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.

really?

I only come across those defending monopose by adding something that has nothing to do with the pose but with optional parts

models being only able to be assembled in 1 pose is referred as monopose by those who don't like it
and the others are "this is not what you mean by monopose because you can have a different head and weapon"


so yes, modern GW models are the worst of both worlds
you get scale model puzzle kits with lots of pieces and some optional parts, but as with scale models you get only one pose and most of the details are lost on the table anyway

In terms of posability, the newer Ork Boyz box is probably the worst offender, in that if gives you a selection of very well realized orks that can only be put together in a mixed loadout of shoota and slugga boyz, which has almost never been anyone's preferred way of taking the unit (I'm not sure it's even been universally legal across the game's history)

 xttz wrote:

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.

The real wargame is the enemies we make along the way.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
In terms of posability, the newer Ork Boyz box is probably the worst offender, in that if gives you a selection of very well realized orks that can only be put together in a mixed loadout of shoota and slugga boyz, which has almost never been anyone's preferred way of taking the unit (I'm not sure it's even been universally legal across the game's history)

 xttz wrote:

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.

The real wargame is the enemies we make along the way.

I did say the new ORK boyz are actually monopose, as in 1 possible pose, but the are easy to build and not the only ORK boyz available.

Primaris marines, which were used as the example of “monopose”, are anything but, they are only slightly less possible than the old marines.

As said above, GW does monopose, multi pose, dual pose, all sorts of pose. The only difference from current design style to the older type tends to be a fixed waist.

Pros of this is more natural looking poses, people don’t just twist at the waist, the whole abdomen twists and and the shoulders move, none of this can happen if you have standard torso and pelvis pieces that you can glue together, it never looks “right”.

The cons are you get 5 repeated body poses, or ten for smaller models like the new squats.

Adding different arms and the heads at different angles means they aren’t monopose. (Literally, single pose - it’s the only possible definition of the word).

Even with the old marines/guard the pose-able waist didn’t create that much variance. Anything but a few degrees movement and the model looked stupidly unnatural. So all this mining about “monopose is killing the hobby” is based on an array of falsehoods. A rational look at it and nothing has really changed that much, new models have more natural posing and proportions. When true mono/dual pose models exist, like ETB ORK boyz or ETB sisters, other versions are still available (heck even the old marines are still available). So nothing lost at all. After this many years and the repeated debates with every release, it’s time to move on.

Is my answer to that post going to be:

a) "Why should *I* have to change? He's the one who sucks!"

b) "No, I don't think I will."

c) "You are a sad, strange little man. You have my pity."

We might never know!

It wasn't a bad post by any means, but hilarious mistargeted, as if I was a part of the problem, when even a casual observation of the facts at hand would have shown the error in your attribution.

Andykp wrote:
So all this mining about “monopose is killing the hobby” is based on an array of falsehoods.

Look what it's doing to the rules.

Now tell me it's a "falsehood" with a straight face.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So all this mining about “monopose is killing the hobby” is based on an array of falsehoods.

Look what it's doing to the rules.

Now tell me it's a "falsehood" with a straight face.

Yes, that totally is due the lack of waist joints on the models...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So all this mining about “monopose is killing the hobby” is based on an array of falsehoods.

Look what it's doing to the rules.

Now tell me it's a "falsehood" with a straight face.

Also i prefer to be a desalination plant and not a miner, thank you very much


Jokes aside, the jigsawing is horrendous, the new boyz are a crime against any orc player and despite loving the "legionaires" to an unhealthy ammount i recognise that the kit could have been far better handled, EG Main Body separate from legs and arms aswell as enough boltguns and special weapons... Alas it isn't hence why it is imo the best worst kit there is...

That Sword'n'steele review was great and it may have finally sold me on new Cadians. I am in not any rush though and I think I will wait for Combat Patrol.

I do dig that the Sentinel seems to be easily convertible from one statline to the other, and that all the weapons seem like they'll stay on just by a friction fit on that big peg.

About mono or multi pose, i have built a lot of gaurd and marine model and you always end up with one or two posses

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, that totally is due the lack of waist joints on the models...

