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.
Id rather have resin or metal one piece models than these lame plastic ones where I have to assemble borderline monopose models (with an absurd complexity all things considered). Its the most boring part of making an army at this point.
but the reason that bits end up scattered across the sprues is that they (now) try to maximise the amount of stuff you can fit on them so you end up with a complex jigsaw of bits and sprue gates and plastic flow predictions which are not a friend of keeping right arm A with hand A etc
About as many for torturous model designs that contain many unnecessarily intricate pieces despite the kit always putting the same model out, with little to no variation, over and over again.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: but the reason that bits end up scattered across the sprues is that they (now) try to maximise the amount of stuff you can fit on them so you end up with a complex jigsaw of bits and sprue gates and plastic flow predictions which are not a friend of keeping right arm A with hand A etc
You're right about the sprue thing - that's probably even AI driven by now, getting the program to maximise the space - but they can still chose to label them correctly, even if tab A and slot B are on completely different sprues.
That's pretty accurate summary. I had to put the daemon prince aside because it was such a mess (and the pictures don't give much of a clue as to how to align the torso bits so they match)- mine _did_ collapse like an eggshell. The left leg on the tactical rock is also a bit fiddly- there isn't much of a join, just a soft shallow notch. The hands have nice big connectors though- almost as if they're from a different kit completely.
The horseshoe piece of armor that goes behind the skull kneepad was the worst (so far). So thin it split in half despite using clippers to remove it from the sprue.
As a little tip, I recommend sawing delicate bits off rather than cutting or clipping them out. That seems to put the least amount of stress on thin pieces. I start well away from the part and saw through the sprue gates where they're a bit thicker to avoid any bending or warping of the delicate piece itself. Once the part is fully removed from the sprue, I can clip or cut the remaining sprue nubs at my leisure, they no longer pose a problem once they're unconstrained by the frame.
Tool-wise, I use a hobby knife handle equipped with a small micro-saw blade about the standard no. 11 knife, they can usually reach even awkward nooks in heavily-packed GW sprues.
General Hobbs wrote: GW does not want people to be able to convert their figures anymore. At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
Technicals. You can't put any detailed model in full in plastic mouds. Undercuts. There are some workarounds but those are even more expensive to produce.
Toy soldier makers have been doing it for years. In plastic. And they cost pennies back when I was a kid.
Dude, I own ones made USING GW parts and I can guarantee you that they can't match the detail of the actual GW parts they used to make the mold.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
I don't know why they do this. There have been models that I've given up on because my eyes aren't good enough to figure out what goes where (Spirit Hosts, Dark Apostle) and other minis that have made my blood boil in how nonsensical they are to build (hello Helbrute!).
I put together 3 EZ Build Agressors last weekend. They were great. This whole jigsaw puzzle design ethos of modern kits is really unnecessary, especially given how few options there are with construction.
Did you have the original Spirit Host instructions or the Warhammer Mortal Realms magazine instructions, because the latter seems to acknowledge how horrible they are to build and gives instructions as to when to pause to let the glue dry before moving on to the next part. So, they know they are messing up with some of these models.
General Hobbs wrote: At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
Thanks for the link and yeah, definitely an issue now. Converting now is actually harder than the days of metal. First you have assemble the 12 part figure then saw it up to change weapons, heads, etc.
The other night I kit bashed a dozen Frost Grave Cultists with extra Star Grave guns, it was fun. Like actual fun. Not a chore at all.
Swastakowey wrote:Id rather have resin or metal one piece models than these lame plastic ones where I have to assemble borderline monopose models (with an absurd complexity all things considered). Its the most boring part of making an army at this point.
Yeah, GW models are the worst of both worlds. Lots of pieces yet monopose.
Likewise I actually have fun building Northstar kits
Old World Prediction: The Empire will have stupid Clockwork Paragon Warsuits and Mecha Horses
General Hobbs wrote: At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
Thanks for the link and yeah, definitely an issue now. Converting now is actually harder than the days of metal. First you have assemble the 12 part figure then saw it up to change weapons, heads, etc.
