40K Deep Thought: How Important are Multi-pose Minis?

The recent GW minis have reached ever-higher quality at the expense of customization – does it even matter?

I want to get the pulse of the readerbase about something I’ve heard hobbyists bemoan – the ever-shrinking role of customization in 40K.

For pretty much Gw’s entire history we have seen characters models get monopose minis.  It makes sense – these are individuals and the sculptors will try to make them in a particular pose fitting their character. From the wide stance with power-wreathed hand of Ahriman to the “at the gallop” of Kharn – these things are fantastic.

Even the giant showpiece models such as the Lord of Change are monopose.

Now the bread and butter squads like Tactical Marines are posable, but I’m seeing more and more units go with monopose kits where there might be more ability for customization. for example, take the Helldrake, or the Maulerfiend. then take all the new Death Guard models.

 

While all these models are of GW quality and stunning, it feels like the overall trend is slowly shifting towards a more tolerant attitude for monopose kits if the visual quality and posing is high.

Which to me is interesting because I rarely hear gamers complaining about it these days.  However, the customizability of GW kits is still held up by many as a primary hobby factor that puts GW ahead of other ranges that avoid it altogether, say Warmachine, or X-wing.  Next consider that Mantic makes kits that are fairly posable, yet I don’t recall ever hearing a gamer hail their range for it.

Is it Important, or an Excuse?

Which leads me back to 2017 and the big question. Does customability really matter to gamers and hobbyists these days? Or, is it just something we SAY matters to justify our favorite game systems, even though we rarely ever take advantage of the opportunities it allows?

~What do you think is going on and how do you feel about it with your purchases?

 

  • ReverendTiberiusJackhammer

    Well, it depends on the player, there isn’t going to be a one-size fits all answer. I’m super into the visuals, with a battlefield feeling something like a diorama, so I’d rather my Maulerfiends weren’t striving forward with such perfect coordination (Unless they’re possessed by a Slaaneshi dance troupe).

    • Valeli

      Yeah, absolutely. I don’t care all that much myself. I remember being a kid in 2nd edition and having all sorts of fun as we proxied unpainted model X in army A for unit Y in army B.

      I”ve come along a bit since then and looks do matter to me, along with (generally) accurate representations of weapon loadouts. I can still have a ton of fun without multiple (or any) converted/customized miniatures on my board though.

      That said, I appreciate a good conversion every single time, and am acutely aware that this stuff does matter to some people.

      Personally, cash matters most to me though. If doing this could bring prices down a bit, I’d be on board.

      • chris harrison

        I totally agree. I used to kitbash GW miniatures all the time, not to get specific weapon loadouts but just because I wanted an army that wasn’t so bland. It’s easier to mold monopose miniatures on the sprues because there are less pieces, so perhaps they could include more subtle variations in units of troops. As for characters and monsters, maybe they could do like Privateer Press and release a variant with a slightly different look now and then. If this means I’ll never have to glue individual hand grenades or spikes that are smaller than a grain of rice onto a miniature, I’m all for it too.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      when DV came out but before the Helbrute box my club had several people playing that Chaos Dreadnought formation, each looking like some crazy Grimdark Pan’s People.

  • Rémi Bruneton

    Personally I don’t mind if my mini is the same as your mini, especially as the likelihood of having two identical armies on he table is slim, but what I do hate is to have two identical models in the same army – typically with duplicated sprues (I had a heck of a time converting chaos cultists in dark vengeance to avoid having duplicates)!

    • raul

      I love the cultist models. so many cool things you can do with them.

  • kobalt60

    I suspect the kind of gamers that cherish diversity and possibility in miniatures are the kind that are too busy in life to whine about the lack of it on the internet.

    • Snord

      Very profound. That also explains why so many things that the internet gets worked up about regarding this hobby aren’t really that important.

      • kingcobra668

        This is the internet for all subjects

      • Brutus Motor

        Too busy looking for bits to care enough to complain.

    • Crevab

      No busier than you. Where’d you pull that generalization from?

