PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy minis are becomming too static.



big squig
07-08-2009, 09:17
This might belong more in the modeling/painting/terrain section, but it's also sort of a fantasy rant as well.

One of the things I like about 40k is how modular the minis are. You can convert and customize a lot. You can put all your infantry in cool poses.

In fantasy, you're minis stuck in a giant block, so they all have to fit real nicely. This has cause the newer fantasy minis to get very static Many of them are only 2-3 parts.

I got a bit tired of this and wanted to express my creativity a bit (which most of the other fantasy players I know seem to hate me doing) and wanted to add character to my night goblin army. I was also tired of ranking up hundreds of goblins every game only to have to put them all away again. I wanted something more convenient and faster.

So, I went ahead and modeled my goblins in some cool poses and just glued them strait the movement tray.

As you can see, my units have lots of character now, but are still functional as I'm still using the bases as a grid. I just use D20s to mark wounds. It can be a bit of a pain as sometimes the dead take up space on the board...but being that their goblins, they tend not to survive long enough for it to be an issue.

Also, if you're having trouble with models ranking up, totally use round bases. Makes life so much easier.

Babolat360
07-08-2009, 09:51
hmm I'm not sure I quite agree with you about the Fantasy-40k minis comparison. The fantasy model range is huge and there are endless possibilities for conversions. About ranking up, I keep this in mind when gluing everything together. This way I actually end up with more varied poses. Gluing the models to the trays is a big no no for me. It would be a nightmare to carry around.

The_Warsmith
07-08-2009, 10:18
i prefere the more static models, i like my infantry to rank up neatly and look like a real army marching to battle, i really don't wana see GW go back to the models with arms flailing everywhere not only is it annoying to rank them up it doesn't look good. maybe for orks or beastmen it's ok but for alot of armies they should behave more 'proffesional'

in 40k it's more flexable because it's 'modern warfare' so you have guys running for cover, ducking, diving and dodging the bullets. models can be less static than those trained to form shield/spear walls

Gav2k
07-08-2009, 13:45
i prefere the more static models, i like my infantry to rank up neatly and look like a real army marching to battle, i really don't wana see GW go back to the models with arms flailing everywhere not only is it annoying to rank them up it doesn't look good. maybe for orks or beastmen it's ok but for alot of armies they should behave more 'proffesional'

in 40k it's more flexable because it's 'modern warfare' so you have guys running for cover, ducking, diving and dodging the bullets. models can be less static than those trained to form shield/spear walls

This is actually a brilliant way to put it, I never thought of it like this.

I guess it all depends on your force. For example, Big Squig plays a Goblin army..... Since when are Goblins rank-and-file units? They even have Animosity to show that they aren't disciplined. Therefor, Gobbo/Orc units should be designed to be more..."cinematic" in their poses.

Other armies - say for example High Elves - are extremely disciplined and keep to rank-and-file units, so having your elves in similar poses for the uniform look suits their fluff/design.

The only problem this all poses is that people would moan about things like "Oh, my models are less dramatic than his models! This is unfair! etc,etc"

TL;DR It really depends on the army's initial design imo.

Gazak Blacktoof
07-08-2009, 15:21
I can't say I'm a fan of gluing a whole unit together. It's a bit impractical for gaming purposes and can give both players a false impression of the battlefield.

I'd rather put a number on the back or bottom of the base if I'm going to have awkward models that fit in specific places in the unit. The other solution is to use rank, cavalry, 40mm or 50mm bases to get a few models into a diorama. That produces a similar effect without disrupting the game.

What I did with my dark elf corsairs was to magnetise their arms. This means I can switch weapons if I want and solves most of the ranking problems.

Very nice units big squig.

Cypher, the Emperor
07-08-2009, 15:27
Eh, I always saw goblins bunching up in big groups more than orcs, you know, so that they might actually kill something. And out of all units in the O&G army, I think Gobs would be the ones most likely to unit up because they's da smatsest!

Orcs on the other hand, I fully support moddeling them glued to the tray to look like a charging horde.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
07-08-2009, 19:06
Number the bases [you can have many poses and have them rank up, even if they only rank up in one combination, with the numbers, you can always remember that combination], and instead of gluing them to the tray, use metal trays and glue magnets to the base of each model. That way you can remove dead ones, have the animated poses, still rank up, and they make for easy transportation. This works for rag-tag units [Orcs, Free Company, etc.], but for the more disciplined units [ex. state troops] I actually prefer the unipose models for a more regimented and 'army' feel.