The other night I kit bashed a dozen Frost Grave Cultists with extra Star Grave guns, it was fun. Like actual fun. Not a chore at all.
Swastakowey wrote:Id rather have resin or metal one piece models than these lame plastic ones where I have to assemble borderline monopose models (with an absurd complexity all things considered). Its the most boring part of making an army at this point.
Yeah, GW models are the worst of both worlds. Lots of pieces yet monopose.
General Hobbs wrote: At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
"[T]his model is just so damn intricate. ... in just how fiddly and tight the construction can be. His torso is a smattering of seemingly unrelated fleshy shapes that all fit around a hollow void and if you don’t wait the proper amount of time for glue to dry, the whole body can collapse in on itself as nearly happened with mine. It’s kind of like building an eggshell, fragile and hollow. Each limb is 2-3 parts before the hands and feet (often another 2-3 parts) and even the most seemingly simple part of the model can take a while just to clip, clean, and glue together. His head especially was a challenge, taking something like 6-7 often extremely small pieces just to assemble. Each of his heads has multiple pieces as well, and there’s something like 3 different tongues in the kit."
"[T]he bits are scattered across the sprues in a nonlinear fashion. You may need two adjacently numbered pieces for a hand or foot or something, only to have to hunt them down and find which sprue has which piece in the sequence – so bit 17 might be on sprue A, but 18 might be on sprue C. Searching for the specific bit I needed definitely contributed to the construction time on this miniature, as pieces are typically laid out next to each other on kits not quite so packed as this one."
I don't know why they do this. There have been models that I've given up on because my eyes aren't good enough to figure out what goes where (Spirit Hosts, Dark Apostle) and other minis that have made my blood boil in how nonsensical they are to build (hello Helbrute!).
Ugh, I made the mistake of buying the Yncarne a while back and assembling the swirling crap around it was a nightmare. Half the time it didn't seem to look right even when I was certain I'd used the correct piece.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
I generally don't have problems assembling models, but it took me minutes dry fitting and trying to make up my mind which way each of a few parts of the swirly crap on the Yncarne were supposed to fit. That gives the model the distinction of being part of a small group of models whose assembly I really hated. Fiends of Slannesh are in there for at least one super fiddly bit of the shoulder, as is the Vortex Beast for the collapsing eggshell body. Good to know I have that to look forward to if I buy the new Daemon Prince.
When it comes to model jigsaws a quote from Jurassic Park comes to mind, but if GW really insists on making models like that, they should at least give the assembly instructions proper thought.
At least that's not a problem for Guard. Tanks aren't terrible jigsaws and more logically constructed than fleshy things, and Lord Horseyman as the big centerpiece isn't all that big and the pose and parts look so dull that he shouldn't suffer the same assembly issues monsters have nowadays.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
Geifer wrote: I generally don't have problems assembling models, but it took me minutes dry fitting and trying to make up my mind which way each of a few parts of the swirly crap on the Yncarne were supposed to fit. That gives the model the distinction of being part of a small group of models whose assembly I really hated. Fiends of Slannesh are in there for at least one super fiddly bit of the shoulder, as is the Vortex Beast for the collapsing eggshell body. Good to know I have that to look forward to if I buy the new Daemon Prince.
When it comes to model jigsaws a quote from Jurassic Park comes to mind, but if GW really insists on making models like that, they should at least give the assembly instructions proper thought.
At least that's not a problem for Guard. Tanks aren't terrible jigsaws and more logically constructed than fleshy things, and Lord Horseyman as the big centerpiece isn't all that big and the pose and parts look so dull that he shouldn't suffer the same assembly issues monsters have nowadays.
Don't count on that. Ever put together the Star Collecting Vanguard set? Outside of the transport and the Suppressors, those have to be some of the most miserable-to-assemble models I've ever had to assemble. Especially the Reivers. By god those reivers. If they can do it to marines, they can and probably will to any guard unit viable.
