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.

 alextroy wrote:
The inability to kit-bash or make micro-adjustment with no effort is greatly offset with the quality of the models in both esthetics and ease of assembly.

I agree with the first part. Monopose models have the major advantage of allowing more realistic dynamic poses. I massively disagree with the second part of that sentence. Multipose models were so much easier to assemble en masse because you just clipped out and cleaned up all the individual bits then assembled as you saw fit. Monopose requires you to keep track of each exact piece and all too often with GW models leads to tiny pieces being needed in hard-to-reach areas. Assembling Flayed Ones feels like some meta commentary on the nature of madness with how many fiddly little pieces you need to glue to barely visible contact points.

On balance I prefer multipose. Monopose have the additional problem that some armies just need lots of models and after a while the same 5 models over and over again look weird. It wasn't as bad in WHFB because those models tended to be in big blocks so individual models weren't as prominent on the table and a certain amount of uniformity was desirable. Yes, multipose models could all look uninspiring if assembled in the way the instructions suggested but in my experience the vast majority of people did about 1-2 squads that way then started experimenting because it was so easy to do. Just little changes here and there could give a squad character and make them uniquely yours. Conversions are still possible with monopose kits but they're a lot more difficult to do and still more restrictive.

Don't care. Never enjoyed kitbashing, never bothered with conversions much, there is no loss for me there.

Realistically it doesn't matter, GW once again priced me out of their range with the last 2 years of regular price increases.

Doesn't matter. The community will adjust. Converting isn't like learning to design microprocessors from scratch

Bago wrote:
I have no problem with most of the modern kits and think, you can adjust even the dynamic poses with kitbashes and stuff so they dont all look the same. The one thing, I am really annoyed by though is the Plasmagun in the Scions kit. There is NO easy way, to have any variety in your plasma gunners whatsoever. They all will be pointing and keeping the plasma gun casual at their side.

THAT depends upon your modeling skills.
Maybe all of your Scion plasma gunners will look alike, but mine would not.

ccs wrote:

Bago wrote:
I have no problem with most of the modern kits and think, you can adjust even the dynamic poses with kitbashes and stuff so they dont all look the same. The one thing, I am really annoyed by though is the Plasmagun in the Scions kit. There is NO easy way, to have any variety in your plasma gunners whatsoever. They all will be pointing and keeping the plasma gun casual at their side.

THAT depends upon your modeling skills.
Maybe all of your Scion plasma gunners will look alike, but mine would not.

But it does highlight the problem with "dynamic posing" pretty starkly.

Aye, but it's a fair cop that it requires greater modelling skill than previously, and it's okay to be a bit put out by that.

I think there's also "good monopose" and "bad monopose". Monopose is fine for stuff you're only going to have one or maybe two of in your army, or if the poses are relatively "neutral". But if you're going to have a lot of them, the repeated over the top "dynamic" poses will not look as good.
Tbh this is of a piece with a general trend in the wider wargaming hobby to make miniatures look really good for online videos or pictures, but not so great for actual table top play.

The current Kill Team models are supposed to be monopose, but can still be magnetised to switch options.
Kitbashes can still be done, and converstions just as much. Not as easily as before, but there is more variety of pose now.

Monoposability is a spectrum and the degree to which it's tolerable or desirable also depends on the unit.

Intercessors I think are fine.
They're basic troops in fairly neutral poses/aesthetics. No one's looking too closely and repetitions don't stick out anyway.
They have enough variation on the arms and head to give a good unit.
Arguably this is the ideal, fused legs/torsos don't really reduce overall number of poses but do allow for more natural poses with better sculpted detail like cloth.

Howling Banshees are how not to do it.
They're elite troops that will draw attention to themselves. They're in very dynamic poses. Repetition sticks out and looks bad.

Ork Boys are also how not to do it. In an army who's number 1 theme is being cobbled together and disorganised, it's going to look incredibly dumb when every unit has the same Nob, the same Big Shoota, etc etc.
They may be grunts so people won't look too closely, but those are very distinct elements who's repetition will be easily noticed and completely out of place in the army.

But twenty five years ago the metal models were monopose, so it's fine that we're now regressing back towards that point!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
But twenty five years ago the metal models were monopose, so it's fine that we're now regressing back towards that point!

