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:

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.

I'm sorry but I have zero sympathy for those who think this is a GW problem.
It's not. Model companies - GW or any other - have always made mono-pose models. Always will. Toy soldiers, cars, planes, tanks, terrain, or whatever else, in whatever scale or material.
Modeling is its own hobby. You don't like the pose? You don't like the options included in the kit? You have some unique vision? Etc.
Then get off your lazy arses & learn some modeling skills.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Not in my experience. I just put together the Dominion box and the orlocks you're talking about and it took about three hours total with minimum cleanup. Didn't see any seams on the orlocks you're talking about.

Im talking about the Orlocks from Necromunda. Not fake Orcs.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I'm having trouble with this because of the examples provided. I don't know much about the Intercessor, SoB, or Plague Marine kits, because those aren't armies I play. But I know the CSM kit. I've yet to find a combination of arms and body that doesn't work. I haven't tried everything, admittedly, but I have mixed them with arms from both the Havoc and Raptor/Warp Talons kit without problems. What combinations don't work? I'd like to give it a try.

If you have spare arms from other kits, they do work, but there are some irritating details I found personally with the new CSM kit that basically mean my CSM army is going to include 1 of the new kits and the rest of my marines are going to be alternate 3d printed versions which also fit the aesthetic of my subfaction a lot better (as still cruel and monstrous but cleaner as they're supposedly 'perfection obsessed' and with more slaaneshi mutations than the generic horns/spikes)

1) non-swappable chest plates when it would have been incredibly easy to just universalize the join right above the power armor 'belt' for all the ones that don't include tabards.

2) only one available right arm in a very distinguishable pose for the missile launcher. They could easily have included a more neutral 'arm stabilizing the missile launcher' arm in either the havoc kit or csm kit, but chose not to - all rocket launcher armed CSMs will either be holding a knife out, or holding a spare rocket out

3) the 'jumping off a rock at an angle' torso seems like it'd be pretty darn distinctive regardless of how you built it.

4) the inclusion of only 6 chainswords/pistols in a kit that can theoretically be built purely as a melee unit is quite annoying

Otherwise, though, the basic chaos space marines kit is honestly the best one out of all the new chaos kits. Certainly better than 'zero spare options' havocs and terminators that have to have zany weaponry and only come with 1 of the basic loadout.

Can't disagree with any of this. The missile launcher arm designs are just odd. The lack of enough basic equipment for an entire squad is aggravating. But most of all I find the fact that gw, once again, decided to make all CSM look like Black Legion infuriating. Lots of Terror Squad heads and custom shoulder pads helps, but still "too much bling". But they do still have options. Unlike, as you point out, Havocs and Terminators. Which is one of the reasons I use Cataphractii and Tartaros for my Terminators.

...I mean once again I have to point out that the variations between military units in a totalitarian empire that views any deviance from tradition heresy would probably be relatively slight, yet we have had I believe 8 different full plastic kits for bolter-armed loyalist firstborn marines, not even counting the *technically distinct* boltgun armed primaris units....

And usually not even an upgrade sprue available for such factions as:

-a bunch of alien mutants who try to foment revolutions in ANY human working-class society, nope, they allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll look like miners, SPECIFICALLY miners and NOTHING else ever
-a bunch of crazy fungus hooligans who pop up out of the ground, grab *whatever they can find* and try to use it to smash and destroy anyone nearby
-insane, decadent dilettantes from a millennia old ancient empire known for hedonistically indulging in extreme body modification, nope all those guys look the same
-warp-mutated marines scattered across time and space who could be recent renegades or barely recognizable gibbering mutants

Again, not sure about the other factions you mention (but making ALL GSC miners is particularly egregious), but for CSM they could have just done the old Heresy era armour marks with some details to show that they were very old, a bit patched up, and a little bit "Chaosy" and allowed the models to be made to look more "Slaaneshy" or "Night Lordy" or whatever with what you add yourself. But instead it's lots of Chaos Stars, trim, and chainmail. So you start with "Black Legion" and have to work your way back. But that's been typical of everything gw has done for CSM since the 4th edition CSM codex, be it models or rules.