Have you built a new space marine recently? The body and legs go together to make a very natural pose, which is the monoposing. You can't change anything between legs and torso, and if there's a bolter the arms are paired there too. That's what people mean when they say monopose, I just built 10 sisters of silence and there are 5 pairs of poses, each one has an identical twin with the only variation being the head looking a different way.
ph34r's Forgeworld Phobos blog, current WIP: Iron Warriors and Skaven Tau +From Iron Cometh Strength+ +From Strength Cometh Will+ +From Will Cometh Faith+ +From Faith Cometh Honor+ +From Honor Cometh Iron+
The Polito form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence?
When the history of my glory is written, your species shall only be a footnote to my magnificence.
Have you built a new space marine recently? The body and legs go together to make a very natural pose, which is the monoposing. You can't change anything between legs and torso, and if there's a bolter the arms are paired there too. That's what people mean when they say monopose, I just built 10 sisters of silence and there are 5 pairs of poses, each one has an identical twin with the only variation being the head looking a different way.
Built loads, luckily the arms and head add quite a bit to the “pose”. It’s what people call models that can be built and posed in numerous ways nowadays, what the really mean is that they fixed torsos and legs, which also means they are more natural looking and portray the way a body moves much better.
Some kits really are monopose, most the new ORK boyz have no posing options at all, individually they look great but they are “monopose”. Marines guard not. But this is a very tired old argument and neither side will convince the other, but the topic is a long way away anyway now we are discussing the new demon prince model in the guard rumours thread.
Have you built a new space marine recently? The body and legs go together to make a very natural pose, which is the monoposing. You can't change anything between legs and torso, and if there's a bolter the arms are paired there too. That's what people mean when they say monopose, I just built 10 sisters of silence and there are 5 pairs of poses, each one has an identical twin with the only variation being the head looking a different way.
Built loads, luckily the arms and head add quite a bit to the “pose”. It’s what people call models that can be built and posed in numerous ways nowadays, what the really mean is that they fixed torsos and legs, which also means they are more natural looking and portray the way a body moves much better.
Some kits really are monopose, most the new ORK boyz have no posing options at all, individually they look great but they are “monopose”. Marines guard not. But this is a very tired old argument and neither side will convince the other, but the topic is a long way away anyway now we are discussing the new demon prince model in the guard rumours thread.
Initially you say its not true while now you're saying it is indeed true its just a spectrum of terrible posability to "serviceable" posability? Id also argue only the running poses look much more natural than the others, but even then id rather actual monopose because then I wouldnt have to assemble the stupid things. Its why I dont buy GW as much, because assembling it feels stupid. If im going to assemble I may as well do it my way.
but the reason that bits end up scattered across the sprues is that they (now) try to maximise the amount of stuff you can fit on them so you end up with a complex jigsaw of bits and sprue gates and plastic flow predictions which are not a friend of keeping right arm A with hand A etc
Yep. It's not malice as in "let's make players suffer just for fun of it". It's a) wanting to have maximum details(thus needing lots of undercuts) and b) wanting to maximize sprue layout efficiency in terms of parts per square cm.
If they make parts in more logical order for customer it invariably leads to less efficient packing which means bigger/more sprues needed which means GW paying more which means them getting less profits.
It's just prioritizing profit over convenience of customer. They are counting on customers not abandoning buying models due to sprue placement or consider it worthy tradeoff for extra pieces(like god specific bits on daemon prince).
Have you built a new space marine recently? The body and legs go together to make a very natural pose, which is the monoposing. You can't change anything between legs and torso, and if there's a bolter the arms are paired there too. That's what people mean when they say monopose, I just built 10 sisters of silence and there are 5 pairs of poses, each one has an identical twin with the only variation being the head looking a different way.