Disingenuousness is an awful colour on you.

Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.

Now, each Marine goes together one way, and somehow has many more pieces per model without the option to change then in any significant fashion, and are so jigsaw-y puzzle like that they take longer to achieve a lesser result. And its so bad that it actually impacts the rules (Kreigers having to choose between a Meltagun or Vox being a chief example, something that never happened with the previous generation Guard as Meltagun and Vox bits would fit any model, not just the one specific one that only has one pose).

That's what we mean by monopose. That's what we've always meant. You know this - you've always known this - but choose to bs about "waist joints" and other such nonsense because you have no actual counter-argument.

I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this.

You need to find a new descriptor then because whilst 'monopose' probably isn't a real word, the concept itself can be accurately (unequivocally) summarised in a single sentence.

Static poses, incapable of being easily altered poses, duplicate poses.

Monopose seems to blanket cover that and is colloquially known to most of the community to the point that it being a "real" word doesnt really matter.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Disingenuousness is an awful colour on you.

Nice projection!

Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.

Now, each Marine goes together one way, and somehow has many more pieces per model without the option to change then in any significant fashion, and are so jigsaw-y puzzle like that they take longer to achieve a lesser result.

This is literally not true. Primaris have the same customisability besides the waist joint than the minimarines. You can freely mix arms and weapons. I know, I've kitbashed a ton of them.

And its so bad that it actually impacts the rules (Kreigers having to choose between a Meltagun or Vox being a chief example, something that never happened with the previous generation Guard as Meltagun and Vox bits would fit any model, not just the one specific one that only has one pose).

I literally have a Krieg kit right in front of me. The arm attachment points are flat, you can put that meltagun on any model. Yes, the way the GW writes the rules is annoying and idiotic, but it is not due the models.

That's what we mean by monopose. That's what we've always meant. You know this - you've always known this - but choose to bs about "waist joints" and other such nonsense because you have no actual counter-argument.

I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this.

The issue is that you're just literally wrong. You can kitbash the Primaris, you can kitbash the Sob you can kitbash the guard. Yes, how GW writes unit entries is changed to worse, but it is not due the models. So please stop repeating the same untruths.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.

Now, each Marine goes together one way, and somehow has many more pieces per model without the option to change then in any significant fashion, and are so jigsaw-y puzzle like that they take longer to achieve a lesser result.

Pretty perfect display of your priorities here ^

The models are not "a lesser result" (has been explained to you innumerable times). The models have details and resolution that would have been impossible to achieve by kits of yore.

But you don't care about those details (it seems likely that you aren't even capable of recognizing them). You just want to play $40,000 adult Lego until your time has spooled out.

 Altruizine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.

Now, each Marine goes together one way, and somehow has many more pieces per model without the option to change then in any significant fashion, and are so jigsaw-y puzzle like that they take longer to achieve a lesser result.

Pretty perfect display of your priorities here ^

The models are not "a lesser result" (has been explained to you innumerable times). The models have details and resolution that would have been impossible to achieve by kits of yore.

But you don't care about those details (it seems likely that you aren't even capable of recognizing them). You just want to play $40,000 adult Lego until your time has spooled out.

In an already toxic thread, searching through someone's history to make fun of them liking warhammer might be the weirdest possible choice to take the direction of the toxicity on this forum...

 cole1114 wrote:
In an already toxic thread, searching through someone's history to make fun of them liking warhammer might be the weirdest possible choice to take the direction of the toxicity on this forum...

Don't worry about it cole. I don't read Alty's posts anyway.

 Altruizine wrote:
The models are not "a lesser result"

how is having a vox OR a melter not a lesser result than having a vox AND a melter?
or having only a kneeling medic is not a lesser result than having a kneeling medic in 1 unit and a standing medic in another?

yeah, more details and sharper edges. which is important if you buy 1 unit, paint them on a high level and put them on display in the shelf in your living room
but as gaming pieces, you put down 3 identical units were the details are never really seen and you achieve the same thing as with the first 2-piece plastic models 20 years ago just for 300% the cost (with 50% inflation)

those who wanted the high detail display model models always had the possibility to buy them, this was a reason ForgeWorld existed, and now everyone needs to buy them no matter if they want them or not
there is no option to choose between cheaper gaming models and expensive display models any more

 kodos wrote:

or having only a kneeling medic is not a lesser result than having a kneeling medic in 1 unit and a standing medic in another?

