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.
2022/12/13 21:31:04
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Brickfix wrote: I want to add my opinion about monopose:
Just because the waste can't be rotated it is not monopose.
The high interchangeable in the primaris marine kits has allowed me a ton of conversions. Angling the gun and had adds way more character to a model then rotating the waste.
I also build 60 guardsmen, 20 old and 30 new Orks.
The new Orks are monopose with me redeeming feature except that the look cool (personal opinion). The old ones are highly customizable but I had issues fitting a head over the gun in some instances.
But, for the old Orks as well as the old guard kit, the least used feature is the rotatable waste. In most cases I glued the waste to the legs for all minis in basically the same angle, and worried about the pose later.
And if anyone wants to claim that the ork nob kit is monopose ...
This is the truth. In reality, and the monopose haters won’t admit it, but anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way.
Ohhh reeeeeaaaalllly????
I could use words, but I think an image will serve much better here.
Rotation in roll pitch and yaw, and I'd estimate about 70-90% of yaw available for a still decent looking miniature.
They look ok despite being horrible old marines but they look no better than the newer assault intercessors even though they have the same posed bodies twice over for a ten man squad. And your models there don’t look that different as to make the unrealistic lack of dynamism in the pose worth having split waist for.
And that can be your opinion, which is fine. But mine differs.
1: The scale and aesthetic of old Marines matches the rest of my collection dating back to 1993 (and even some earlier models). Therefore I think they look better from a utilitarian standpoint, as it matches the scale of not only my Marine collection, but my Chaos collection too. In fact I even think they look better next to my non-humanoid Tyranids as well! I build my models for armies and the tabletop experience, and I want those collections to be consistent. The Primaris scale is just totally out of place. To me, they are ugly because they are out of place.
2: Though the Assault Intercessor kit may have a variety of poses in it, it's still lacking in the freedom to pose models myself and to my own taste. For example, I could make an entire squad in "leaning forward" and make the whole unit look more aggressive collectively. I still get more freedom with the split-torso.
3: The utility of swapability is still a thing with the separated torsos. I've got a Jump Pack torso on a non-running/leaping set of legs for my Special Weapon model in my squad. Something that is easy to do with the separate pieces.
4: Even Primaris with their new proportions look like toys. It's why the big 1:12 or 1:8 or whatever models look ridiculous. You may find them more realistic, but I still don't find them to actually be "realistic". With 3d printing now, I'd probably just start designing my own models if I wanted "realistic".
Andykp wrote: Marines are one unit where the lack of realistic movement in the torso and abdomen is mitigated slightly by the armour. But the primaris waists still make more sense and look much more functional than the old marines.
U it’s with out armour, catachans and chaos marauders are the worst examples of how a two part body is not good.
I’m building the new cadians at the minute and they look so much more realistically posed due to the “monopose” bodies.
But again, you give up something for the focus on "realistic". Some people just prefer freedom and ease of conversion over realism. There's probably an amusing fine art analogy about people being up in arms over impressionism or expressionism or something being unrealistic. But I can also just compare building my 90's "monopose" metal Assault Marines to building plastic split-torso Assault Marines and building the latter is just much more fun because of the freedom in posing each model.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/13 21:33:14
And that’s the beauty of it, you have your opinion and I have mine. Neither more valid than the other, the other wonderful thing is all the old models you like are still available and usable. Neither one of us is worse off than before. Happy days.
2022/12/14 00:50:31
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Andykp wrote: And that’s the beauty of it, you have your opinion and I have mine. Neither more valid than the other, the other wonderful thing is all the old models you like are still available and usable. Neither one of us is worse off than before. Happy days.
Peaceful coexistance is sure a lot easier when people aren't posting total bs such as:
. . In reality, and the monopose haters won’t admit it, but anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way.
Andykp wrote: Just put the reaper on a different body, it’s perfectly possible.???
or 3d print some because buying 4 boxes of havoc to get one squad is dumb as feth
Or just take a variety of weapons and don’t spam one thing.