But a lot of people just want to play the game, and it is not always a looks problem either. Some of those dynamic posed models are just hard to transport. Specially if you are using public transportation or a bike.

I can't count the number of times people playing different armies cursing out their models breaking from transport.

There is also a cost thing. I don't like the flame thing on Crow sword. If I were to replace the sword I have to buy a box of models or a whole single model, just to replace the weapon. The models should be sleak and easy to build, and not look wierd. And if someone is so inclined they can do the hobby stuff and cut, sculpt and move stuff around. The start shouldn't be, we will make a wierd model with as many things thrown at it as possible, make it hard to recast and we will intreduce it for line troopers too, and then people can deal with the fact that every 5th model in 4-6 units they have does the same dynamic back flip.

I don't think it'd change my mind one way or the other. The rules are already leaning heavily into "no, build your models exactly according to the instructions or you can't play," making the models more mono-pose is just a follow-up to that.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Not in my experience. I just put together the Dominion box and the orlocks you're talking about and it took about three hours total with minimum cleanup. Didn't see any seams on the orlocks you're talking about.

Im talking about the Orlocks from Necromunda. Not fake Orcs.

As was I. And the hell is a fake orc?

Karol wrote:
But a lot of people just want to play the game, and it is not always a looks problem either. Some of those dynamic posed models are just hard to transport. Specially if you are using public transportation or a bike.

I can't count the number of times people playing different armies cursing out their models breaking from transport.

There is also a cost thing. I don't like the flame thing on Crow sword. If I were to replace the sword I have to buy a box of models or a whole single model, just to replace the weapon. The models should be sleak and easy to build, and not look wierd. And if someone is so inclined they can do the hobby stuff and cut, sculpt and move stuff around. The start shouldn't be, we will make a wierd model with as many things thrown at it as possible, make it hard to recast and we will intreduce it for line troopers too, and then people can deal with the fact that every 5th model in 4-6 units they have does the same dynamic back flip.

As you yourself love to say when talking about why space marines get 50% of the overall 40k model support:

Free market's gonna free market. If GW releases the new wave of necrons in 5th and people buy lots of the more dynamic units like triarch stalkers, wraiths, and canoptek spyders and less of the muted units like immortals and deathmarks, the next wave of necrons is gonna have big elaborate canoptek tripods and dynamically posed blade-wielding destroyer variants.

ccs wrote:
...I'm sorry but I have zero sympathy for those who think this is a GW problem.
It's not. Model companies - GW or any other - have always made mono-pose models. Always will. Toy soldiers, cars, planes, tanks, terrain, or whatever else, in whatever scale or material.
Modeling is its own hobby. You don't like the pose? You don't like the options included in the kit? You have some unique vision? Etc.
Then get off your lazy arses & learn some modeling skills...

To me it's a "GW problem" because of the wasted potential; other manufacturers often make mono-pose models because they're doing low-volume spin-cast stuff and they don't really have a choice. GW has shown us they can make less mono-pose things with more alternate builds and customizability in the kit (before someone starts shouting at me about old Space Marines I'll hold up the Exalted Sorcerers box as my gold standard for multi-pose; being able to re-angle parts helps, yeah, but just having more alternate options in the kit rather than giving us just the bare minimum to build these five guys in these poses is a bigger part of it, especially when the customizable kits are cheaper than the bare-minimum kits), but they've chosen to use all their vast technological prowess and model-making expertise to make slightly fancier versions of exactly what we get out of the spin-cast resin people for three times the price, which is what bugs me.

Goose LeChance wrote:

Any model where parts are cut in half, like the torsos, will have seam lines. Orlocks for example have seams running down the entire sides of their bodies because of this. As far as mold lines go; More pieces=More mold lines. It's a myth that modern sculpts hide mold lines better. New GW kits take much more time for me to clean and prep.

