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.

 Gert wrote:

Torsos that were all the same and legs that were 90% the same pose. Mhm yes so modular and so varied.

The notion that the older kits were superior because the MkIV could have the torso positioned 1 degree spin to the left or right is just silly.

Oh hey I have a reference pic for that! A lil more than one degree of freedom, methinks.

That's brilliant!

A slight twist of the waist and a tilt of the head can tell an entirely different story.

That said, I don't get all the bitching about the fact that the current HH Marines all share 5 basic poses. There is still plenty of scope for varying their appearance - and (in my experience) few players really care that much once they're in squads. Those who want more variety can achieve by (gasp!) converting the models.

 Snord wrote:
That's brilliant!

A slight twist of the waist and a tilt of the head can tell an entirely different story.

That said, I don't get all the bitching about the fact that the current HH Marines all share 5 basic poses. There is still plenty of scope for varying their appearance - and (in my experience) few players really care that much once they're in squads. Those who want more variety can achieve by (gasp!) converting the models.

Personally I was instantly turned off by the monopose models because some of those poses I really didn't like. I was interested when the mk VI squad was released, but the moment I saw conspicuously-walking-upright-guy repeating in the same ten man unit I was out. There's another legs-together-standing guy in there too, which wasn't as bad, but still not the look I want. Because that's a 5-pose kit, repeating twice, that means 40% of the models in the aren't hitting the mark for me, and because they're monopose leg-torso combos converting or swapping pieces out is kinda a pain. And if you're planning on running a lot of bodies in your army, that becomes a big problem.

A more subtle thing is, what if you want your models to be posed "the same", but still be different? The extra flexibility of getting that torso rotation means you have more freedom with what the arms are doing, which is useful because the bolter-holding arms of various kits have their own poses. This might sound a little goofy at first, but if you're trying to point your bolter guys all as if they're all in a firing line the extra freedom at the torso can help sell it. Here's an in-progress pic of my typical 40K build, all in their personal version of Codex-Astartes-Approved-Advance-And-Fire-Stance to give a batter idea of what I'm talking about.


Every guy is doing the same thing, but because of the different arms-leg-torso combos they all still have their pose variations. But more importantly to me, they look unified as a squad because there aren't a couple high-standing goofballs in there.

As for converting, I'm all for it. But honestly these days I'd just 3d print my own variations.

There does seem to be a bit of focus difference between 40k and hh. In 40k the astartes are the mythic heroes of the Imperium, each one worth a squad or platoon of lesser beings. They deserve to stand out as individuals.

In HH, astartes are different. They are still powerful, but the scale of warfare is larger. Astartes in these battles make up the key heroes, but also the faceless masses of troops and hordes of vehicles. Giving each model an individual pose is somewhat less important when building a force with 3 20 man units of line infantry as a base plus elite squads.

Would I rather more poses? Sure. But I'm not going to begrudge the modular system GW uses for Heresy which lets them get more variety of kits out there in plastic.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
There does seem to be a bit of focus difference between 40k and hh. In 40k the astartes are the mythic heroes of the Imperium, each one worth a squad or platoon of lesser beings. They deserve to stand out as individuals.

In HH, astartes are different. They are still powerful, but the scale of warfare is larger. Astartes in these battles make up the key heroes, but also the faceless masses of troops and hordes of vehicles. Giving each model an individual pose is somewhat less important when building a force with 3 20 man units of line infantry as a base plus elite squads.

Would I rather more poses? Sure. But I'm not going to begrudge the modular system GW uses for Heresy which lets them get more variety of kits out there in plastic.

Mmm... It's hard to see how the "faceless masses of Marines" theory holds up when you look at the formerly mentioned GSC set. These mere mortal units who also happen to be taken in multiple squads of up to 20 troopers, but also have loads individuality and customization.

Imo an expectation of 60+ models built from the same 5 monopose dudes kinda seems even worse. Like I'm still pretty good with 2nd edition Metal monoposed Aspect Warriors because you typically only had a squad or two, (small squads often, as well) because in those small numbers the repetition isn't so glaring.

Also, when Horus Heresy models got started in resin weren't they customizeable ball and socket?

I agree that it would have been good if the HH Marines could be rotated at the waist. This wouldn't have fouled up the cross-compatibility for special and heavy weapons either. I guess it was a question of how much room there is on the sprue (they clearly wanted to get everything onto one sprue). Ultimately, I am fine with what they did. Mix in some different armour types, and there is plenty of variety.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
There does seem to be a bit of focus difference between 40k and hh. In 40k the astartes are the mythic heroes of the Imperium, each one worth a squad or platoon of lesser beings. They deserve to stand out as individuals.

In HH, astartes are different. They are still powerful, but the scale of warfare is larger. Astartes in these battles make up the key heroes, but also the faceless masses of troops and hordes of vehicles.

Which is pretty funny considering 30k Marines are People and 40k Marines are brainwashed automata.

I would disagree with the assessment of HH marines.

The actual number of marines in the HH era wasn't appreciably different to the current number. Each Legion had a size between 50,000 and 100,000, with the Ultras getting up to 200 iirc.

