Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Doug ex-em4 on May 09, 2019, 09:30:35 AM
-
Someone started a topic about this on TMP and, as someone who is looking at producing more plastics, I thought I’d see what opinions are here.
Do you prefer plastic figures to come as a complete, one piece moulding or as multi-pieces requiring assembly? If the latter, do you like lots of bits or perhaps just separate weapons, shields and heads? Or something else entirely?
Doug
-
Personally the attraction of plastics is the ability to convert, and add variety through the swopping of parts, weapons, arms, heads etc.
As long as the part connection points are sensibly made, multipart would be attractive.
Also worth bearing in mind that most gamers don’t just buy a range but mix and match, so compatibility with other existing ranges of plastics is a win-win.
:)
-
I prefer single part as I find a lot of the modern plastics too fiddly to assemble. I bought some Warlord WW2 and will be selling them shortly as I couldn't face putting them together.
Also, a lot of the figures can only be assembled one way which seems to negate the point of making them multi-part.
Okay, I know that people do assemble them into strange poses but a lot of them look really unnatural, IMHO.
Mike
-
For me one of the big draws of plastic is the ability to create your own poses. I understand how a single pose would be fine for people wanting lots and lots for building battalions of marching soldiers etc... but that's not my own bag, so multi-pose would be my choice. I hate to be another person just blurting out the Perry twins as an example of how it's done right … but I really do think the Perry twins are an example of how it's done right.
-
Multipose.
Like a Multipass only better :D
-
Single piece plastics are severely constrained in the poses they can have otherwise you'd never get them out of the steel moulds. Just look at many of the 1:72 soft plastic figures which often have quite 'flat' poses. By making the figures multi-part, you give a lot more possibilities for interesting poses. I've always found plastic much easier to assemble than multi-part metal figures, some of which are a real PITA (that Salute freebie Mayan priest for instance was a nightmare).
-
Even though I'm not always a big fan of fiddly little bits like those in Malifaux models, which sometimes look like they're intentionally being moulded in as many parts as possible, I came into this hobby from a plastic modeling angle, so for me, there's only one answer:
-
lol
-
Multipart, like North Star or Perry. Separate arms, and heads.
Malifaux plastics are a different animal, they are designed for dynamic poses not modularity. I like them for animals and monsters but prefer the Perry style for humanoids.
-
Basic body -two or three dollies, tops-, basic weapons and choice of heads. Human brain is trained to recognize faces. If you put 24 figures in the same pose, but with different faces/heads your brain will tell you that they are all different people and the impression will be of individuality within a mass... For me, that's enough.
-
I've used the old Empire plastics from GW in loads of conversions - made much easier by the fact that torsos, arms and lower bodies are separate pieces.
In contrast, their new Necromunda stuff is much more like a Tamiya kit, where there are loads of parts, but they only build in a certain way. Not so keen on that.
To some extent it depends on how many poses are in the box. If there are four identical sprues with five poses, then you're really working with five figures. For some folk this will be fine, but for those of us who like as many unique figures as possible, it's less good.
-
Definitely multi-part and multi-pose.
There are plenty of plastic figures with separate heads and/or arms that you can only really assemble one way- Wargames Factory/Warlord, Gripping Beast, Fireforge for example. That for me defeats the object of making mutli-part figures given the extra hassle of assembly compared to buying a set of one piece castings in different poses.
The good sets (for example Frostgrave) offer variations of heads and arms/weapons that enable you to compose figures with enough variation for small bands say up to 12 or so.
Multi-pose and multi-part however (of which the Perrys are the exemplars) provide so much variation that you can almost assemble whole units without having another figure exactly the same. That for me is the gold standard.
-
For me one of the big draws of plastic is the ability to create your own poses. I understand how a single pose would be fine for people wanting lots and lots for building battalions of marching soldiers etc... but that's not my own bag, so multi-pose would be my choice. I hate to be another person just blurting out the Perry twins as an example of how it's done right … but I really do think the Perry twins are an example of how it's done right.
My sentiments precisely, on all counts :)
What kind of era or genre are you considering producing plastics for, Doug?
-
I echo the sentiments of all those in favour of multi part with the option to multipose, more important with the current wave of interest in skirmish and small scale action games. I'd argue that even when wargaming the big battalions you'd never see a line of spears, rifles or bayonets in exactly the same position. I've lost count of the number of times I've tweaked countless miniatures over the years to achieve a less uniform uniform result...
-
I prefer single part as I find a lot of the modern plastics too fiddly to assemble. I bought some Warlord WW2 and will be selling them shortly as I couldn't face putting them together.