Seam lines are unavoidable unless they're single piece miniatures, and I'd rather have them in the armpit than across the entire body/face/legs/crotch or whatever.

I also showed

Uhhhh, but Orlocks are not jigsaw puzzle assemblies. Their torsos are front/back style halves... like the Tactical Marines I bought in 2002... or like the GSC kits people often praise as one of the last great customizable kits.

You were also given piece counts that illustrate how jigsaw assemblies do not have more pieces than older models.

Free tip, btw: when you're gluing pieces like Orlock torsos, and using plastic cement, intentionally overglue the seam join and let the overflow squeeze out when you press the pieces together. Let that dry (8+ hours), and you can slice off the overflow bead with very little effort, leaving yourself with a (literal!) seamless join. This is a technique more people should be using more often, because it often saves you from having to do post-assembly gap-filling with another product.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
...As was I. And the hell is a fake orc?

Some people don't like the Dominion Orcs because they're not proportioned like traditional WHFB Orcs. (I say screw 'em, the Dominion Orcs are the first Orc minis from anyone I've bought on purpose.)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Let's just get this out of the way...

GW Mono-Pose Stages of Acceptance:

1. "You're crazy! Nothing had changed. They're not mono-pose!"
2. "So what if they are monopose? They're not that posable now, so it's not that big a difference!" <==Cheex
3. "We like it because they're dynamic and the old ones were bad anyway!" <==Alex Troy, Daedalus81
4. "No options and nonposable is actually better for everyone/the game/etc.!"
5. "It's just nostalgia/rose-tinted glasses that you think they were posable/easy to convert!"
6. "You should be thankful there are even options at all!"

I can update this as the thread progresses.

Monopose with no options is better for the game.

Warmachine had no unit customization at all and the models only fit together one way, and that meant no trap options in a kit and no worries about wysiwyg. It meant Privateer Press had fewer things to worry about getting point-balanced correctly and more time to focus on making a tightly worded, tactically deep system that was fun to play, and the end result was a better game.

Some of the things I personally like best about 8th and 9th are things that you could reasonably argue they borrowed from Warmachine.

 Altruizine wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:

Any model where parts are cut in half, like the torsos, will have seam lines. Orlocks for example have seams running down the entire sides of their bodies because of this. As far as mold lines go; More pieces=More mold lines. It's a myth that modern sculpts hide mold lines better. New GW kits take much more time for me to clean and prep.

Seam lines are unavoidable unless they're single piece miniatures, and I'd rather have them in the armpit than across the entire body/face/legs/crotch or whatever.

Uhhhh, but Orlocks are not jigsaw puzzle assemblies. Their torsos are front/back style halves... like the Tactical Marines I bought in 2002... or like the GSC kits people often praise as one of the last great customizable kits.

You were also given piece counts that illustrate how jigsaw assemblies do not have more pieces than older models.

Free tip, btw: when you're gluing pieces like Orlock torsos, and using plastic cement, intentionally overglue the seam join and let the overflow squeeze out when you press the pieces together. Let that dry (8+ hours), and you can slice off the overflow bead with very little effort, leaving yourself with a (literal!) seamless join. This is a technique more people should be using more often, because it often saves you from having to do post-assembly gap-filling with another product.

They are torso + legs, some have a separate leg. The seams run down the sides of the vests and into the crotch. The point is that they are cut up like jigsaw pieces and fit together one way.

Cleaning seam lines removes them? Thanks for the hot tip. You can clean the seam lines at the arms too, now that we've solved that mystery can we have modular kits again?

 the_scotsman wrote:


As you yourself love to say when talking about why space marines get 50% of the overall 40k model support:

Free market's gonna free market. If GW releases the new wave of necrons in 5th and people buy lots of the more dynamic units like triarch stalkers, wraiths, and canoptek spyders and less of the muted units like immortals and deathmarks, the next wave of necrons is gonna have big elaborate canoptek tripods and dynamically posed blade-wielding destroyer variants.