I bet you think the Plague Marine datasheet is brilliant.
It’s what I’ve done with my havocs, but that’s probably me having fun wrong again!!
No, not a fan of the new way they do data sheets, don’t like the limitations on gear. I like variety.
Your statements there cannot coexist. So you do it the GW way of "one of everything" out of principle, but don't want GW writing it that way, but you tell people not to spam one weapon.
Yeah I'm not buying it.
2022/12/14 07:49:28
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Andykp wrote: Just put the reaper on a different body, it’s perfectly possible.???
or 3d print some because buying 4 boxes of havoc to get one squad is dumb as feth
Or just take a variety of weapons and don’t spam one thing.
I bet you think the Plague Marine datasheet is brilliant.
It’s what I’ve done with my havocs, but that’s probably me having fun wrong again!!
No, not a fan of the new way they do data sheets, don’t like the limitations on gear. I like variety.
Your statements there cannot coexist. So you do it the GW way of "one of everything" out of principle, but don't want GW writing it that way, but you tell people not to spam one weapon.
Yeah I'm not buying it.
Err they can, because I am a reasonable person, not some weird fundamentalist. I can want to have options, and choose to take whatever I want from those options. I don’t take one of everything out of some weird principle. It’s because I take the models I like. Doesn’t mean others shouldn’t have choice to do what they like. Its really not hard to grasp if you try.
2022/12/14 07:50:57
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Brickfix wrote: I want to add my opinion about monopose:
Just because the waste can't be rotated it is not monopose.
The high interchangeable in the primaris marine kits has allowed me a ton of conversions. Angling the gun and had adds way more character to a model then rotating the waste.
I also build 60 guardsmen, 20 old and 30 new Orks.
The new Orks are monopose with me redeeming feature except that the look cool (personal opinion). The old ones are highly customizable but I had issues fitting a head over the gun in some instances.
But, for the old Orks as well as the old guard kit, the least used feature is the rotatable waste. In most cases I glued the waste to the legs for all minis in basically the same angle, and worried about the pose later.
And if anyone wants to claim that the ork nob kit is monopose ...
This is the truth. In reality, and the monopose haters won’t admit it, but anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way.
Ohhh reeeeeaaaalllly????
I could use words, but I think an image will serve much better here.
Rotation in roll pitch and yaw, and I'd estimate about 70-90% of yaw available for a still decent looking miniature.
They look ok despite being horrible old marines but they look no better than the newer assault intercessors even though they have the same posed bodies twice over for a ten man squad. And your models there don’t look that different as to make the unrealistic lack of dynamism in the pose worth having split waist for.
And that can be your opinion, which is fine. But mine differs.
1: The scale and aesthetic of old Marines matches the rest of my collection dating back to 1993 (and even some earlier models). Therefore I think they look better from a utilitarian standpoint, as it matches the scale of not only my Marine collection, but my Chaos collection too. In fact I even think they look better next to my non-humanoid Tyranids as well! I build my models for armies and the tabletop experience, and I want those collections to be consistent. The Primaris scale is just totally out of place. To me, they are ugly because they are out of place.
2: Though the Assault Intercessor kit may have a variety of poses in it, it's still lacking in the freedom to pose models myself and to my own taste. For example, I could make an entire squad in "leaning forward" and make the whole unit look more aggressive collectively. I still get more freedom with the split-torso.
3: The utility of swapability is still a thing with the separated torsos. I've got a Jump Pack torso on a non-running/leaping set of legs for my Special Weapon model in my squad. Something that is easy to do with the separate pieces.
4: Even Primaris with their new proportions look like toys. It's why the big 1:12 or 1:8 or whatever models look ridiculous. You may find them more realistic, but I still don't find them to actually be "realistic". With 3d printing now, I'd probably just start designing my own models if I wanted "realistic".
Andykp wrote: Marines are one unit where the lack of realistic movement in the torso and abdomen is mitigated slightly by the armour. But the primaris waists still make more sense and look much more functional than the old marines.