      • kingcobra668

        You are something special

  • IronGryphon

    I’d like to know where you’re hearing that the community is bemoaning monopose minis. All of GW’s minis have been customizable into different poses and styles, even if a little green stuff need be applied. It’s all about how much conversion the hobbyist wants, or does not, want to do. For those who like less conversion, for example, a single option is a boon. It also makes list building easier for matched play. This is all designed to attend to all hobbyists differing level of play styles and “hobby styles,” such as conversions, posing the model, weapon load outs, etc. Just remember Primaris Marines aren’t as versatile as your standard marine and you’ll be alright.

    • carlisimo

      There’ve been a fair amount of YouTube videos bemoaning monopose Primaris HQ models (Captain, Librarian, Chaplain, Apothecary). Not many complaints about other units, just the characters. Everyone with Primaris marines is going to have the same one, after all.

      There’s also a strong contrast with the flexibility of the old plastic Space Marine Commander. That kit was great.

      • Tigirus

        I don’t mind the mono-pose plastic characters, they’re much easier to convert than the old metal mono poses.

        The old commander kit was pretty cool but I was always underwelmed by it ’cause it lacked the dynamism and detail that the fixed pose characters had. Plus most of the new plastic characters (for space marines at least) generally are built in such a way it’s not difficult to swap head, shoulders or arms with minor modification. Like you can squeeze a decent amount of customization out of the new primaris captain while still having the model look really good. The price though, that’s a different story.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        the Chaos Terminator Lord/Sorcerer was a good example too, loads of bits so no two needed to look the same. I expect we’ll get some monopose version of each when the model is eventually replaced.

    • Nosebleed

      I for one find the oddly cut assemblies now a bane. While new releases now are still customisable and convertible, it takes more effort than the past.

      Flexibility of past releases were a great selling point over other game systems when it comes to the hobby.

      • IronGryphon

        True enough, but everyone might not be going for that sort of thing. And remember, Primaris Marines are an add on, for existing armies, so conversions may not be a priority. For instance, how many captains in Gravis Armour or Primaris Librarians do you need, when you have a tone of different varieties already?

  • Malisteen

    They’re important because their kits come with a lot of options, and those options can sometimes be traded between kits, and that encourages GW to actually support all those options with rules. That’s pretty darn important in this post-chapterhouse world where GW simply does not want to support any game options that do not have first party model representations.

  • TB0N3

    Speaking only for myself, I physically can’t assemble minis as they come straight off the box… Maybe one, but I hate to have two exact models in an army. I didn’t think to add some Hellblasters ’till I saw the new multi-part box.

  • BloodAngel

    I like and dislike it for different reasons. Customization ability is great for your WYSIWYG crowd, and modelers who want to get really cool, individual poses, and especially for customizing and kitbashing I used to kitbash the old lead minis. They were such a pain to saw off arms and legs. (My first army was metal Imperial Guard with Squat bikers. The dreadnoughts I got through mail order only came with left legs. These were the original metal contemptor type 1989 version. I had to hack through the metal legs to kitbash right legs out of half of them). Plastic is easier, but the more detailed the model is, the harder it can be to kitbash, even in plastic.

    On the other hand, I only get a couple of games in per edition, and don’t know the meta usually, so, the more options, weapons etc there are, I find myself having boxes of minis I never end up building, as I don’t know what to kit them out with to be a good army. I like the easy decision of warmachine and games like that. You have customization options with the units and such, but you can start building and painting right away, because you don’t need to worry about whether you are doing a melta, plasma, Heavy Bolter, Rocket launcher squad, etc…

  • Munn

    Eh, don’t care either way.

  • memitchell

    I like painting, but I’m indifferent when it comes to modelling. Building a new Genestealer Cult, I found an old metal Catachan mortar team (3 of them) in the bottom of a bitz box ( a BIG box). I forgot how easy it is to just prime and paint a metal model. They look great! Wouldn’t want all my models to be mono-pose. Though, the new minis like GSC Hybrids come in a variety of poses. So, color me undecided. Solidly, fanatically undecided. Don’t even try to reason with me!

    • Porty1119

      Metal > plastic. Just my opinion.