Also, a lot of the figures can only be assembled one way which seems to negate the point of making them multi-part.
Okay, I know that people do assemble them into strange poses but a lot of them look really unnatural, IMHO.
Mike
I'm with Mike on this. Some multi-part multi-pose figures are really quite fiddly. But it depends whether you are making plastic figures for massed units (less individuality required) or skirmish games (more individuality required). You only have to look at forum posts asking whether painting services will assemble plastics to learn that for some people the attraction is not that of having to stick everything together.
-
It's a trade-off. From cheapest, to most costly:
- Single-piece is simple and cheapest, but flat. Can be used sometimes for economies.
- Multipart figures which must be assembled in only one way is effectively the same as single-piece, but allows you to make very dynamic figures. This might be used for showpieces which are meant to only come in one configuration (maybe there are head or hand options, but not more than that).
- True multi-piece modular figures allows players to mix and match a smaller number of parts to make a fairly wide variety of figures. A fair amount of dynamism can be incorporated by a very good sculptor, but this is a bit rarer.
- Multi-piece, multi-pose is the most difficult and costly to pull off, and requires the most individual parts on a given sprue, but offers the widest possibilities to the hobbyist.
-
I have to agree with the bulk of the responses. I am very much hoping (for example) that the Perry's do a set of Italian infantry compatible with their existing plastic ranges.
Or Japanese and USMC, or Australian/Commonwealth for SE. Asia campaigns.
-
As i get older and can't be bothered sticking umpteen bits together now, i say single piece miniatures lol
-
I think multipart, multipose is best. A few random thoughts on those:
1. Non-fighting arms/hands really help a kit. At the weekend, I was fiddling around with GW's Gor and Ungor kits. They're great - but they're really hindered by the fact that just about every hand is holding a shield or a weapon. More pointing/signalling/gesturing hands are always good. The Ungor kit is a bit better in this respect, because the archer hands can be used as empty/spellcasting/whatever. But having them on both sides would be best. It's nice to be able to assemble figures as either warriors or brawlers/ruffians.
2. Lots of heads is the best thing for variety. The Frostgrave kits are good here. A cardinal mistake is to make any head too distinctive. For example, the Wargames Factory orc spure is severely let down by the fact that the only bareheaded head also has an eyepatch. So, rather than being able to have a variety of bareheaded orcs distinguished by hair colour or skin colour or head position, you're forced to make all of them one-eyed (and all blind on the same side). More generic is better here.
3. Weapons should almost always be attached to hands rather than separate (see the Wargames Factory orcs again ...).
4. "Individualising" extras on the sprue are great - side-arms, pouches, bags, trophies, whatever. The Frostgrave kits are very good for this - better than the Oathmark ones on this particular count.
5. For fantasy figures, standards that could also serve as heads are a great idea - as with the GW beastmen, where you can make a skull-faced chaos mutant with the skull that goes on the standard. That sort of utility is great.
6. It's good for limbs and weapons to be free of directional indicators where possible. Long, hanging sleeves that 'fix' the arm position and similar things (ribbons, trophies, whatever) are a bit annoying, as they limit the versatility.
-
I have bought boxes and boxes of the Perry Medieval figures. First I did about 250+ figures from the WOTR range for the Swiss Burgundian Wars. Then they brought out the earlier medieval 1415 - 1430 range so I did Agincourt with about 250 figures. The ability to make huge armies with each figure an individual was the key to getting me to buy more and more.
-
In the last 12 months Ive bought around 10 box of miniatures without intention of building them - just for kitbashing.
Thats most fun part of the hobby for me.
Monopose in multiples is almost always a no buy from me (Ive got Gripping Beast set for Late Romans with 5 poses multiplied by 8 sprues but I wanted cheap army fast but I wont buy another box despite needing more of them)
-
Definitely multi-pose multipart.
I have a number of Malifaux figures (and yes "By Yan Lo's Beard"), and they are great as individual figures, but are no use for building armies.
The Other Side just has a larger pool of identical figures.
The idea seems to have infected The Great Womble, I have noticed that there seems to be a move to multi-part single pose. This removes one of my key interests, (building individual figures) and one of the reasons I have not bought any of their kits for a while.
On other threads, I mentioned the former Wargames Factory survivors as being almost multi-part single pose (or two very similar poses). That limits the reasons to buy more than one box (or even one sprue).
The Perry figures have been rightly mentioned, as have the Frostgrave (and Oathmark) figures.
Compatibility is a big thing. The Perrys' WW2 range is a bit of a special case, their ranges were not in competition with other ranges (no longer the case, but I am sticking with them).