U it’s with out armour, catachans and chaos marauders are the worst examples of how a two part body is not good.
I’m building the new cadians at the minute and they look so much more realistically posed due to the “monopose” bodies.
But again, you give up something for the focus on "realistic". Some people just prefer freedom and ease of conversion over realism. There's probably an amusing fine art analogy about people being up in arms over impressionism or expressionism or something being unrealistic. But I can also just compare building my 90's "monopose" metal Assault Marines to building plastic split-torso Assault Marines and building the latter is just much more fun because of the freedom in posing each model.
Exalted!
To me there's something about multipose models that makes them my own. I created that pose and don't care whether other people might find it unnatural or (which is more common) that you probably find the pose "I created" in armies of others, too. You just don't have that with the new style. Building them is not interesting (you can still convert of course). I know every Plague Marine Pose just as much as I know every Lotr Ork sculpt. I'd never buy 2nd hand multipose models that are already built, new monoposes and old metals, though? There's little but glueing to do anyway(no positioning, few headswaps) so I may as well skip that step and buy them "pre-built".
2022/12/14 08:29:01
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
@andykp if we are beeing pedantic the event that somebody is reporting their brainstate is a fact (unless they are lying.) Like you think the grey knights look bad. Another person think they look good. Both of those are facts. Although it is saying something about your brain states, not nessassery about the grey knights.
Andykp wrote: Just put the reaper on a different body, it’s perfectly possible.???
Not really, it's 2 bodies that can take it AFAIK without requiring some serious finangling on the belt...
And i say this as someone that loves the new CSM / Havocs due to them being mostly interchangable.
However posability has suffered a bit, no two ways around and conversion also did so due to the back being tied to the legs in this wierd way.
That said, i could live with above, if the boxes would actually offer something to me and not determine equipment restrictions... looks at kommandos, PM, etc...
Aka i want more than 1 chainaxe for terminators, more than 1 reaper for a box of havocs and ffs enough bolters / boltpistol chainswords for a full box of csm. Especially considering the prices GW has.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2022/12/14 08:58:31
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Andykp wrote: And that’s the beauty of it, you have your opinion and I have mine. Neither more valid than the other, the other wonderful thing is all the old models you like are still available and usable. Neither one of us is worse off than before. Happy days.
Peaceful coexistance is sure a lot easier when people aren't posting total bs such as:
. . In reality, and the monopose haters won’t admit it, but anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way.
For example . . .
You like your models and that’s great, doesn’t mean my second statement doesn’t still stand, you are just happy with that and I am happy for you. I have never ranted or raved that the old models exist, I am just pleased the new ones look so good and will argue against anyone who says they can only be made one way, which is just untrue.
My point was, with models like yours the movement is unnatural, when a human twists at the waist, their belt buckle (ie mid point of their pelvis) doesn’t shift 6 inches in one direction. Their chests don't stay the same shape and rotate around a single point. The whole torso shifts and changes shape. With the newer models you can create the same level of realistic variety as you could with the old, and the new marines are as interchangeable as the old. so it’s not “total bs”, it’s true but in no way invalidates your opinion that your models look good.
Andykp wrote: Just put the reaper on a different body, it’s perfectly possible.???
Not really, it's 2 bodies that can take it AFAIK without requiring some serious finangling on the belt...
And i say this as someone that loves the new CSM / Havocs due to them being mostly interchangable.
However posability has suffered a bit, no two ways around and conversion also did so due to the back being tied to the legs in this wierd way.
That said, i could live with above, if the boxes would actually offer something to me and not determine equipment restrictions... looks at kommandos, PM, etc...
Aka i want more than 1 chainaxe for terminators, more than 1 reaper for a box of havocs and ffs enough bolters / boltpistol chainswords for a full box of csm. Especially considering the prices GW has.
I agree about the chaos terminators, that’s is just a weird choice they went with there, and the basic chaos marines, then to double down on it with the terminators and limit the datasheet to the weird choices in the kit is even worse.