It's only regression if you consider "wiggle the arms around a little" multipose a step up.
That being said, I'd gladly go back to one or two-piece models but with modern sculpting quality so I'm clearly in minority.

ccs wrote:

Bago wrote:
I have no problem with most of the modern kits and think, you can adjust even the dynamic poses with kitbashes and stuff so they dont all look the same. The one thing, I am really annoyed by though is the Plasmagun in the Scions kit. There is NO easy way, to have any variety in your plasma gunners whatsoever. They all will be pointing and keeping the plasma gun casual at their side.

THAT depends upon your modeling skills.
Maybe all of your Scion plasma gunners will look alike, but mine would not.

Oh, I dont say its impossible. I say, given the kit and the way of the plasma gun arm, it is not as easy as, e.g. clipping a boltpistol hand off and switch it for a plasmapistol hand.

Whilst I agree that I liked being able to pose the minis in different ways, and with different weapon load outs of my choice, I also agree the current range of models are far superior and more dynamic.
What I wish is that GW could mesh their current high quality minis with the ability to be fully pose able. Or at the very least for troops or units you'll likely use multiples of.
I suspect the reason they don't do this is as ever down to money.

Don't know about you, but the best looking minis to me are almost exclusively kitbashes or conversions, where several model's bits have been made into a new whole. That will always be the gold standard, regardless whether a monopose or multipart mini bits were used.

Rank & file is always going to look like rank & file. See enough armies of that same faction, and the repetitive silhouettes will become boring regardless of monopose/multipart aspects. It's always going to be tedious coming up with fresh looking units.

I played warmachine for over ten years. Ditto for infinity. More or less monopose models across the board and limited # of sculpts. Loads of fond memories of those games and some of my favourite models I've worked on - for cb theirs are some of the best in the industry.

If gw said 'never again will we do the 'classic' modular approach' I'd be OK with it. I love the new kits, love the dynamic posing. Oh and monopole doesn't stop conversions. I've been in this hobby for 20 years. If I want to covert/kit bash, I have the skills to do it and make it look good.

 Altruizine wrote:

I think a lot of the bitter old-timers who complain about this are just coping with losing the easy endorphin rush of feeling like they "converted" or "customized" something (by mixing pieces from multiple kits in the most superficial, by-design manner possible, in combinations that were almost certainly reproduced by other players elsewhere in the world doing the same thing).

Sure, of course. That's the only possible reason.

I like the new monopose minis. I just don't like them to make armies, even less so big armies like orks or IG. They're great to have a small set of characterful minis.

Then again, I have 3d printing and Patreons for that. I usually want HIPS minis for the customization. The less customizable they are, the less inclined I am to buy them. Particularly at the prices GW asks for.

OTOH, I am really happy with the three different Stargrave boxes I bought, and those costed me about as much as a newish GW box, so...

Cronch wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
But twenty five years ago the metal models were monopose, so it's fine that we're now regressing back towards that point!

It's only regression if you consider "wiggle the arms around a little" multipose a step up.

Nobody with an above room temperature IQ considers 'wiggle the arms around a little' to be multipose.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
But twenty five years ago the metal models were monopose, so it's fine that we're now regressing back towards that point!

It's only regression if you consider "wiggle the arms around a little" multipose a step up.

Nobody with an above room temperature IQ considers 'wiggle the arms around a little' to be multipose.

By that same token, why would someone consider multipose "being able to use arms set A or B in this very specific way" but not "you can use any arm here, provided is a right arm, and wiggle it around a little"?

Because the great thing of the current ork sets is how you can use everything with everything, I think.

My issue with GW's modern models is that they are often CAD jigsaws that don't possess the same utility as most old kits for kitbashing because you don't necessarily have discrete body parts anymore. If I kitbash, I need a leg. Not half a leg and three quarters of another leg that don't even go together where they don't overlap. GW has many nice sculpts these days, but the moment I look at them as a source for a conversion, it becomes apparent how much needless extra work it'll be to base the conversion on that model. So as nice as the models may be on their own merit, that's a net loss for me over the older generation plastic models.

