shoulder to half of a limb"? how should I rotate this? but once you've got it figured out, the actual gluing part generally goes off without a hitch because gw these days tends to favor having models that almost, but not quite, assemble completely dry, so add a little glue and they essentially go together instantly.

Since superglue is apparently some kind of non-newtonian seven dimensional superfluid that cures at some point between "instantly" and "hold the model in its intended position for a half hour, then let it go and the fething arm falls off" I can appreciate the gains from slightly illogical assembly after many a string of curses from trying to assemble wrists.

 vipoid wrote:
Instead, however, we seem to be increasingly seeing character kits that are just as monopose as the special character kits (sometimes even more so), which then get most or all of their wargear options removed as a result. And IMO the latter is just as important as the former, if not more. I can, after all, convert a character model if the existing one(s) don't suit. But it's a great deal harder to create rules for wargear that no longer exists.

The absolute nadir of this trend has to be the unit that is literally called "Captain with Master-Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle". It's not enough that you can have a Captain with Gravis Armour, who has the option to take a MC Heavy Bolt Rifle and a Power Sword. No that mono-pose model has its own entry in the Codex.

Now don't get me wrong, I really like that model, but we've fallen a long way since WFB's double-HQ multi-part packs and the Space Marine Captain kit (imagine that with modern day plastics - a sprue filled with bits and options).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Instead, however, we seem to be increasingly seeing character kits that are just as monopose as the special character kits (sometimes even more so), which then get most or all of their wargear options removed as a result. And IMO the latter is just as important as the former, if not more. I can, after all, convert a character model if the existing one(s) don't suit. But it's a great deal harder to create rules for wargear that no longer exists.

The absolute nadir of this trend has to be the unit that is literally called "Captain with Master-Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle". It's not enough that you can have a Captain with Gravis Armour, who has the option to take a MC Heavy Bolt Rifle and a Power Sword. No that mono-pose model has its own entry in the Codex.

Now don't get me wrong, I really like that model, but we've fallen a long way since WFB's double-HQ multi-part packs and the Space Marine Captain kit (imagine that with modern day plastics - a sprue filled with bits and options).

I still think the full list of all bolt weapons or the Options section of the plague marine datasheet are better for inducing instantaneous linda blair projectile vomit from any human being with eyes.

but then GW has moved far away from it's roots as a game company by gamers for gamers to a big corporate model maker first (their words) that happens to have a game attached to their models.

I love how one quote from one failed CEO from years ago is now representative of all GW thinking always. lol

That quote is a relic of the Kirby era. Due to how massive a disaster that era was, they completely revamped the game to make it more fun and accessible, and have put a ton of tools in place to make better improvements faster to the game. All things they wouldn't do if they didn't care about the game.

Their financial filings still say they're a miniature company, which is obviously the truth from looking at their priorities and where their money comes from.

They just realized they need to pay a little more attention to the rules side of things, because it's the excuse that gets lots of people buying said models.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Their financial filings still say they're a miniature company, which is obviously the truth from looking at their priorities and where their money comes from.

They just realized they need to pay a little more attention to the rules side of things, because it's the excuse that gets lots of people buying said models.

The implication from the quite I referenced is that they don't care about the game at all. This is essentially what Kirby meant when he said that. It's just not true. Yeah, most of the revenue comes from the models so that's how they report - "We're a model company", but they are at least actively working to improve the game now, so backhanded comments like that just don't apply anymore. I don't always agree with what they do rules-wise, and they have a LONG way to go, but it's so much better than it ever has been in that department that I just don't get the sentiment.

The "Kirby" era never changed or ended


Roundtree was an executive at GW during that era (CFO I think?) and Kirby isn't gone. He is just his own special executive guy now. I think he is even still on the board, though not sure.