Kommandos I can get a bit more, they were designed for killteam and usable in 40k, and I think making things especially for kill team is good, and as specialists you should really only have one squad or so of them so less of a problem (and the models are gorgeous, some of the best released in ages). The same limitations on basic troops kits is crazy but not common.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Niiai wrote: @andykp if we are beeing pedantic the event that somebody is reporting their brainstate is a fact (unless they are lying.) Like you think the grey knights look bad. Another person think they look good. Both of those are facts. Although it is saying something about your brain states, not nessassery about the grey knights.
Brainstate is an odd way of explaining an opinion but I get you and I agree, as I said about grey knights, subjective not objective.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/14 09:05:08
2022/12/14 09:19:48
Subject: Re:Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
See, i member a time where Kommandos were able to double up on specials, I even have metal kommandos.
What i wanted for them , was the option to be equipped like propper boys, but sneakier, which they are in lore.
What i got was a bunch of melee boys, which i can strap ALL the specials on but am not allowed to double up to specialise a squad for a task (which komandos ALSO do for missions as prescribed in lore)... or give them shootas for that matter... beyond the synchronised one and the big shoota for reasons..
And sure they work awesome in KT and are a good kit in regards to options, but the 1 of each is starting to ANNOY me.
Then we have the traitor guardsmen... Not only decided GW to shoot their faction behind the shed and yes i am still very salty about that. No they then release these which are awesome in and of themselves. (and would be perfect if the box had 2 of each special weapon in there).
And also work reasonable in KT. But as a 40k squad they are in essence just cultists + 1 and better equipped, meanwhile i am NOT allowed to build a cultist force dspite GW pushing cultists like there is no tomorrow recently, half the options are missing in 40k aswell unlike with the komandos for reasons that elude me and i ONCE AGAIN can't specialise a squad for a task, because forbid a squad of soldiers specialises , you get 1 sniper rifle, one PG / melta , etc. AND you don't even pay for that privilege, making them in essence just a better choice.. because actually putting a pricetag on things is hard for gw nowadays.
Also the kit whilest awesome due to being KT is not representative of modern GW kits, and for the price OF said kit paying KT tax, i should be able to expect atleast doubles on all the specials i could take but i can't because GW gonna GW and save on the sprues and then justify with that the rules.
And that last bit is what really annoys me, in the past i could run a specific style of list because i could customize my HQ and units a lot more...from a lore and tabletop game perspective and by extention i could work on my models and nail down a theme. Nowadays you get what you get, better be happy about it, it's why i for some reason am not allowed to build the chaos lord on the front of the new CSM codex and field him that way, nvm the jumppack and bike option which i could easily convert but am not allowed. It's why GSC, a bloody cult has a shitton of unnecessary charachter specialists with excactly ONE loadout and somehow these lot are supposed to be adaptable and highly specialisable? But i can't give a primus an autogun, or a stolen energy sword or for that matter a bike, or armor up my abominant with carapace to make him an unstopable tank? You know, things which would make sense when i f.e. have a cult centered around a scrapyard?
And it get's worse when you compare support certain factions can expect, f.e. SM will get anyways padded out releases of HQ so chances are high you will get a variant that is close enough for your theme to work. CSM? ehh, nope you ain't getting a lord on bike and a lord with jumppack. Also expect to get your codex stripped out even more and buy another codex to get access to cult marines... which are known to be elite for god specific warbands?... Oh and that lovingly converted lord on daemonic mount? yeah, no that is not ok to field anymore.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/12/14 09:38:59
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2022/12/14 09:40:12
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
All your complaints there are about the rules, not the models, and I think we all agree that reducing options in the rules isn’t good. I don’t see an upside to it for players or modellers.
2022/12/14 09:47:47
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Andykp wrote: All your complaints there are about the rules, not the models, and I think we all agree that reducing options in the rules isn’t good. I don’t see an upside to it for players or modellers.