Very possible. But prior GK models didn't have wierd flames on their swords, yet GW decided to add it to the Crow model. And of course in the end looks get trumped by how efficient stuff is. Doesn't change the fact that for someone who doesn't play in events, having to deal with something like GW flight stands is not a good thing to expiriance. Or models snaping off, because someone decided to make a model dynamic.

That is why I really like how models like regular or assault intercessors look like. No wierd stuff on them. And even the marine stuff with extra stuff are okey, like the blade guards.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I'm sorry but I have zero sympathy for those who think this is a GW problem.
It's not. Model companies - GW or any other - have always made mono-pose models. Always will. Toy soldiers, cars, planes, tanks, terrain, or whatever else, in whatever scale or material.
Modeling is its own hobby. You don't like the pose? You don't like the options included in the kit? You have some unique vision? Etc.
Then get off your lazy arses & learn some modeling skills...

To me it's a "GW problem" because of the wasted potential; other manufacturers often make mono-pose models because they're doing low-volume spin-cast stuff and they don't really have a choice. GW has shown us they can make less mono-pose things with more alternate builds and customizability in the kit (before someone starts shouting at me about old Space Marines I'll hold up the Exalted Sorcerers box as my gold standard for multi-pose; being able to re-angle parts helps, yeah, but just having more alternate options in the kit rather than giving us just the bare minimum to build these five guys in these poses is a bigger part of it, especially when the customizable kits are cheaper than the bare-minimum kits), but they've chosen to use all their vast technological prowess and model-making expertise to make slightly fancier versions of exactly what we get out of the spin-cast resin people for three times the price, which is what bugs me.

Aye. When you consider the absolute lack of options in the new Chaos Lord and Sorcerer kits in comparison to the wealth of options available in the old Terminator Lord/Sorcerer kit for the same price, it's obvious that they can do better.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
To me it's a "GW problem" because of the wasted potential; other manufacturers often make mono-pose models because they're doing low-volume spin-cast stuff and they don't really have a choice. GW has shown us they can make less mono-pose things with more alternate builds and customizability in the kit (before someone starts shouting at me about old Space Marines I'll hold up the Exalted Sorcerers box as my gold standard for multi-pose; being able to re-angle parts helps, yeah, but just having more alternate options in the kit rather than giving us just the bare minimum to build these five guys in these poses is a bigger part of it, especially when the customizable kits are cheaper than the bare-minimum kits), but they've chosen to use all their vast technological prowess and model-making expertise to make slightly fancier versions of exactly what we get out of the spin-cast resin people for three times the price, which is what bugs me.

This. GW's monopose models aren't a result of technical limitations or small production scale. They are a conscious choice by the company... a wrong turn that they took after years of producing models that had just the right level of customizability and "kitbashability". F*ck outta here with the "Hey it's better than it used to be back in the nineties!" argument. We should expect things to move forward, or at least not backwards.

"Even customizable models end up looking the same!" some have said. Perhaps, but the trend towards highly dynamic poses only exacerbates the monopose issue. When two models are performing the same acrobatic leap, their sameness is a lot more obvious than if they were just walking while holding their guns. I don't mind it for characters, but for troopers, it's irksome.

.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:

Any model where parts are cut in half, like the torsos, will have seam lines. Orlocks for example have seams running down the entire sides of their bodies because of this. As far as mold lines go; More pieces=More mold lines. It's a myth that modern sculpts hide mold lines better. New GW kits take much more time for me to clean and prep.

Seam lines are unavoidable unless they're single piece miniatures, and I'd rather have them in the armpit than across the entire body/face/legs/crotch or whatever.

Uhhhh, but Orlocks are not jigsaw puzzle assemblies. Their torsos are front/back style halves... like the Tactical Marines I bought in 2002... or like the GSC kits people often praise as one of the last great customizable kits.