So at most there were 2 million marines (but likely close to 1 million) in the great crusade, but still spread across the whole galaxy, just like they are in 40k.

The modern 40k battles are much larger in scale given they have billions of guardsmen fighting. The Solar Auxilia didn't have that many troops.

The HH is disjointed in its presentation of the imperial army, they seem to be grand battles but with very small numbers of troops and equipment.

The thing is when you see three guys with the exact same "readied combat stance" pose, it just makes them look disciplined. Yeah they're all in that pose because they've all been trained to fight that way, no big deal.

But when three models have the exact same "wildly flailing action pose" then now it looks like a coordinated dance number. Because there's no way that three wildly flailing people would end up in that exact same pose at the same time, unless it's a scene from Heresy: the Musical.

It's a big difference that gets overlooked. So I'm inclined to agree with Insectum on the model poses.

 Hellebore wrote:
I would disagree with the assessment of HH marines.

The actual number of marines in the HH era wasn't appreciably different to the current number. Each Legion had a size between 50,000 and 100,000, with the Ultras getting up to 200 iirc.

So at most there were 2 million marines (but likely close to 1 million) in the great crusade, but still spread across the whole galaxy, just like they are in 40k.

The modern 40k battles are much larger in scale given they have billions of guardsmen fighting. The Solar Auxilia didn't have that many troops.

The HH is disjointed in its presentation of the imperial army, they seem to be grand battles but with very small numbers of troops and equipment.

For me, it’s the greater ease of replacing losses being represented.

Background wise, the Legions weren’t as exclusive in their recruitment practices as the modern day Chapters. And I reckon that’s a number of factors. A strict cap on numbers introduces selection pressure. Heresy Era had greater supply lines and understanding of the toys needed.

So your force over here might number a couple of thousand at the start, and a few hundred after. But Legion recruitment has at the same time recruited 2,000 - so despite heavy losses, your numbers are increasing.

According to the internet, there are about 1 million Marines in the WH40k era - half the estimated number for the Heresy. Which is absurd considering the size of the galaxy (I never bought the idea of chapters being only 1000 strong). Anyway, ‘modern’ Marine armies operate more as a combined arms strike force, whereas in the Heresy they were deployed en masse with lots of armoured support. So I think there is a bit more of a ‘faceless mass’ theme to Heresy armies. They also play that way, with whole units equipped largely identically. I think that kind of justifies more uniformity in the models. I suspect that was partly behind the design philosophy of the Heresy Marines.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

For me, it’s the greater ease of replacing losses being represented.

Background wise, the Legions weren’t as exclusive in their recruitment practices as the modern day Chapters. And I reckon that’s a number of factors. A strict cap on numbers introduces selection pressure. Heresy Era had greater supply lines and understanding of the toys needed.

So your force over here might number a couple of thousand at the start, and a few hundred after. But Legion recruitment has at the same time recruited 2,000 - so despite heavy losses, your numbers are increasing.

There are two types of "Modern Marines". There is the pre-Great Rift Firstborn in which recruitment was heavily ritualised, slow and prone to geneseed rejection. In that case you would be right, Firstborn are notoriously hard to replace and tend to be highly individualized warriors.

And then you have Primaris that can be quickly produced at rates that seem to put the Legions to shame, equipped with mass produced superior equipment and with organisation and tactics that put a heavier focus on the squad and army (a lot of specialist units in which every member has the same equipment, vs the Firstborn generalist units with specialist members).

I mean, the Blood Angels and friends lost around 25 thousand Space Marines in Baal, only to have most of those losses replaced by Primaris by Guillliman and Cawl. The Indomitus Crusade was basically a Legion in all but name, and Primaris Marines basically fight like Legion Marines, except with newer equipment.

The exclusive recruitment practices of 40k are only for replacing casualties in 1000 man forces. So it isn't affecting replacement rate in toto when its such a small number.

The legions are just 50 chapters that recruit en mass.

 Tyran wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

For me, it’s the greater ease of replacing losses being represented.

Background wise, the Legions weren’t as exclusive in their recruitment practices as the modern day Chapters. And I reckon that’s a number of factors. A strict cap on numbers introduces selection pressure. Heresy Era had greater supply lines and understanding of the toys needed.

So your force over here might number a couple of thousand at the start, and a few hundred after. But Legion recruitment has at the same time recruited 2,000 - so despite heavy losses, your numbers are increasing.

There are two types of "Modern Marines". There is the pre-Great Rift Firstborn in which recruitment was heavily ritualised, slow and prone to geneseed rejection. In that case you would be right, Firstborn are notoriously hard to replace and tend to be highly individualized warriors.

And then you have Primaris that can be quickly produced at rates that seem to put the Legions to shame, equipped with mass produced superior equipment and with organisation and tactics that put a heavier focus on the squad and army (a lot of specialist units in which every member has the same equipment, vs the Firstborn generalist units with specialist members).

I mean, the Blood Angels and friends lost around 25 thousand Space Marines in Baal, only to have most of those losses replaced by Primaris by Guillliman and Cawl. The Indomitus Crusade was basically a Legion in all but name, and Primaris Marines basically fight like Legion Marines, except with newer equipment.

Thanks for reminding me why I hate primaris "lore". Yech.