The problem is GW makes the models so that "3rd parties" can't enter their market and them makes the rules to ensure completely that it isn't even something that crosses a players mind.
The problem starts on the model side and ends on the ruleside. It also cuts down on modelling cost to make them "fixed" loadout. Especially on HQ and elite charachters.
It's the same reason why we get the wierd part torso part leg new CSM / marines which are rightfully considered more "monopose" (honestly i think"restricted pose" would be the better definition) and less fun, but it doesn't just stop at the "core model" but also extends ever further into equipment option, because someone probably at GW did run the maths that less "sprue" weapons = cheaper production because less plastic to produce.
Then there is the fact that what GW demands for a box of models is honestly absurd...
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2022/12/14 15:45:32
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Andykp wrote: Just put the reaper on a different body, it’s perfectly possible.???
or 3d print some because buying 4 boxes of havoc to get one squad is dumb as feth
Or just take a variety of weapons and don’t spam one thing.
I bet you think the Plague Marine datasheet is brilliant.
It’s what I’ve done with my havocs, but that’s probably me having fun wrong again!!
No, not a fan of the new way they do data sheets, don’t like the limitations on gear. I like variety.
Your statements there cannot coexist. So you do it the GW way of "one of everything" out of principle, but don't want GW writing it that way, but you tell people not to spam one weapon.
Yeah I'm not buying it.
Err they can, because I am a reasonable person, not some weird fundamentalist. I can want to have options, and choose to take whatever I want from those options. I don’t take one of everything out of some weird principle. It’s because I take the models I like. Doesn’t mean others shouldn’t have choice to do what they like. Its really not hard to grasp if you try.
Except you tell people not to spam a particular weapon, ergo you're saying that the choice should be nulled.
2022/12/14 18:28:10
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Andykp wrote: Just put the reaper on a different body, it’s perfectly possible.???
or 3d print some because buying 4 boxes of havoc to get one squad is dumb as feth
Or just take a variety of weapons and don’t spam one thing.
I bet you think the Plague Marine datasheet is brilliant.
It’s what I’ve done with my havocs, but that’s probably me having fun wrong again!!
No, not a fan of the new way they do data sheets, don’t like the limitations on gear. I like variety.
Your statements there cannot coexist. So you do it the GW way of "one of everything" out of principle, but don't want GW writing it that way, but you tell people not to spam one weapon.
Yeah I'm not buying it.
Err they can, because I am a reasonable person, not some weird fundamentalist. I can want to have options, and choose to take whatever I want from those options. I don’t take one of everything out of some weird principle. It’s because I take the models I like. Doesn’t mean others shouldn’t have choice to do what they like. Its really not hard to grasp if you try.
Except you tell people not to spam a particular weapon, ergo you're saying that the choice should be nulled.
No I just offered an alternative. Didn't say any choices should be nulled. So ergo nothing.
Andykp wrote: All your complaints there are about the rules, not the models, and I think we all agree that reducing options in the rules isn’t good. I don’t see an upside to it for players or modellers.
The problem is GW makes the models so that "3rd parties" can't enter their market and them makes the rules to ensure completely that it isn't even something that crosses a players mind.
The problem starts on the model side and ends on the ruleside. It also cuts down on modelling cost to make them "fixed" loadout. Especially on HQ and elite charachters.
It's the same reason why we get the wierd part torso part leg new CSM / marines which are rightfully considered more "monopose" (honestly i think"restricted pose" would be the better definition) and less fun, but it doesn't just stop at the "core model" but also extends ever further into equipment option, because someone probably at GW did run the maths that less "sprue" weapons = cheaper production because less plastic to produce.
Then there is the fact that what GW demands for a box of models is honestly absurd...
Agree to disagree on the marines, I think they are better than ever and as much fun. Otherwise I agree, especially on the character side of things. Making unique and interesting characters is really difficult now in the rules. That's why I make up house rules bit I know not everyone can do that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/14 18:31:38
2022/12/14 21:53:05
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Andykp wrote: And that’s the beauty of it, you have your opinion and I have mine. Neither more valid than the other, the other wonderful thing is all the old models you like are still available and usable. Neither one of us is worse off than before. Happy days.