Aside from that I'm not overly bothered by the model design itself. I'd like to have more addon bits like pouches and stuff on the sprues, though. These things have grown sparser and they're such a simple and effective way of giving people more options for customization that it boggles the mind that GW is cutting costs here. They could actually have their beautifully sculpted, individualistic models they seem to be so proud of and still give people easy options to add a measure of change to the appearance of models that are bound to be duplicated due to army size demanding multiples of the same kit to be used. It's not even like GW doesn't recognize this. They're usually pretty solid with head options. Not so much with bits to cover the rest of the body.

I guess it does not bother me. My primary army is Craftworld and the Aspect Warriors are all mono posed, minus plastic Banshees. And I found the new Banshees to be fantastic models, though I think they would be considered mono pose by many.

I've painted @100+ Guardians over the years. I really disliked the kit as each Guardian has @ 16 pieces to assemble. I used @ 20 or so of the push fit Guardians to round out the army as the assembly of a basic Guardian took too long.

I've built and painted new Necrons and newer Primaris Marine kits (and Indomitus) and found the kits to be excellent quality.

I'll agree with you on thr bits. I'd love more grenades, pouches, holsters webbing, knives and ammo clips for my models - my Raptors would benefit tremendously. As is, I tend to hunt lots of third party stuff from Anvil or reiver bits from bits sellers to make up. Frustrating!

I voted for "I haven't bought anything GW in over 3 years", but I was referring to GW's main games, 40k and AoS/fantasy. And the correct option is actually "I haven't bought any new release from GW in over 3 years". But the correct answer that I had in mind is something like "I would keep buying older kits that I like as long as they are available".

Most recently released models I've bought were Wulfen and ork Meganobz which are 6-7 years old now. When primaris were released I bought a Land Raider, Bjorn and 3 Rhinos/Razorbacks instead. In the last few years I got Empire and Dark Elves stuff instead of new SW and ork models as WHFB 6th is still popular here and now I can also join the group. Not interested in the modern GW releases for 40k and AoS because I don't like how they look or I already have legit alternatives/count as (see Buggies and the new Kommandos, Koptas, Megaboss) and I don't play AoS.

I've bought several Necromunda kits though, which are the opposite of monopose, especially now with the new sprues of upgrades.

In conclusion my answer is NO (with the exception of Necromunda), and that's a NO even for the near future, unless GW surprises me with excellent models from The Old World. In fact I'd like to get a full 2000-2500 points (in WHFB 6th points) of Beast of Chaos and Orcs and Goblins. The former I can get right now as there's still the faction's entire roster available online, and that's 10-20 years old models we're talking about, but to get the former I have to wish for new releases as most of the roster is OOP and prices on ebay are too high. That possible old school Orc and Goblins army is exactly the only thing I'd be interested from GW new releases, probably forever. I have enough orks to keep playing 40k no matter what and I'm not interested to expand my SW collection with non firstborn models, both armies are complete.

But I'm open minded, ready to change idea if GW releases some models I'd really want to get.

It is a damn shame that third party companies like Anvil and North Star can make great multipose models (NorthStar doing it for a high degree of customisation across their whole plastic line, Anvil being the mix and match kings) for gaming and GW is both making monopose models in armies with multiple instances of each guy and making the poses less than suitable for gaming.

They did it in the past, yet seem to have embraced a halfway house between the various options.

As long as the models look good and are fun to paint then I couldn't care less.

If I really feel the itch to convert, I'll break out the knife and the greenstuff.

I’m happy with either monopose or fully customisable kits. I’d prefer customisable kits for characters rather than infantry, repetition in rank and file doesn’t bother me but I’d like for the command units to be more “my guys”.

I feel this poll needs another option; I'll buy less GW product and/or use 3rd party stuff, conversions etc to make sure my models are sufficiently unique.

I'm personally quite happy with the modern plague marine kit and by combining it with the other ETB kits, CSM and Blightking kits was able to build a collection of 42 plague marines with only 2 duplicate poses.

drbored wrote:
If every single release from GW from now on was "monopose", would you still participate in the hobby/buy the product?