For mediaeval/fantasy ranges I would only be interesed in something that was compatible.
-
Surely a single plastic castings can still be converted easily enough for those who want to?
-
Surely a single plastic castings can still be converted easily enough for those who want to?
Yes, but there's still a big difference between the ease of kitbashing compatible parts and cutting things up.
-
Multipart, like North Star or Perry. Separate arms, and heads.
Malifaux plastics are a different animal, they are designed for dynamic poses not modularity. I like them for animals and monsters but prefer the Perry style for humanoids.
+1
-
Surely a single plastic castings can still be converted easily enough for those who want to?
If you are talking about a figure armed with a rifle (or a two handed melee weapon), it is extremely dfficult to convert without major surgery due to the requirement that the figure fit in a two part mould. While a metal or resin moulds can be flexible enough to have gaps between the rifle and the body, that is not the case with a two piece steel mould. As an aside, I wonder if that is why the old old Airfix figures were not made of polystyrene.
If you want to see what I mean, try filling in all the under cut areas on an old metal figure so that it would work wih a rigid mould.
-
Games Workshop do very nice things with monopose, often multipart. They are a pleasure to assemble vs multipose models.
However, I doubt other companies are ready to do what gw are capable of, in which case multipart multipose is preferred.
I agree with a previous poster that non-weapon hands and little accessories really add to the value of a kit.
-
Games Workshop do very nice things with monopose, often multipart. They are a pleasure to assemble vs multipose models.
The problem is that when you have built one Mono-pose figure, why would you build another? The Great Womble has a market size that means it is worth them spending the money on a mould where people buy one or two of a figure. To break even, everybody else has to sell box sets (Frostgrave Wizards is the nearest example).
-
Of course, the one thing that has not been answered is what period/market this potential range of figures is aimed at.
That does have some influence. You might get away with a bloke with a sword as a one piece model plus a stick on shield.
What you do not want is the worst if both worlds, such as the Warlord Domari Freeborn.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ata5wFy-7E0/WiGtSb-swcI/AAAAAAAACsA/biS2pz3bF1wcZNFBJckRntkc8zDi8bmfwCLcBGAs/s1600/freeborntorso2.png)
They are multi-part and almost multi-pose, but with fixed arm geometries. You can do some modifications, but it is hard work.
http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/search/label/Freeborn (http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/search/label/Freeborn)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hEHUr4fMjjQ/WiHXJc_iF8I/AAAAAAAACsY/i58FpS6ni_4IF0I0Gp1XNiIPX06jWyDxgCLcBGAs/s1600/freebornsquad2-2.png)
-
Of course, the one thing that has not been answered is what period/market this potential range of figures is aimed at.
Sorry - Fantasy....28mm.
Doug
-
Multi part please.
Legs and torsos combined makes for more convincing clothes and poses.
More heads the better. Necks on heads rather than on torsos.
Hands on weapons rather than Lego man claw hands. Another vote for non combat hands too. And if you can try to give every wrist a cuff/vambrace for easy hand swaps.
-
Please go multi part to allow multiple poses. I agree with the other posters regarding separate heads with necks, hands with weapons moulded on, spare hands etc.
I suggest that you have a good look at Perry WOTR Infantry, European Infantry and Light Cavalry - these are very good for mix and match building. The other Perry medieval sets are also very good but have fewer mix & match options.
Also, I suggest that you avoid duplicating the North Star Oathmark sets, but make your products match in proportions, so that both can be used on the same battlefield.
-
One thing that seems underutilised to me in fantasy kits is a multi-species approach. Given the huge number of 'evil humanoids' in fantasy games, it would be great to get a kit that allowed you to build various types from the same sprues.
An obvious example would be an orc sprue that had both Tolkienesque and pig-faced heads. But it could be taken further, with bestial heads (broos, beastmen, gnolls) and D&Dish hobgoblins. Scantily clad 'tribal' bodies could have optional lizardman heads (and tails!), and so on.
Frostgrave has done a bit of this, with the cultist that can also be assembled as zombies or skeletons. But your typical bulky, humanoid monster body could be a whole range of things depending on the head. If a company were to do a versatile "monstrous humanoids" boxed set, I'm sure there'd be a host of buyers. And those who might want to make Formorians or chaos creatures or whatever could just use all the parts together.
-
I'm not a fan of plastic or resin miniatures.
I don't like to buy these figures very much and only when I feel that the miniatures are very good.
An exception are the miniatures of Anvil Industry.
But if I had to choose, then please in multi-part.