Peaceful coexistance is sure a lot easier when people aren't posting total bs such as:
. . In reality, and the monopose haters won’t admit it, but anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way.
For example . . .
You like your models and that’s great, doesn’t mean my second statement doesn’t still stand, you are just happy with that and I am happy for you. I have never ranted or raved that the old models exist, I am just pleased the new ones look so good and will argue against anyone who says they can only be made one way, which is just untrue.
My point was, with models like yours the movement is unnatural, when a human twists at the waist, their belt buckle (ie mid point of their pelvis) doesn’t shift 6 inches in one direction. Their chests don't stay the same shape and rotate around a single point. The whole torso shifts and changes shape. With the newer models you can create the same level of realistic variety as you could with the old, and the new marines are as interchangeable as the old. so it’s not “total bs”, it’s true but in no way invalidates your opinion that your models look good.
You mean the part where you're projecting on the other side on how they (me) build their models? "anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way." It remains BS, as the image I provided displays. Now you might think those poses are unnatural, but I personally do not. Yes, the belt buckle is not in the right twist, but it does not break my sense of "natural" to the pose. Now YOU, Andykyp, may have felt constrained in the torso-rotation of your kits, but many others do not.
And this also: "and the new marines are as interchangeable as the old." is plainly untrue, as per the example of leg swapping. Speaking of which, since I happened to look closer at the Assault Intercessors during this exchange I also noticed that they all have the same chest-piece/emblem, the same as the Intercessors have. I suspect one of the reasons behind it is so that you didn't always get the same chest adornment piece on the same leg-torso pose. Now that I see it I can't unsee it. The Tactical box has 7 differently designed chest pieces. There's at least one more from older Tac boxes (which again, you can exchange freely with the ball-and-socket).
What you got with the older kits is what many would call a small sacrifice in belt-buckle displacement for much greater freedom in model posing (and upon inspection, much more emblem variety and back pack variety as well), and some of us really do like to take full advantage of it.
Andykp wrote: Just put the reaper on a different body, it’s perfectly possible.???
or 3d print some because buying 4 boxes of havoc to get one squad is dumb as feth
Or just take a variety of weapons and don’t spam one thing.
I bet you think the Plague Marine datasheet is brilliant.
It’s what I’ve done with my havocs, but that’s probably me having fun wrong again!!
No, not a fan of the new way they do data sheets, don’t like the limitations on gear. I like variety.
Your statements there cannot coexist. So you do it the GW way of "one of everything" out of principle, but don't want GW writing it that way, but you tell people not to spam one weapon.
Yeah I'm not buying it.
Err they can, because I am a reasonable person, not some weird fundamentalist. I can want to have options, and choose to take whatever I want from those options. I don’t take one of everything out of some weird principle. It’s because I take the models I like. Doesn’t mean others shouldn’t have choice to do what they like. Its really not hard to grasp if you try.
Except you tell people not to spam a particular weapon, ergo you're saying that the choice should be nulled.
No I just offered an alternative. Didn't say any choices should be nulled. So ergo nothing.
Andykp wrote: All your complaints there are about the rules, not the models, and I think we all agree that reducing options in the rules isn’t good. I don’t see an upside to it for players or modellers.
The problem is GW makes the models so that "3rd parties" can't enter their market and them makes the rules to ensure completely that it isn't even something that crosses a players mind.
The problem starts on the model side and ends on the ruleside. It also cuts down on modelling cost to make them "fixed" loadout. Especially on HQ and elite charachters.
It's the same reason why we get the wierd part torso part leg new CSM / marines which are rightfully considered more "monopose" (honestly i think"restricted pose" would be the better definition) and less fun, but it doesn't just stop at the "core model" but also extends ever further into equipment option, because someone probably at GW did run the maths that less "sprue" weapons = cheaper production because less plastic to produce.