  • ZeeLobby

    I honestly miss them a lot. I was the guy who would go to lengths to make sure no Ork had matching head/arm/leg combos, because it really did make a difference on the table. I liked occasionally switching out an arm here, or leg there, for some mechanical replacement, etc. Conversions were simple and therefore everywhere. Now I see a ton of the same mono-pose models on the table. Converting them can be extremely daunting, while seeing 2 of the same model next to each other on the table can be a total eyesore. I miss the older stuff. I’d take less detail and more pose-ability any day.

    • Snord

      I’m the same – especially with Orks. But these things take so long, and in the meantime nothing gets painted.

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah. It definitely take perserverance. That said, it was super easy to swap out a head, or awesome weapon, to differentiate nobz from boyz, etc. Head swaps have always been some of my favorite things. I’ve found it annoying lately that sometimes the shape of the new monopose models can make a headswap without cutting difficult.

  • Jim Cook

    I’ve been converting GW models for decades. Conversions are part of how I get my full money’s worth from out of GW’s product, and how I get units or characters that haven’t got adequate models to represent them.
    If GW’s moving more and more to monopose, well, at least I’m not having to saw through pewter anymore. That’s something.

  • defensive

    For me, I much prefer poseability over pre-posed models.
    Even if the detail is slightly higher, the variation and personal choice is much better. Besides, you can always add in more details yourself if you like, but you can never pose a snapfit kit.

    3 units of slightly boring, but personally suited models over 3 units of the exact same models anyday.

  • Even back in the olden days when GW sold metal minis 3 per blister and there was only 3 variations of spearmen in the entire range there was a lot of conversions going on because people liked variation.
    Then GW started the plastic regiment boxes and did the whole ‘every mini can be posed the way you want, no two minis will be the same!!’ thing and people went crazy. I think going back to more monopose sculpts will be a step backwards.

    • euansmith

      I remember struggling against “Disco Marine Syndrome” when the original Rogue Trader plastic sprues came out. The ability to individually pose minis lead to everyone getting a “dynamic” pose.

    • AircoolUK

      Ironically, those mutli pose regiment boxes ended up with the mini’s looking mostly the same anyway. They also (and still do) have the horrible problem of that gluing threeway where you have to stick both arms to the shoulders whilst gluing the gun to both hands.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        moulding the gun to the pair of arms works better. Warlord does that with their newer Bolt Action plastics. You can still put different arms with different torsos and different heads to get variety, but it speeds things up hugely.

      • Yeah the three way gluing is a bloody nightmare.

  • frank

    For me id probably care more about the levels of customization if the costs meant that id feel comfortable taking more risks with my conversions. customization was always my favorite part of miniatures as a hobby but if i were to buy something like the magnus or the lord of skulls model i probably would not feel like converting the model to any great extent.

  • Gustav

    I’d take a modest reduction in detail for increased posability. Nothing weirder than looking across the battlefield at a dude striding towards an identical dude…

  • Crevab

    I always tweak my models a bit and I loathe GW’s shift towards monopose. Compare the Carnifex and the Slaughterbute. The ‘fex with it’s options and poseability, whereas the ‘brutes are a nuisance to convert away from the high-five pose.

    The Imperial Knight could have been easily cut to make the legs poseable, but they went with mono. It’s terrible.

    And now it’s spreading down to infantry models.

    • Chet Atkinson

      Totally agree with you on the Knights – I have three and they all have the same leg pose – embarrassing.

    • spla5hmummy

      Agree on the knights. I bought four when the crusader came out and was horrified when I discovered the static legs. I was sawing and pinning for days to make them look even subtely different.

  • Nosebleed

    Customisation is indeed the way to go. Reducing customisability is GW shooting themselves in the foot IMO.

    I can write lengthy about this, but I’ll try to keep it short.

    1) Customising allows hobbyist to convert and personalise the models to their liking. Make it difficult with oddly cut assemblies, only the hardcore hobbyist will bother converting.

    2) Customising sells the game by itself. If a player has already equipped a plasma gun into his tactical squad and would like to equip with flamer next, he would need to buy a new tactical squad for the bit, or if he is savvy, source for just the bit (which requires the reseller to buy a new box to acquire it).

