Let's talk about monopose...

[eilif]

That's certainly one distinction. However, there's also the considerations of cost, type of game, and probably other factors

I definitely consider myself a modeler in my approach to the hobby. Building terrain is my favorite part and I enjoy miniature assembly and conversions. However, monopose identical plastics won out for my KOW Army because of the size/scope of the game and cost.

Just to say the choice between monopose identical,  monopose multi-sculpt and multipart figures has multiple factors and may vary depending on the situation.

Here's a recent battle report where a bunch of my monopose figs (red chaos) made it to the table.
https://www.chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/2023/02/aar-kings-of-war-campaign-night-3-big-battle-of-baddies/
A couple points, that the pictures bear out.
Identical figures can look much better when:
-The poses are positions those that would naturally be similar such as shieldwall, archers firing, advancing in formation, etc
-There are variations in paint scheme and shields.
-figures are hidden behind pavises.


-

[batu]

 I am modeller first and gamer second, and I still love monopose. Think about that!

[Daeothar]

I am modeller first and gamer second, and I still love monopose. Think about that!

Just another shade of grey... 

[Patrice]

(...) that would explain why I am happy with monopose miniatures as representational playing pieces.

Very interesting exchange... as I would identify with another (?) point of view: as a gamer first, and RPGist, I cannot see them as playing pieces I want to believe they are alive. That's why I want them to be all different (for skirmish games).

[tikitang]

as a gamer first, and RPGist, I cannot see them as playing pieces I want to believe they are alive. That's why I want them to be all different (for skirmish games).

A well made point, and very close to the heart of the issue for me. But if your skirmishing party of "living" individuals encountered a group of goblins in a cave, say, how important is it to you that each individual goblin appears "alive" also? Could you tolerate the goblins to be identical if your player characters were different?

[plessiez]

Despite growing up with them I’m not a big fan of true monopose. They can look nice when done by someone else but it’s not for me any more. I like things to rank up with a little variation. I don’t need each figure to be striking a completely unique pose. In fact I find that really animated figures can look a bit odd when ranked up.

What I’d say though is that even with modern plastic multipart kits things can often end up a bit monopose anyway. There’s often only one or two good shooting poses that look right with the bow arms, there’s maybe one pair of two handed weapon arms that fit a certain way etc. so you can end up with a lot of similar figures that have different heads. This is about right for me!

[tikitang]

Great Reepicheep avatar, by the way!

[Hobgoblin]

The Citadel Regiments of Renown were mentioned earlier. They did a great job of achieving "monopose plus" before plastics prompted a regression to true monopose.

The original RoRs came out when the optimal frontage for a Warhammer regiment was four models. The three original command figures (leader, standard bearer and musician) provided an entirely varied front rank (along with one trooper), with monopose troopers behind. This got successively more sophisticated. First, they added champions, so that the whole front rank was distinct from the troopers, and then, in the late-80s RoRs, they varied the troopers, so that you got multiples of (usually) four different types.

The troopers were sometimes varied only by heads and weapons (e.g. Ruglud's armoured orcs) and sometimes more substantially (e.g. Harboth's orc archers). So they allowed the 'optimised' close-combat unit to have ranks that contained no identical figures (and, with a bit of careful placement, not much overlap in the files either). The 'shootier' regiments (Skarloc's and Harboth's) seemed to get more varied troopers, presumably because they would be deployed with broader frontages.

I reckon that late-80s monopose-plus look was really successful; if you look at Ruglud's armoured orcs on the table, they given an impression of chaotic variety and random spikiness despite recycling the same figures.

The Warhammer Regiments box achieved something slightly similar by providing alternative heads and weapons. Some of those figures still hold up pretty well today, and in some cases, there are now lots of plastic heads that fit the bodies; the orcs, in particular, take heads from several generations of plastic orks and orcs without any need for adjustment. Other types, I suspect, can't be updated so much because of scale creep.

For me, "monopose plus" is really successful both in rank'n'flank and in skirmishes or RPGs. You can tell at a glance that the guys with the same pose are the ordinary orcs (say) while the leader/shaman/champion looks distinct, but you get enough minor variation among the grunts to avoid mid-game confusion ("No, it was the guy with the red loincloth who was wounded!").

[Desert Scribe]

Interesting discussion!

I lean in favor of monopose figures for mass battle games (but multiple poses make it much easier in skirmish or RP games where you need to keep track of individual miniatures).

The bulk of my Oathmark armies come from WHFB 5th edition plastics that I got on the secondary market. The Bretonnian archers are one-piece sculpts withtwo poses, while the knights are multi-part models with varied headgear and shields, and there are several different poses for their mounts. Likewise the Skinks are one of two poses that require no assembly, while the Saurus warrior have different weapon arms, heads, and shields--but I like their regularity when deployed in ranks on the table.