You mean exactly like the Krieg set? It comes with two differnt sets of medic arms (one carrying medipack and lasrifle, another with a syringe and a saw) and you can put each set of arms on any body, just like you can do with the arms of the new Cadians.(It also seems that you could put Krieger arms on Cadians and vice versa without an issue.)

yeah, more details and sharper edges. which is important if you buy 1 unit, paint them on a high level and put them on display in the shelf in your living room
but as gaming pieces, you put down 3 identical units were the details are never really seen and you achieve the same thing as with the first 2-piece plastic models 20 years ago just for 300% the cost (with 50% inflation)

those who wanted the high detail display model models always had the possibility to buy them, this was a reason ForgeWorld existed, and now everyone needs to buy them no matter if they want them or not
there is no option to choose between cheaper gaming models and expensive display models any more

From the comments here I can only conclude that the two groups of people are the ones who actually build these models and know that the customisation exists and the ones who merely complain about the models on internet based on their misconceptions.

 Altruizine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.

Now, each Marine goes together one way, and somehow has many more pieces per model without the option to change then in any significant fashion, and are so jigsaw-y puzzle like that they take longer to achieve a lesser result.

Pretty perfect display of your priorities here ^

The models are not "a lesser result" (has been explained to you innumerable times). The models have details and resolution that would have been impossible to achieve by kits of yore.

But you don't care about those details (it seems likely that you aren't even capable of recognizing them). You just want to play $40,000 adult Lego until your time has spooled out.

Of course GW could have done both. But they opted to drop posability and options.

 Crimson wrote:

From the comments here I can only conclude that the two groups of people are the ones who actually build these models and know that the customisation exists and the ones who merely complain about the models on internet based on their misconceptions.

you are actually the first to confirm that the Krieg and new Cadia models are compatible with each others
and no, I am not paying a 100€ just to check if this works or not and neither the sprues nor the reviews indicate that this is possible

I also have never seen anyone building the standing medic with the parts if the kneeling one,

 kodos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

From the comments here I can only conclude that the two groups of people are the ones who actually build these models and know that the customisation exists and the ones who merely complain about the models on internet based on their misconceptions.

you are actually the first to confirm that the Krieg and new Cadia models are compatible with each others
and no, I am not paying a 100€ just to check if this works or not and neither the sprues nor the reviews indicate that this is possible

I also have never seen anyone building the standing medic with the parts if the kneeling one,

Doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.

The instructions may tell you you can build body A with arms B or C, but that doesn’t they are the only arms that fit. I did it with the leagues of votan troops, the instructions say specialist arms with certain bodies but they fit on any body.

The marines are as customisable as the old ones except waist, same with the kreig guard, despite you saying that you can’t, you can. So the things you all dislike boil down to waist joints. Nothing looks different with cadians, just waist joints. The arms are flat attachments.

So to blame the new design philosophy (waist joints) for the no model no rule rules philosophy is ridiculous. The is no connection at all.

The only “monopose” kit worth being salty about is the ORK boyz, but guess what, the old ones are still available. So no one lost anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Is my answer to that post going to be:

a) "Why should *I* have to change? He's the one who sucks!"

b) "No, I don't think I will."

c) "You are a sad, strange little man. You have my pity."

We might never know!

It wasn't a bad post by any means, but hilarious mistargeted, as if I was a part of the problem, when even a casual observation of the facts at hand would have shown the error in your attribution.

Removed - rule #1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So all this mining about “monopose is killing the hobby” is based on an array of falsehoods.

Look what it's doing to the rules.

Now tell me it's a "falsehood" with a straight face.

It’s a falsehood.

(Did it).