    Of course you can always magnetise your mini, but most players don’t. Since the beginning, one of the key attraction of GW is its ability for players to personalise their miniatures. Case in point, customised pose and customised weapons loadout. Therefore the recent trend of mono-pose and oddly cut miniatures, while making assembly more fun, is actually a setback for GW in the long run.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      some monopose minis are dreadfully tedious to assemble. the Skitarii Vanguard kit is no fun at all, every bit must go with a tiny and specific other bit. They look nice when they are done, but combine the worst of both worlds, really fiddly bits, but also numbered bits you need to follow the instructions to make and still no real poseability.

  • Ian Chisholm

    Posing is important for me because even though I run Guard I like each soldier to have some personality so when they pull off something crazy I can tie that moment to a particular model.

  • Nosebleed

    I don’t expect GW to go back to its previous flexibility on poses and conversions though. 40k is shifting more towards a matched play type than a hobby type game.

    For matched play, the current assembly cuts and lack of poses fits the game better.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      why?

  • Randy Randalman

    Things really didn’t get less customizable. For generic clampack characters? Sure. But for kits, they come with more bits than ever, and plastic is incredibly easy to swap and customize. Besides, I’d rather have joints that look like joints with few poses than random ball-and-sockets that look completely unnatural.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    On the one hand, I’ve been pretty vocal about last edition’s doubling down on only ever playing with the components that come in a given unit box, unless you’re playing Astartes or Asuryani. At the same time, I can live with a monopose model/unit, if the sculpt and the stats are worth taking. However, there are more than a few factions/sub-factions that I fear are going to get Brettonianed, that coincidently carry a high degree of convertibility (Inquisition, Ministorum, Sororitas, to a lesser extent, Guard if the rumours about Regiment choice either don’t pan out or are poorly implemented).

    • Munn

      “Convertability” and “Have to hack up metal goddam models to give sergeants a friggin combi-weapon” are not the same thing.

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        Nigh unrestricted wargear access, if not the model selection to support that, is what I mean. All the factions I listed, save Sororitas, have a pretty broad selection of models to choose from, and their units have a relatively large selection of items to be equipped with, which is more than can be said about some factions.

        Apart from Sororitas, which factions still require metal minis? Also, Deathwatch and Astartes have a pretty ready supply of plastic Combi-weapons, FYI.

  • James Lawes

    I also dislike duplicate models in a single army, although i dont mind it s o much on horde units that i expect to be removing from the table in handfuls (eg cultists and poxwalkers) i do wish there was an easy alternative to duplicate maulerfiends though

  • To me…absolutely. I LOVE converting and kitbashing models.

  • Graham Roden

    It’s nothing new with GW. Those long enough in the tooth to remember the 90’s had delights such as metal miniatures with plastic arms, solid metal miniatures and of course the infamous plastic space marine from the boxed game. I’m indifferent to the whole thing, a bit of variety on a sprue with fixed pose miniatures is ok, you can get a bit of variety from the way you paint them. If you can pose heads, change weapons or add slightly different backpacks to the miniatures then that’s good too. Failing that go back to the old Mike Mcvey tactics of hacksaws and green stuff. Less choice means less waste in some cases.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      I still have nightmares about pewter and plastic Plasma Cannon Devs.

      • Graham Roden

        The assault marines weren’t much better!

      • lunahula .

        Try the old metal prism cannon on the plastic eldar falcon grav tank body!

        I’ll just rotate this up. Up I said! Damn the base has snapped, the plastic axel inside has snapped and the weight of it has crushed the tank.

  • Stig Christensen

    mono pose minis, some are cool, but ive would always prefer to make my own unique commander or equip them with the weapon i want. if GW goes futher down this road they will loose one of their greatest assets, the hobby collector who makes his own personal army.

  • inailo

    I’m happy as long as I have enough extra weapons and bitz left after building the whole kit. I just converted two of the Dark Imperium Plague Marines I have from bolters to blight launchers crafted from spare Heavy Bolters. As long as there are some bits and bobs left over after I make the guys I bought the kit for, I’ll generally be happy.

  • For me yes. If GWs minis go more mono-pose then I will buy less as I like kit bashing and posing my minis.

  • Josh Heinz

    I would prefer to see standard models (rank and file troops) be monopose, as opposed to the characters and monsters. I’d much rather have my important models be customizable than the rabble.