N810
07-08-2009, 19:20
I had an idea of making each rank or two one big base, with 5 seperate models on the back...

this would allow for a lot of poses, and let you keep an acurate amount of models. ;)

Urgat
07-08-2009, 19:24
While I like the new night gobs a whole bunch more than the previous plastics (right scale, for starters), it is true that I don't fancy their pose much. I'm planning to make my BfSP night gob regiments looking like they're sneaking through ruins, but the problem isn't to make the bases look good, but rather to have the gobs not just stand dumbly here and there... And I just don't want to reposition all those plastic gobs, for one, it's almost impossible, and second, the almost part would be a tremendous job, worse than my converted chaos dwarfs I believe.

Tokamak
07-08-2009, 19:38
There's nothing stopping you from cutting them up a bit.

Urgat
07-08-2009, 19:52
There's nothing stopping you from cutting them up a bit.

They're still standing still. Not walking, not moving, just standing there, cluching their weapon. That'd be an aweful amount of job having them strike dynamic poses.

N810
07-08-2009, 20:01
They're still standing still. Not walking, not moving, just standing there, cluching their weapon. That'd be an aweful amount of job having them strike dynamic poses.

Perhaps if you where super ambicious you could sculpt robes on some of the more dynamic goblin models... :confused:

theunwantedbeing
07-08-2009, 20:11
Single pose models are cheaper to make.
It's just cost cutting.

O&G'sRule
07-08-2009, 20:20
the block is the visual rather than the individual model. ranked up, some pretty average models suddenly look quite impressive. characters add a bit of dynamism but its really all about the whole rather than the individual in fantasy.

Urgat
07-08-2009, 20:25
Yeah, but new gobs are so small, they don't look packed at all. There's almost room for another one between each of them.
N810: as I said before that'd be a lot of work, that's for sure.

Tokamak
07-08-2009, 20:45
I think the common goblins should be the same size, besides, they're more detailed the the previous ones.

And what are we talking about here? Do you know any other static models besides the night goblins? So far every unit has been released with a wide range of possible options. This is just complaining for the sake of complaining.

Nym
07-08-2009, 20:50
Do you know any other static models besides the night goblins?

Warriors of chaos are a lot more static than they used to be in their previous incarnation.

The previous models had a very hard time fitting close to each other though... :p

Urgat
07-08-2009, 20:55
I think the common goblins should be the same size, besides, they're more detailed the the previous ones.

And what are we talking about here? Do you know any other static models besides the night goblins? So far every unit has been released with a wide range of possible options. This is just complaining for the sake of complaining.

I don't understand your post at all. common gobs are from the previous edition and are as large as the previous night gobs (so much bigger than the current ones). As for if there's other static units, I don't care, I play gobbos, don't I have the right to comment on one of the units I use most? But yeah, dwarfs suffer all the same, spider riders too, if you wanna know. As for other units, I dunno, I'm not a GW catalog. What do you get all snappy for? I don't see anything remotly offensive or OT in my posts.

Tokamak
07-08-2009, 20:57
Warriors of chaos are a lot more static than they used to be in their previous incarnation.

The previous models had a very hard time fitting close to each other though... :p

Which of those two would you prefer?

Nym
07-08-2009, 21:12
Which of those two would you prefer?

By far the previous Warriors of chaos. At least they didn't look like they were all clones, and were bulkier.

GideonRavenor
07-08-2009, 23:55
Yes, but they all looked constipated as well. As long my rank and file miniatures look interesting, I'm not too fussed by poses. I feel like characters need to be interesting, but don't feel there's any problem with fantasy poses.

mrtn
08-08-2009, 00:22
They're still standing still. Not walking, not moving, just standing there, cluching their weapon. That'd be an aweful amount of job having them strike dynamic poses.

The archers look more dynamic, you can change them to handweapon and shield quite easily, I've done it to a number of my skavenslaves. You can see some of them here (http://s8.photobucket.com/albums/a4/mrtnw/Miniatures/Skaven/?action=view&current=Slaves7.jpg).

As to the chaos warriors I very much prefer the current models. :)

ARVO
08-08-2009, 00:57
I always liked the new chaos warriors because they seemed more unflinching and relentless than the old ones, who looked like they were dancing.