You were also given piece counts that illustrate how jigsaw assemblies do not have more pieces than older models.

Free tip, btw: when you're gluing pieces like Orlock torsos, and using plastic cement, intentionally overglue the seam join and let the overflow squeeze out when you press the pieces together. Let that dry (8+ hours), and you can slice off the overflow bead with very little effort, leaving yourself with a (literal!) seamless join. This is a technique more people should be using more often, because it often saves you from having to do post-assembly gap-filling with another product.

They are torso + legs, some have a separate leg. The seams run down the sides of the vests and into the crotch. The point is that they are cut up like jigsaw pieces and fit together one way.

Cleaning seam lines removes them? Thanks for the hot tip. You can clean the seam lines at the arms too, now that we've solved that mystery can we have modular kits again?

You sounded like you needed help. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

-Guardsman- wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
To me it's a "GW problem" because of the wasted potential; other manufacturers often make mono-pose models because they're doing low-volume spin-cast stuff and they don't really have a choice. GW has shown us they can make less mono-pose things with more alternate builds and customizability in the kit (before someone starts shouting at me about old Space Marines I'll hold up the Exalted Sorcerers box as my gold standard for multi-pose; being able to re-angle parts helps, yeah, but just having more alternate options in the kit rather than giving us just the bare minimum to build these five guys in these poses is a bigger part of it, especially when the customizable kits are cheaper than the bare-minimum kits), but they've chosen to use all their vast technological prowess and model-making expertise to make slightly fancier versions of exactly what we get out of the spin-cast resin people for three times the price, which is what bugs me.

This. GW's monopose models aren't a result of technical limitations or small production scale. They are a conscious choice by the company... a wrong turn that they took after years of producing models that had just the right level of customizability and "kitbashability". F*ck outta here with the "Hey it's better than it used to be back in the nineties!" argument. We should expect things to move forward, or at least not backwards.

"Even customizable models end up looking the same!" some have said. Perhaps, but the trend towards highly dynamic poses only exacerbates the monopose issue. When two models are performing the same acrobatic leap, their sameness is a lot more obvious than if they were just walking while holding their guns. I don't mind it for characters, but for troopers, it's irksome.

.

A wrong turn? Any evidence to support that? I see only increasing profits for GW, which would suggest to me they made the right turn...

I think there's always been a mix of multi-pose and mono-pose kits across the various ranges. I don't know really whether this has become better or worse over time. I remember a lot of the old second edition minis being terribly mono-pose for example, but at the same time, completely get the argument that a lot of kits today are limited in terms of options, sans modelling and converting skills on the part of the hobbyist.

I suspect a lot of this is economic in a sense? GW want to sell us miniatures, they make many which are very appealing and have some talented individuals designing them. I think often, it's probably quicker and easier to limit the options available to the consumer in that design process? They release something that most people think looks great, because it's designed and pre-posed by a pro, and job done. It sells, and it's less of a headache to have to plan additional options within the kit.

GW's plastic Imperial Knight kit for example, is terribly mono-pose from the waist down. You can articulate it at the waist, move the head and arms some, but otherwise it's entire static unless you're willing and able to take a hobby saw to a £100 model. Compare that to the design of FW's Cerastus Knight kits. Just about every element of those is posable - right down to the fingers and 'toes'. It's far harder to assemble in comparison due to this, but you really can appreciate the greater amount of planning and thought that must have gone into this aspect of it's design.

Design isn't just aesthetic, it's also about the way a kit can be assembled. I think there's often corner cutting by GW in this aspect. Anyone that's ever put together one of Bandai's higher end model kits for example, can tell you how beautifully executed they are in this manner. They generally don't even require glue - they fit together flawlessly, and with really elegant and obvious thought about hiding the joins and purely structural parts of the model.

I see those dominion orks as quadrupedial rather than bipedal.