Then there is the fact that what GW demands for a box of models is honestly absurd...
Agree to disagree on the marines, I think they are better than ever and as much fun. Otherwise I agree, especially on the character side of things. Making unique and interesting characters is really difficult now in the rules. That's why I make up house rules bit I know not everyone can do that.
But you did imply you're fine with choices being nulled, because you told people not to spam a single weapon because that's what you want to do and what GW wants. Just please be honest on your actual beliefs.
2022/12/15 00:26:26
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Is he ok with people "spamming" the same heavy weapon in Dev/Havoc/Scourge units?
I'd think not, as he was admonishing us about doing exactly that in a Dev squad.
(Or was it Havocs?)
Either way his opinion on how I build my models within the rules doesn't mean anything.
2022/12/16 01:30:05
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Andykp wrote: Just put the reaper on a different body, it’s perfectly possible.???
or 3d print some because buying 4 boxes of havoc to get one squad is dumb as feth
Or just take a variety of weapons and don’t spam one thing.
I bet you think the Plague Marine datasheet is brilliant.
It’s what I’ve done with my havocs, but that’s probably me having fun wrong again!!
No, not a fan of the new way they do data sheets, don’t like the limitations on gear. I like variety.
Your statements there cannot coexist. So you do it the GW way of "one of everything" out of principle, but don't want GW writing it that way, but you tell people not to spam one weapon.
Yeah I'm not buying it.
Err they can, because I am a reasonable person, not some weird fundamentalist. I can want to have options, and choose to take whatever I want from those options. I don’t take one of everything out of some weird principle. It’s because I take the models I like. Doesn’t mean others shouldn’t have choice to do what they like. Its really not hard to grasp if you try.
Except you tell people not to spam a particular weapon, ergo you're saying that the choice should be nulled.
No I just offered an alternative. Didn't say any choices should be nulled. So ergo nothing.
Andykp wrote: All your complaints there are about the rules, not the models, and I think we all agree that reducing options in the rules isn’t good. I don’t see an upside to it for players or modellers.
The problem is GW makes the models so that "3rd parties" can't enter their market and them makes the rules to ensure completely that it isn't even something that crosses a players mind.
The problem starts on the model side and ends on the ruleside. It also cuts down on modelling cost to make them "fixed" loadout. Especially on HQ and elite charachters.
It's the same reason why we get the wierd part torso part leg new CSM / marines which are rightfully considered more "monopose" (honestly i think"restricted pose" would be the better definition) and less fun, but it doesn't just stop at the "core model" but also extends ever further into equipment option, because someone probably at GW did run the maths that less "sprue" weapons = cheaper production because less plastic to produce.
Then there is the fact that what GW demands for a box of models is honestly absurd...
Agree to disagree on the marines, I think they are better than ever and as much fun. Otherwise I agree, especially on the character side of things. Making unique and interesting characters is really difficult now in the rules. That's why I make up house rules bit I know not everyone can do that.
But you did imply you're fine with choices being nulled, because you told people not to spam a single weapon because that's what you want to do and what GW wants. Just please be honest on your actual beliefs.
Wow you are really Over thinking this.
I will spell it out for you one last time.
I like to build my models with lots of variety. It should be an option. There should be lots of options. Including “spamming” one type of weapon in a unit. Or taking one of each. You should have choice. Those are my thoughts on it. Beliefs is a strong word for something so trivial so I will stick with thoughts.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Is he ok with people "spamming" the same heavy weapon in Dev/Havoc/Scourge units?
I'd think not, as he was admonishing us about doing exactly that in a Dev squad.
(Or was it Havocs?)
Either way his opinion on how I build my models within the rules doesn't mean anything.
You are right. My opinion means nothing and neither does yours. You build your models how you like and enjoy. I will build mine my way. We can all be happy. That’s my point throughout. Build them in the rules, out the rules I don’t mind at all and don’t expect you to consider my opinion for a second.
And HBMC (?) you spam what you like. I don’t mind at all.