Andykp wrote:
So the things you all dislike boil down to waist joints.

so the reason why you can have vox or melta by the rules is simply for balance reason by the rules and has nothing to do with the model kits?

well, GW rules design for the new codex is even worse than initially thought

 kodos wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So the things you all dislike boil down to waist joints.

so the reason why you can have vox or melta by the rules is simply for balance reason by the rules and has nothing to do with the model kits?

well, GW rules design for the new codex is even worse than initially thought

The unit entries are just pure madness. Even the Krieg instructions show meltagun on two different models, and in reality you can put it or the vox on any model.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, that totally is due the lack of waist joints on the models...

Disingenuousness is an awful colour on you.

Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.

You still can, minus the leg/torso arrangement. You can still choose from any arms, any legs, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, and any accessories. Hell, that wasn't even always true for OldMarines (tried putting a Mark VI head on a Mark VIII torso? Not very easily! And you still needed generally the right arm combination for holding two-handed ranged weapons, else they looked VERY naff).

The only thing you're missing now is the waist poseability, but it's not like you could really do all that much anyways without it looking horribly unnatural/stilted. Lacking waist-poseability doesn't make something monopose!

Now, before you start screeching on about other kits - I am not talking about other kits. I am ONLY talking about Primaris modular kits. I am ONLY talking about them, because you have mentioned repeatedly that they come under your term of "monopose".

They are not monopose.

That's what we mean by monopose. That's what we've always meant. You know this - you've always known this - but choose to bs about "waist joints" and other such nonsense because you have no actual counter-argument.

Well, sucks to be you, because you're using the wrong definition! You can say all you like about what "you" mean by it, but that's useless, because it's a simply incorrect definition! If I turn around and say "monopose means any kit that is sculpted in any way, because I can't reposition it down to the finger joints", is that valid? No, because I've just taken "monopose" and taken it horrendously out of all meaning! That would make ALL GW sculpts monopose by my skewed definition.

The problem here isn't other people mistaking your definition. The problem is that your definition is absolutely skewed.
Use the CORRECT definition when you are referring to the right things (ie, the new Ork Boyz, the snap-fit ETB models, etc), and you won't find any complaints. But if you keep applying the wrong definition to the wrong things, don't be surprised when people call you out on it, and don't cry about what you MEAN - if you want to talk about what you mean, use the right language.

If I'm trying to describe Ultramarines and I call them the Space Marines in red, you can bet that I'm in the wrong, because I'm using the wrong things to describe them, irrespective if I really mean blue.

I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this.

Using the correct definitions would be a start.

If you want to have a serious discussion about "monopose", then talk about ACTUALLY monopose models (Ork Boyz) instead of using it as a blanket term for "models with less customisability than I want", which is incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.

The instructions may tell you you can build body A with arms B or C, but that doesn’t they are the only arms that fit. I did it with the leagues of votan troops, the instructions say specialist arms with certain bodies but they fit on any body.

Exactly - for saying that so many of y'all want "customisable minis", do you need to be told they're customisable in order to do it? Or have you actually tried customising them?

I've just finished assembling some Mark III marines, the kind that I'm sure folks here would call "multipose" - they have less customisability than Primaris Intercessors - you know, the ones the same people call "monopose".

So to blame the new design philosophy (waist joints) for the no model no rule rules philosophy is ridiculous. The is no connection at all.

The Imperial Guard changes highlight this brilliantly too, with how Scions are being handled. They have waist joints.

Depending on how the updated C&M or Solar Auxilia play in HH 2, those Cadians might be an expansion of my already dangerously overstaffed Cult.

Primaris marines are definitely monopose by the way

 Gert wrote:
Depending on how the updated C&M or Solar Auxilia play in HH 2, those Cadians might be an expansion of my already dangerously overstaffed Cult.

Grenadiers, maybe?

Moving from a horde of bedraggled maniacs and expanding my more heavily armoured troops is an option.
The biggest issue is just finding time to play nowadays.

Billicus wrote:
Primaris marines are definitely monopose by the way

Once you've applied the glue, basically every GW model is monopose