The thing about "monopose" stuff is if you take the tacticus armoured marines, there is something like 23ish(I think) different poses spread across a bunch of sources. DI intercessors & hellblasters, Indomitus, reg boxes and etb minis. Which is enuff to spread them around into different squads.
The unfortunate thing is that for the rest of the factions, they dont have the depth/variety of "new" sculpts. When they do, you get the CSM, Ork, Guard situation where they're thrown a bone now and then. Thing is, it's not the bone anyone wants. Even when eldar players got Howling Banshees/exarch + deldar got incubi & Drazhar it was very backhanded. Like ha-ha funny, not funny funny.

 Altruizine wrote:

Jigsaw puzzle assemblies *hide* seams.

Not true at all. 5 minutes on several GW themed subs on Reddit will show you that.

Loads and loads of new GW kits with obvious seams that need filling.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

Jigsaw puzzle assemblies *hide* seams.

Not true at all. 5 minutes on several GW themed subs on Reddit will show you that.

Loads and loads of new GW kits with obvious seams that need filling.

It is true. You read the claim "jigsaw puzzle assemblies hide seams" but you seem to be responding to the claim "jigsaw puzzle assemblies hide all seams" (which you self-generated).

As long as we are building multi-part models, there are going to be seams. There are fewer on jigsaw designs than on old designs.

 Altruizine wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

Jigsaw puzzle assemblies *hide* seams.

Not true at all. 5 minutes on several GW themed subs on Reddit will show you that.

Loads and loads of new GW kits with obvious seams that need filling.

It is true. You read the claim "jigsaw puzzle assemblies hide seams" but you seem to be responding to the claim "jigsaw puzzle assemblies hide all seams" (which you self-generated).

As long as we are building multi-part models, there are going to be seams. There are fewer on jigsaw designs than on old designs.

If you say so mate, I've seen plenty of new kits with glaring seams quite visible. Contrast paints hide nothing.

Some quite egregious ones on the DI Plague Marines. But those don't exist, right?

I miss some of the poseability, but tbh I feel the new models look much better (for the most part) than older ones.

Some of that is down to improved tech allowing for crisper details, some is down to the actual model design itself (Primaris look better than stock Firstborn), and some is that the reduced modularity gives the designers more abilities to make a model look more natural and cohesive.

That said, I do have some pet peeves. I don't like the way that so many models have terrain built into their bases where real work is required to put them on a plain base, I don't like having truly monopole models with 'look at me' poses (though I don't mind it with neutral poses), and I don't like when basic troops are designed with each having a completely unique assembly where it's not really possible to modify them without completely rebuilding the model from scratch.

Intercessors are absolutely fine for troops, Blightlords are fine for Terminators, and basically every character model GW make are fine (at least, as far as variability is concerned).

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

Jigsaw puzzle assemblies *hide* seams.

Not true at all. 5 minutes on several GW themed subs on Reddit will show you that.

Loads and loads of new GW kits with obvious seams that need filling.

It is true. You read the claim "jigsaw puzzle assemblies hide seams" but you seem to be responding to the claim "jigsaw puzzle assemblies hide all seams" (which you self-generated).

As long as we are building multi-part models, there are going to be seams. There are fewer on jigsaw designs than on old designs.

If you say so mate, I've seen plenty of new kits with glaring seams quite visible. Contrast paints hide nothing.

Some quite egregious ones on the DI Plague Marines. But those don't exist, right?

I've never assembled them. They're easy-to-builds, right? Most ETB kits will have gaps unless you de-ETB them by trimming or removing the alignment pegs.

I've also seen plenty of new kits with seams. Nobody has said we live in a perfect seam-free paradise now. What you should be looking for, if you want to buttress your point, isn't new jigsaw kits that have seams, but rather old, non-jigsaw kits, with the same approximate level of bodily complexity + detail as a comparable new kits, that *do not* have seams.

I thought this thread was about some of the gakky poses they give character models. Huh.