  • TenDM

    I don’t really care that much either way, but I’d like to see a drop in weapon options or an increase in magnet compatibility (give me a GW range of magno-fit models and official Citadel twice the price magnets).
    I just find having more than two weapon options takes a very flexible rule and forces me to commit to a single configuration or a weekend drilling and magnetising.

  • Joshua Nicholson

    100% matters you want your army to be yours not the same as everyone else’s and for diorama pieces its essential.

  • onlyonepinman

    It matters to me; it’s not so much the posing but the ability to interchange certain components such as heads and shields. You can create some very unique looks by changing only a few key components and that’s something I love doing. You can also create some amazing models by kit bashing, which monopose models don’t support very well. It’s definitely something I personally am not particularly thrilled about losing.

  • Fergie0044

    Yes it’s important. I’m hardy an expert modeler or painter but I still like to do a little bit of customisation to make key models my own. I’m a death guard guy but have only picked up first strike so far as I want to wait and see what the full DG release brings.
    Although it will probably still be a tough decision; do i get the (probably) cheaper mono pose ones from dark imperium or the separate and probably more customisable box sets later?

  • Arthfael

    I love multi-pose, and the trend away from it is sad. I think mono-pose is fine as long as – such as for the Wraithknight kit – it is easy to remove a few pegs to create a much more posable model.

    I know people hate resin, but – and I know this is not realistic, but just to tell you how far I am in that direction – ideally I would like hybrid kits where the model’s main body is plastic and things like tentacles or cables are resin so you can heat them and adjust their position. Also, any Chaos type model should come less fleshy bits but with green stuff and you model them yourself. What do you mean it would be a pain?!

  • marlowc

    I collect mostly Orks and they are all converted to some degree or other. With plastic models this is so easy to do that it doesn’t really matter if the kit has been designed to be multi-pose or not. With Orks especially, even someone with pretty basic skills can do a convincing customisation job on them 🙂

  • Tshiva keln

    Personally it’s multipose all the way for me. I hate it when even my basic troopers look the same pose, and it is absolutely awful when characters are the same (like the old TS sorcerer for example,where you would want multiples)

    I would definitely buy less monopose models and would look for 3rd party models for variety if I couldn’t convert them.

  • Chet Atkinson

    The new miniatures are terribly boring I have to say. They’re more like following an instruction manual where you don’t put any of yourself into their look. The finished product looks good but so static and run of the mill that you know everyone else’s looks just like yours.

  • Thomson

    I thought the days of sawing of shoulder pads and filing of things I do not want on my miniature where a thing of the past…

  • Inian

    Putting together the GC models in the Deathwatch Overkill box was a pleasure. Putting together the equivalent models from normal 40k-boxes was torture.

    But the worst kit to put together so far has to be Eldar Guardians; 2 legs, front and back torso, two arms, head, grenades, 2 fins… ugh… All the legs make pretty much the same pose anyway and the arms are a nightmare to attach and get to fit with the weapon. If they let me pose the torso on the legs and the head that would be enough.

  • Tigirus

    It’s not so much mono-pose minis that I dislike but identical minis I dislike. While yes, tactical marines are very similar in poses, but they can all have different heads, shoulder pads, backpacks, etc. This small amount of diversity despite the similarity of poses makes the models look unique. It’s not having 2-3 monsters or characters posed the same, it’s having an entire unit of clones that turns me off.

    This is a huge issue I have with warmachine as a lot of their units have 3-4 different poses that you get ad naseum which makes painting kinda boring and reduces the visual appeal of the unit.

    I’d be fine if GW wanted to produce more static models, the easy-to-build primaris are a good middle ground imho, they have just enough pose-ability to make some models look different while their poses are fixed enough to give more dynamic movement without a lot of work while still being pretty cheap. If they just had swap-able shoulder pads they’d be amazing.

  • Lee Ashford

    I don’t think they’re customisable enough…

    But they’re going after a younger audience now and those kids won’t have the patience for what I wanted.