Built loads, luckily the arms and head add quite a bit to the “pose”. It’s what people call models that can be built and posed in numerous ways nowadays, what the really mean is that they fixed torsos and legs, which also means they are more natural looking and portray the way a body moves much better.
Some kits really are monopose, most the new ORK boyz have no posing options at all, individually they look great but they are “monopose”. Marines guard not. But this is a very tired old argument and neither side will convince the other, but the topic is a long way away anyway now we are discussing the new demon prince model in the guard rumours thread.
Initially you say its not true while now you're saying it is indeed true its just a spectrum of terrible posability to "serviceable" posability? Id also argue only the running poses look much more natural than the others, but even then id rather actual monopose because then I wouldnt have to assemble the stupid things. Its why I dont buy GW as much, because assembling it feels stupid. If im going to assemble I may as well do it my way.
No I’m saying it’s not true, most GW models aren’t “monopose”. They do a few but not most. They newer models tend to have fixed torsos and legs but that is categorically not monopose. There is lots of ways to pose these models.
And you don’t like building the models, that’s fine, I would say it one of my favourite parts of the hobby. Horses for courses.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/18 10:10:52
I'm not sure how he could have confused "terrible to serviceable poseability" (his own interpretation of your words) with monopose. I suppose it's just hyperbole in an attempt to fit the definition of monopose to kits which, as most people can grasp, are categorically not monopose.
Sprue placement doesn't really bother me providing they are labelled.
What concerns me is the increasing tendency for models to be essentially monopose (which doesn't bother me) - but then split into a vast number of pieces. I assume its to avoid flash etc - or allow greater... 3d effects.
But for example, a few days ago I assembled an Ork Beastboss. This is a largeish monopose infantry character. Without some cutting and changing, the pieces only really fit together in the standard configuration. There aren't even alternate weapon choices etc. But it comes with 22 "bits". 5 of which are there to make his head. Why on earth is the lower jaw separate? (I don't mean the quasi-jaw armour, which is split in 2 for no obvious reason either - I mean literally the bottom of his mouth.)
The net result is you are trying to manipulate bits of plastic a few millimeters long, while trying to avoid getting glue on the wrong bits.
Does GW think I got an hour or so of lego-style joy from this rather fiddly process?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/18 11:05:33
JWBS wrote: I'm not sure how he could have confused "terrible to serviceable poseability" (his own interpretation of your words) with monopose. I suppose it's just hyperbole in an attempt to fit the definition of monopose to kits which, as most people can grasp, are categorically not monopose.
Guess dual pose is better...But having assembled chaos chosen yesterday it was "do this model this way or this way". So 2 pose per model. No more. Doing anything else would require sawing and sculpting beyond my green stuff skills.
Having alternative weapon doesn't btw change from mono pose to multi pose.
Sister of battle repentia can be called dual pose but again that's it. 2 poses you can do and beyond that no more poses available for model.
JWBS wrote: I'm not sure how he could have confused "terrible to serviceable poseability" (his own interpretation of your words) with monopose. I suppose it's just hyperbole in an attempt to fit the definition of monopose to kits which, as most people can grasp, are categorically not monopose.
I never called them monopose just near monopose. Which they are. Unless you modify the kits by removing shaped joints etc. Not once did I use incorrect terminology.
Guess dual pose is better...But having assembled chaos chosen yesterday it was "do this model this way or this way". So 2 pose per model. No more. Doing anything else would require sawing and sculpting beyond my green stuff skills.
What's stopping you from gluing any arms on any body? At least with the primaris it is possible, and seems like these new guard models are like that too.
Have you built a new space marine recently? The body and legs go together to make a very natural pose, which is the monoposing. You can't change anything between legs and torso, and if there's a bolter the arms are paired there too. That's what people mean when they say monopose, I just built 10 sisters of silence and there are 5 pairs of poses, each one has an identical twin with the only variation being the head looking a different way.