Didn't realise this was a thing with the multi-part plastic primaris squads. :/ That was the wonderful thing about old SM/CSM (and any variants), you could just mix everything easy. While this doesn't stop converting entirely, it does extra steps which could be irritating. However, cutting stuff with a saw and gap filling with putty isn't too bad. Obviously if this gets worse then it gets harder to convert and more involved so fewer people might try and so less variety in armies.

Edit: gotta saw I hated the primarus character and necron in w/e the recent 40k "start collecting" magazine. Ended up cutting off all the push-fits as they ended up giving massive gaps.

Rihgu wrote:
...A wrong turn? Any evidence to support that? I see only increasing profits for GW, which would suggest to me they made the right turn...

Obviously the only possible data point for whether the game's improving or not is its profitability. The fact that it has a vastly greater marketing budget than anything else in the industry has nothing to do with it, and the fact that it's been very successful at rebranding itself as an accessible entry point into minis games is entirely because of decisions that cut down on game balance and player choice, there'd be no way for the game to be more open and more accessible.

We all know GW's profits are increasing. That doesn't mean that every single thing they do is the sole cause of their profits increasing and changing anything would kill the magic super-formula of bloat, more Space Marine releases, loss of player choice, increasing abstraction, increasing push to tournament-centric design, and soft-squatting old models so they can get us to tell each other to buy new models instead of saying "oh, we're discontinuing (X), but you can replace it with (Y)!" themselves that all compose the entire reason people like 40k.

 Boringstuff wrote:

Didn't realise this was a thing with the multi-part plastic primaris squads. :/

What was?

That was the wonderful thing about old SM/CSM (and any variants), you could just mix everything easy.

You still can with the primaris. Literally the only thing is different is that the legs and torso are one piece so that the abdomen doesn't look like crap if the torso is not facing the same direction than the legs.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
They could give the humans that same detail now without sacrificing the modularity.

In options maybe, not in poses. You can't have fancy poses and mix-and-match sprues, or the poses make no sense and the muscles don't line up. It was not an issue with early models with low detail, but it's much more noticeable with higher definition sculpts.

Yeah, I mean, we had dynamic poses before, it's not like the detail is better in plastic. Why can't we just go back to beautiful models like this?

One of my favs and beyaaahtch to customise… use as an exarch now.

 Crimson wrote:

 Boringstuff wrote:

Didn't realise this was a thing with the multi-part plastic primaris squads. :/

What was?

The mono-pose.

That was the wonderful thing about old SM/CSM (and any variants), you could just mix everything easy.

You still can with the primaris. Literally the only thing is different is that the legs and torso are one piece so that the abdomen doesn't look like crap if the torso is not facing the same direction than the legs.

At the moment. Obviously swapping a primaris legs onto a normal marine chest might look off... XD But still there is some benefit to being able to rotate/tilt the torso a bit when making the pose of your model.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
...A wrong turn? Any evidence to support that? I see only increasing profits for GW, which would suggest to me they made the right turn...

Obviously the only possible data point for whether the game's improving or not is its profitability. The fact that it has a vastly greater marketing budget than anything else in the industry has nothing to do with it, and the fact that it's been very successful at rebranding itself as an accessible entry point into minis games is entirely because of decisions that cut down on game balance and player choice, there'd be no way for the game to be more open and more accessible.

I mean that is how we've chosen to organize our entire society, so dunno what to tell ya. We give the most power and capability to produce things to the companies that make the most profitable products.

The best movies are the ones designed by a focus group to strategically appeal to and be understood by audiences in every single country (but especially asia and the united states) and which have the most recognizable actors playing the most recognizable characters that you know.

The best music is the music you can easily predict the lines to upon first listening and which is designed to get stuck in your head.

The best video games are the ones that use the psychological concepts of skinner boxes to produce seratonin, ideally when the consumer makes small purchases using real-world currency.

The best tabletop games are the ones that convince the most people to buy new armies the most often.

Simple as that. Don't complain about any flaws in that system or that's politics.