For reference, by "Monopose" I mean anything from the Easy to Build kits to the current Space Marine Intercessors kit (that is, fused torso and legs, but different arm/head/weapon options).

If every kit from now on was like the Space Marine Intercessors, or the Chaos Space Marines, or the Battle Sisters from the Sisters of Battle, or the Plague Marines, would you still buy the product?

Because you choose to use this absurd and misleading definition of 'monopose', I will to say I'd gladly buy such models. The primaris marine line and SoB line are the best models I have ever worked with, they're an absolute delight to build and customise and I can't wait to see the new BT primaris kits to add more options for kitbashing. The legs ant torso being one piece doesn't bother me at all, I prefer it. Abdomen and hips of older marine models alwys looked terrible if you ried to twist them more than couple of degrees. As an artist the anatomical awkwardness bothered me a lot. With the joint setup the dynamics of the torso and legs flow naturally, making the miniature look natural and cohesive. And as there actually are a lot of different bodies to choose from, and you can completely change the look with arm and leg poses, there really won't be duplicates.

The issue here really is the bizarre effort going on Dakka to redefine 'monopose' to mean 'has no ball joint on the waist.' This is not what it means, nor what it has ever meant. Before the primaris were a thing and certain people needed to invent all sort of excuses for hating on them, were the Skitarii or GSC models ever referred as 'monopose'? I certainly don't think they were generally understood to be such. This fetishization of the hip joint is just odd and trying to intentionally distort the meanings of words is annoying and makes discussion impossible. I am sure a lot of people wouldn't be that thrilled if all models were actual monopose, i.e. like the new ork boyz (though as addition such are fine too) but truing to lump highly customisable models like primaris and SoB full kits with that is absurd. They're certainly far closer to the customisability of the old marines than the complete staticness of the new ork boyz.

GW actually currently produces monopose and multipose versions of many models. There are monopose primaris marines and SoB in certain starter kits, then there are multipose versions in separate kits. These words serve a purpose and are useful for conveying information, but if we redefine the words so that multipose models are referred as 'monopose' too, then we can no longer communicate this difference.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

What really bothers me is the "no model, no rules" thing. This game for me was always about making your own guys, kit bashing and conversions. I do not like that every single piece of wargear has been codified. I just want my gaming options back.

This.

Don't get me wrong - I definitely prefer multipose kits - but at least I can (and have) converted my own models when I want or need them.

But when the rules are just as monopose as the models, what is even the point?

 Crimson wrote:

The primaris marine line and SoB line are the best models I have ever worked with, they're an absolute delight to build and customise and I can't wait to see the new BT primaris kits to add more options for kitbashing.

Yeah, the Battle Sister kit in particular is the very opposite of monopose, it's in fact one of the most customizable kit GW ever released. Tons of different heads and arms, and bitz from other kits are also compatible. It's also worth mentioning that the Battle Sister kit was released to replace one-piece (hence, 100% monopose) metal figures.

The repetition of 5 sets of legs and torsos doesn't make the kit monopose, how many GW kit had more than 5 of those anyway? Kabalite warriors, wyches, firstborn marines, ork boyz, etc... they all have 5 legs and 5 torsos at most for kits of 10 man squads.

Deadnight wrote:
I played warmachine for over ten years. Ditto for infinity. More or less monopose models across the board and limited # of sculpts. Loads of fond memories of those games and some of my favourite models I've worked on - for cb theirs are some of the best in the industry.

In Infinity one game might have as many models as a single squad in 40k though.

Personally I don't buy modern 40k models so I don't care that much but I do dislike how their models are becoming more and more specific to how the sprue is cut. I remember I first really noticed it with that Grey Knight SC they released alongside Guilliman who had what felt like a pizza slice cut out of him that you plugged into him. Compared to how posable and customisable the other GK infantry kits are it felt kind of weird.

Quite a lot of interchangeability between marine kits now, as the line expands it gets better.

I’m currently building the new kommandos and was initially a bit frustrated with the lack of interchangeability of parts in the kit but soon as I put a model together they are that good that I am but bothered at all anymore. They are stunning and so well posed.

There were compromises made to air the kits inter-compatible with each other and likewise there are compromises to “monopose” as defined here. Right now I prefer the newer style.