    With the new Primaris range they could have easily made them multi chapter. With their technology in mold making nowadays they could have easily done something like this:

    Front of chest pieces seperate (I know they’re moulded with stomach to get the pose right)
    Heads, arms, weapons and shoulders pads all seperate
    Knee pads seperate, maybe even some thigh and shins (Wulfen have seperate thigh plates)
    No dangly reliquary items between legs (these can be seperate pieces so can again be chapter specific)
    Little indents on key points to fix chapter specific iconography

    Then release an upgrade sprue with chapter specific stuff to go in these places.
    Nothing stopping them having blanks or smurf pieces in the original box.

    Yes I know we can chop up the new models and add bits from previous kits. But without a lot of work these models always look like models with other bits stuck on…

    And I know there are the really small upgrade sprues out already. But they don’t offer enough variety of amount

  • AircoolUK

    I much prefer the old style, single pose models. However, I’m old school myself. Not many of the old metal models had options for different poses or alternate wargear.

    At least we know that models that are bought as units have multi poses, so there’s plenty of room for kitbashing characters. As to whether character datasheets will lack options is another thing.

    The single pose models we’ve seen over the last few months do have plenty of variety, which is ironic considering that, when building multi pose models, I tend to put them in similar poses.

  • AircoolUK

    There’s enough difference in the poses of models sold in ‘units’, and multi pose model have to sacrifice some of their dynamics so they can be built in different ways. For example, arms and shoulder joints, due to the way to two need a flat surface to take the glue, limit how you can pose the arm.

  • orionburn

    Characters being monopose don’t bother me so much. I like to see at least 2-3 variations for core troops. With troop choices I favor reduced cost over customization options. I like the current options of buying a boxed set for generic figures but an easy way to bulk up an army, and then have the option for the stand alone unit kit to go crazy on weapons and options.

  • Dan Orchard

    Personally, even the fact that each of my Skavenblight Scramblers isn’t unique really annoys me, so sure, I made them all, but I’m adding new kitbashes all the time to be able to replace the monoposes.

    • Richard Davis

      Blood bowl teams are (with managers/cheerleaders/mascots) about 20 miniatures, so duplicated models really stand out…
      It’s taken me some time, and extra ratmen, to get my skaven team table ready. I’m happy with how they look now, but it would have grated to use them straight out of the box.
      Monopose is fine but arm and head swaps become a major conversion, rather than a casual bit change…
      I guess in a skaven army, of 100+ miniatures duplication is OK, but in a team where you have 2 blitzers, 2 throwers etc. And want to have a uniform uniform, then converting is the price to pay.

  • Ragnar_Blackmane

    Monopose models are okay for named characters or characters you will only put a single one on the table, but they are very jarring for HQ/Elite character choices you want to use multiple of, such as Commissars and particularly Cadre Fireblades. It’s even worse than metal minis as at least you tended to have a wider selection of models e.g. for Commissars with differing equipment choices.

  • spla5hmummy

    For me customisable minis are far preferable even if it comes at a slight cost in the degree to which they are impressively designed. I like minis to look unique to each other and I like them to look different to other people’s. It also makes building them more fun and interesting. Currently if I wanted 2 primaris chaplains or librarians they would look identical discounting a different paint job. This is far from ideal. It makes them seem more like toy soldiers and less like pieces in complex strategy game. I don’t complain usually because it’s one of those many disappointing aspects of the hobby you just accept as being the way it is.

  • Horus Lupercal

    Every little thing that makes the hobby more accessible is a good thing…..

  • kingcobra668

    I don’t really know why you said, “at the gallop,” let alone why you have it in quotes. There is a movie “murder at the gallop” but I don’t think that is what you were going for. “At a gallop”maybe? But I still don’t know why it’s in quotes.

  • Heinz Fiction

    For me not as important as the price point.
    If i have 3 different poses in a unit of 20, I’m fine with it.

  • benn grimm

    Mono pose gives the sculptors more freedom to come up with some truly great stuff, multi pose makes customization easier for the hobbyist. I like access to both and generally cut up/greenstuff most models to some extent anyway, though sometimes I think the bigger models, like the Lord of Change, Glotkin, etc could do with a little more poseability as others here have pointed out.

  • Reven

    I really hope if plastic Sisters of Battle come out they are easy to customize rather then mono pose like the current pewter sisters.