Everyone needs to chill out a bit, they’re only opinions.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/12/16 01:35:38
2022/12/16 21:34:17
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Putting four of the same gun in a Dev squad is "spamming" now.
Ok sure...
That's why I don't believe he thinks the option should be available to begin with.
Considering the price we pay for 5 devs/ havocs i feel like we should get atleast 5 weapons of each variety..
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2022/12/17 14:27:24
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
I think you get better value buying the Horus heresy Marines and upgrades. They also look a bit less derpy next to primaris. Only issue is that the sergeant has a weird weapon selection not covered this way.
And if course you can't rotate the waist
2022/12/17 16:36:04
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Crimson wrote: Those pictures are an excellent demonstration of how tilting the torso results the abdomen and waist looking unnatural.
Falls into the category of IDGAF.
So why don't you show that same thought to Primaris? Have you considered that it's exactly the other way around from the perspective of folks who prefer Primaris designs?
Insectum7 wrote:You mean the part where you're projecting on the other side on how they (me) build their models? "anything more than a few degrees rotation looked so unnatural with the old “multi pose” kits that you ended up building them all the same way." It remains BS, as the image I provided displays. Now you might think those poses are unnatural, but I personally do not. Yes, the belt buckle is not in the right twist, but it does not break my sense of "natural" to the pose. Now YOU, Andykyp, may have felt constrained in the torso-rotation of your kits, but many others do not.
And you may feel constrained by the posing of Primaris Marines, but many others do not.
You might say it's limiting, but I don't. You might say seeing the same legs in the squad breaks your sense of natural, but it doesn't mine.
And this also: "and the new marines are as interchangeable as the old." is plainly untrue, as per the example of leg swapping. Speaking of which, since I happened to look closer at the Assault Intercessors during this exchange I also noticed that they all have the same chest-piece/emblem, the same as the Intercessors have. I suspect one of the reasons behind it is so that you didn't always get the same chest adornment piece on the same leg-torso pose. Now that I see it I can't unsee it. The Tactical box has 7 differently designed chest pieces. There's at least one more from older Tac boxes (which again, you can exchange freely with the ball-and-socket).
Which you could barely see under the bolter hugged to their chest. Again, that was a feature that didn't bother me. It sounds like you're imposing your feelings as standard just as much as you're accusing Andykp of doing.
All Primaris Tacticus Marines can just as easily switch legs between themselves. All Phobos kits can do the same. I actually PREFER that the torsos are the same, because it means they're all the same template. You might not, but you don't get to frame that as some kind of objective advantage.
What you got with the older kits is what many would call a small sacrifice in belt-buckle displacement for much greater freedom in model posing (and upon inspection, much more emblem variety and back pack variety as well), and some of us really do like to take full advantage of it.
And some of us really don't, as you put it earlier, GAF. The belt-buckle displacement might really be more of an issue than some different badges that could be sculpted on if you really cared that much to fix it.
Again, I personally don't see the advantage on being able to shift a torso to another static position. But, you disagree, and that's okay. However, you are also just as guilty of the same behaviour you're accusing Andykp of.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Putting four of the same gun in a Dev squad is "spamming" now.
Ok sure...
That's why I don't believe he thinks the option should be available to begin with.
It’s weird that you think I would bother lying about something like that. Believe what you like but you are giving it much more thought than me.
And is there an official definition of “spamming” and was it made up by the same person who defines “monopose” as having a fixed torso and legs but all other parts possible???
If it’s that word that is upsetting everyone. I can change it, to repeating or using multiples of??? Makes no difference. The advice still counts.
2022/12/17 21:37:22
Subject: Which armies haven't gone full monopose yet?
Brickfix wrote: I think you get better value buying the Horus heresy Marines and upgrades. They also look a bit less derpy next to primaris. Only issue is that the sergeant has a weird weapon selection not covered this way.
And if course you can't rotate the waist
you do. actually.
You get atleast 4-5 squads of havocs with all the same weapons
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