Built loads, luckily the arms and head add quite a bit to the “pose”. It’s what people call models that can be built and posed in numerous ways nowadays, what the really mean is that they fixed torsos and legs, which also means they are more natural looking and portray the way a body moves much better.
Some kits really are monopose, most the new ORK boyz have no posing options at all, individually they look great but they are “monopose”. Marines guard not. But this is a very tired old argument and neither side will convince the other, but the topic is a long way away anyway now we are discussing the new demon prince model in the guard rumours thread.
Initially you say its not true while now you're saying it is indeed true its just a spectrum of terrible posability to "serviceable" posability? Id also argue only the running poses look much more natural than the others, but even then id rather actual monopose because then I wouldnt have to assemble the stupid things. Its why I dont buy GW as much, because assembling it feels stupid. If im going to assemble I may as well do it my way.
No I’m saying it’s not true, most GW models aren’t “monopose”. They do a few but not most. They newer models tend to have fixed torsos and legs but that is categorically not monopose. There is lots of ways to pose these models.
And you don’t like building the models, that’s fine, I would say it one of my favourite parts of the hobby. Horses for courses.
Only plenty if you modify the kit you mean... I made the mistake of buying a sisters of battle army and those models had pretty much one pose with maybe an arm variation here or there. I only made them slightly more varied using a saw and clips. Now they're painted my next army will just be monopose models because that'll save me many hours of wasted assembly time on essentially near monopose models. That or they'll be normal to at least make the process fun and customizable at the cost of a minority of running models not look as good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/18 11:47:04
JWBS wrote: I'm not sure how he could have confused "terrible to serviceable poseability" (his own interpretation of your words) with monopose. I suppose it's just hyperbole in an attempt to fit the definition of monopose to kits which, as most people can grasp, are categorically not monopose.
I never called them monopose just near monopose. Which they are. Unless you modify the kits by removing shaped joints etc. Not once did I use incorrect terminology.
Why are you quibbling with Andykp's post then? They aren't monopose, he said they aren't, then you respond by asking him to justify that statement, from what I can gather. /Edit - maybe some crossed wires, since I see you are referring to the SoB above, which are indeed near monopose (aka easybuild, in GW terminology), which is a world away from the usual hyperbole laden 'Monobuuiiild!' complaints we see here, and not what's being discussed (though I admit I speed read the last couple of pages on this thread).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/18 11:59:52
Andykp wrote: No I’m saying it’s not true, most GW models aren’t “monopose”.
You know full well what people mean when they say "monopose", especially compared to what we had a few years back. Stop trying to weasel your way out of the argument on technicalities.
Andykp wrote: No I’m saying it’s not true, most GW models aren’t “monopose”.
You know full well what people mean when they say "monopose", especially compared to what we had a few years back. Stop trying to weasel your way out of the argument on technicalities.
No I don't! Some people mean by monopose "any model GW releases, whether it can be assembled one way or multiple ways." People like you have rendered the word meaningless, which is unfortunate as GW actually releases models of different amount of assembly freedom. For example start collecting SoB are monopose whilst individual kits are multipose. But as some people insist calling anything without a waist joint monopose, we no longer have language to easily differentiate these types of models.
Andykp wrote: No I’m saying it’s not true, most GW models aren’t “monopose”.
You know full well what people mean when they say "monopose", especially compared to what we had a few years back. Stop trying to weasel your way out of the argument on technicalities.
No I don't! Some people mean by monopose "any model GW releases, whether it can be assembled one way or multiple ways." People like you have rendered the word meaningless, which is unfortunate as GW actually releases models of different amount of assembly freedom. For example start collecting SoB are monopose whilst individual kits are multipose. But as some people insist calling anything without a waist joint monopose, we no longer have language to easily differentiate these types of models.
Yeah when some people say "monopose" they actually mean "multiple poses but not as many as I would like".
And for some reason that I don't understand, it's very important that every Dakka Dakka thread eventually gets derailed into this topic because of their inability to communicate.