    • JPMcMillen

      I’m sure they won’t be the 2 piece (body/backpack) like the old metal ones were. If if the main body (legs & torso) was mono-pose, at least if we could customize the head and arm/weapons, it would be a vast improvement.

  • As a long time Chaos player, conversions are our bread and butter. My old Plague Marines for example- I did head swaps, tentacles, green stuff… each and every one is unique. Same for the vehicles, etc.

    With the single pose, it does become tougher, but not impossible. With some hard work and luck, I converted a Heldrake and a Maulerfiend by kitbashing those with a zombie dragon kit. I ended up creating 2 Heldrakes and a Maulerfiend that look VERY different.

    When the actual Death Guard kits come out we shall see just how they go together. If their arms and heads are separate, then conversions can be done efficiently. If the arms only go one EXACTLY one way it’ll be tougher.

    As I said, any Chaos player worth their mark has converted, and yes GW’s mono-pose does make that more difficult.

  • Hendrik Booraem VI

    Customisability is a big deal. Just last night I assembled a “lieutenant” from various pieces from different kits. Some Vanguard Veterans, some Tactical Marines, some Assault Marines, some vehicle kit leftovers, even a Deathwatch bit or two.

    Without the multi-pose minis, WH40K becomes something completely other than what it is. It’s a game first and foremost, yes. But it’s also very much about modeling and making “MY guys” look different from “his guys.”

  • GiftoftheMagi

    It matters a lot for two reasons:
    1.) The game has options and multipose allows for those options of wargear.
    2.) The hobbyist enjoys making the model their own. Multipose makes this possible.

  • Boondox

    I prefer the multipart kits over monopose for the ability to customize them with the weapon options available. Given the array of wargear options some of the monopose figures do not always comply with WYSIWYG. I can also use my creativity and imagination to come up with unique conversions for the tabletop rather than use the same cookie cutter figures that everyone else has. The old SM Captain box is my favorite kit and I’ll take that over any of the new monopose Captains regardless of how well they’re sculpted.

  • Nathan king

    I die a little inside when 2 guys in one squad have the same pose.

    • TenDM

      I’m not that against fixed posed stuff, but yeah, I always take the time to check and make sure no two models in a unit have the same pose.

      • Nathan king

        I equally abhor having two squads that are a carbon copy of each other. Very boring. Variety is the spice of life, even I tabletop.

  • Chuck

    I love multi-pose kits and I will defend them to the death! I had to cut up and repose my second Heldrake because I couldn’t stand them swooping and looking the same direction.

    I also made 30+ Deathwing Terminators where no two are the same, and I did it using only the mono-pose Deathwing Terminators from Dark Vengeance along with extra bits left over after I made some Deathwing Knights. It involved a lot of cutting and green stuff.

    I only buy multiple mono-pose figures if I have a good idea of how I’m going to repose them. Customizing mono-pose models can feel rewarding, but it’s a lot more work than just using multi-pose kits.

  • tfkimmortal

    I’ve play and painted both 40k and warmachine. I don’t mind not being able to put them the way I want, but do like a little variety. If all the models in the unit had the same post, that might get boring.

  • Nyyppä

    Which is visually better, one pose all the way or unique models?

  • Xodis

    Its important, but not at the expense of quality.

    Singlepose miniature with high quality details>Multipose miniature with meh details.

  • MechBattler

    I’m not as concerned about poseablility as I am with having all the weapon and gear options included in the model kit. While it’s nice to pose it the way I want, I’d rather have all the options in it’s rules actually represented in the box. Too many models were released with only some of the options. It’s quite vexing when I want to use an option that’s not in the kit.

  • AircoolUK

    Ok, let’s be honest here; we all know what’s coming.

    Whilst non character units will continue with their ‘mostly’ poseable kits, characters will be released as actual ‘characters’, with their own wargear and rules. Perhaps they’ll be named, or for specific sub-factions.

    For example, GW might release a Space Marine Captain as Alessio Cortez, armed only with a Bolt Pistol and a Power Fist. However, because the rules for units now come in the box, and GW can just post updated points onto their website (as they have done for each Primaris release so far), there’s no need to add him to the Codex. You just buy the model and add him to your army.