How about ogre bulls? If you want to model a unit with mail-fist and a club, they all have to be posed exactly the same.

mweaver
08-08-2009, 00:58
Nice conversions, mrtn!

The Empire state troops released a year or so back were much less dynamic and flexible than their predecessors. They aren't horrible (well some of the heads are) but I prefer the older ones. On the other hand the newest Empire releases (great swords and archers) are again more flexible (esp. the great swords).

I find there is a lot to keep up with in the game already, and having blocks of orcs and goblins that don't really represent the number of troops left in the unit could be problematical (all it would take would be for your opponent to forget once to cause a problem). As others have suggested, the best compromise would be to make a few mini-dioramas/special groups on somewhat larger bases and fit them into the unit, with several individual models as well. Lose 1 to 3 goblins? Pull out 3 individual models. Lose 4? Pull out a base with 4 guys on it.

I do like the look of your units, by the way.

Urgat
08-08-2009, 01:04
The archers look more dynamic, you can change them to handweapon and shield quite easily, I've done it to a number of my skavenslaves. You can see some of them here (http://s8.photobucket.com/albums/a4/mrtnw/Miniatures/Skaven/?action=view&current=Slaves7.jpg).

As to the chaos warriors I very much prefer the current models. :)

Hey, good idea :)
I too much prefer the new chaos warriors btw, the older ones didn't strike me as very human, and more grotesque than frightening.

Cypher, the Emperor
08-08-2009, 01:50
Hey, good idea :)
I too much prefer the new chaos warriors btw, the older ones didn't strike me as very human, and more grotesque than frightening.

Not to mention the 5th ed ones looked kinda like Orcs

Jind_Singh
08-08-2009, 09:33
Personally the thing that drew me to WFB was the ranked units - it looks so awesome! I used to love reading about Napolonic days of war when the regiments would rank up and take the fight to the enemy!
Seeing the units on the battlefield, with the lines formed, is a great sight and I'd be sad to see the mobs of troops.
Having said that I do use unit fillers here and there to create some jazz in the actual units themselves - usually on a normal monstor base - which I'll model the crap out of.
Even with greenskins it's nice to see them rank up as they are basically just copying the other races without really knowing the reasons behind it - hence they scrap so much with themselves!

Dag
08-08-2009, 16:53
i like ranked up units for things like spearmen, chaos warriors, gobo's, undead "elite" guys like tomb guard or grave guard. orcs have lots of customization to them as it is. ogres you can take the banner arms and the extra arm bits, chop off the hands and put ironfists on. it works well to give 4 or so bulls a little zaz. no matter how good the model looks, if its a bitch to put together with itself, your going to hate it when your playing =]

Tokamak
08-08-2009, 18:30
The current night goblins are more modular than the 40k grots, so to say 40k is more modular then Fantasy is just plain wrong. Especially because they're both they only static versions of their range.

Loki73
08-08-2009, 18:35
I see it as...your scrub doods r just gonna die. Characters need o be in cool heroic poses.
Now I do care about detail on scrub infantry and the like. But I don't mind the static poses as much for two reasons other than the aforementioned.

1. They are marching (which is not a negative for me looks cool and is part of WHFB appeal)

2. They rank up nicely. I made two regiments of Black Orks once and they were very tricky to rank up due to the chaotic nature of the poses.

So I dont mind static poses in warhammer really. Now, 40k miniatures are different, I like them all to be in neat breakdance poses kinda like Electric Boogaloo.

Daedalus81
08-08-2009, 22:35
A skaven player here glues his models in ranks and the last rank is separated. So if you loses 6 models he can just pull a rank our plus a spare.

TeddyC
08-08-2009, 22:45
I got 2 arguments. Dwarf hammerers/iron breakers....

all static, all nearly the same model with different style beards.... all easy to rank up, thought they dont look 'normal' I mean how many armies do you see marching with their 2 handed weapons held high?

The other end of the scale is slayers... its like they werent designed to rank up!

for dwarfs being more compact its ok (i.e. diciplined so all the same pose wouldnt look odd its not too much of an issue) but for gobbos itd be a bit out of character.

I think they should go more with a numbered rank... so first rank with command looking more animated, maybe jumping forward or something, second rank getting ready, maybe holding swords over head and sheilds in front then 3rd rank and beyond are 'neat' rank and file, depending on the army of course