    This way, instead of ‘generic’ characters, we can start to get a bit more individuality and flavour, perhaps even designed to synergise with their sub-faction rules.

    Perhaps this will eliminate the need for releasing codexes and all the relevant releases over the past 12 months (except of course the rules in the box) will be bundled into the annual Chapter Approved book.

  • Colin Franklin

    Multipose models are very important–one of the biggest draws for me back in 1987 when I picked up my first RTB01 kit was their ability to be customized, and posed–the ability to make them uniquely mine was a huge thing that pulled me into the hobby.

    I don’t mind static pose characters and special characters, or even having a range of static pose guys, but losing multipose figures for the most commonly selected army units, creatures, and vehicles is a huge mistake. As more and more models were released as multipose kits, it kept me invested in GW when prices went up and model counts per box went down. Being able to field “my” characters, and units composed of individuals instead of lifeless statues is core to the hobby for me. Otherwise, you might as well use chess pieces out of a cheap set purchased at the corner drugstore.

  • Nick Silver

    It has to be both. Single pose character and special units. Multipose troops.

    Multipose sometimes lack the dynamics possible with a well scultped mini when you comprimise with parts sculpted to fit anywhere.

    Also the best single pose minis create a classic shared vision that shapes the identity of the universe.

  • I don’t like monopose miniatures when it’s something you have multiple of in your army.

    Ex. if all of my sergeants look the same that’s really boring.

    For characters like Cypher or Lysander I love the dynamicism they build into those models. But I do like the idea of a commander kit for a generic HQ so they all look a little different if you have multiple captains, apothecaries, or chaplains in your army.

  • helter266

    monopose are dull.

  • rtheom

    While having increased detail at the expense of variability makes up for the lack of customization, I’ve found that I have less and less incentive to purchase more than 1 of each model, and my buying habits so far have reflected that. Fortunately, I’m finding more enjoyment in smaller games recently, so its actually worked out okay for me, but there’s no way I’d want to field a Death Guard army with 10 each of the 3 monopose figures from the quick build kits. I’d just choose another army.

    The other big problem is that the more detailed you get, the more difficult it is to kit bash and customize the figures. Right now GW has more than enough models for it to matter to me, but I don’t quite like the direction they are headed.

  • AubreyLogic

    I thoroughly enjoy customizing my miniatures and prefer multi-part multi-option kits over mono-pose or clamp-fit. Even just having the option for different poses, it makes the miniatures more unique and individual. I definitely look forward to the multi-pose multi-part kits over the single pose clamp fit. Great example is the Primaris Redemptor Dread, even if my pose isn’t much different from everyone else’s I still enjoy making that decision myself.

  • Callum Rae

    Kit bashing and coming up with cool poses is the best bit of the hobby for me, I dont mind the odd single pose character but if all units went that way my wallet would becone strictly off limits for gw.

  • Krev_Grazl

    I find it less of a problem as my modelling skills get better. Since I bought a modelling saw, I don’t think I’ve ever looked at a model and thought I couldn’t convert it, monopose or otherwise.

  • Kayreios

    No one should have the monopoly on a good pose.

  • Mr.Fister

    For me who expresses himself artistically using his miniatueres: VERY IMPORTANT!

  • Abe Killian

    It totally matters. Adding character to your squad is such a cool thing in terms of narrative. Swapping armour marks between kits, head and arm swaps, weapon swaps – it was makes te difference between this style of gaming and ranked Napoleonic tabletop gaming. Character, dynamic posing, a completely original look to a unit, ALL through multi-pose kits. They are the heart and soul of what makes these systems great and not just “playing soldiers” with units of the same dude.

  • tylran

    If a model looks great, then I don’t mind. I only care about looks instead of the amount of time and options I had. Once they’re assembled, all of those options go to zero, and the model is what it is. Luckily the new GW minis have been super amazing.

  • UnpluggedBeta

    It really sucks for rank and file and kills the “my guys” feel that the game is famous for.

  • Da Gargoyle

    I must say, I’ve always enjoyed building a squad of multipose figures and having each one in a slightly different pose, even when using the same parts. The down side is that committing to the project is sometimes a chore because I need to be in the mood and some painting needs to happen before the final assembly.