Let's talk about monopose...

[tikitang]

I came to wargaming via a boardgaming background; mostly Games Workshop board games such as HeroQuest, Warhammer Quest, Battle Masters etc. When I was exposed to Warhammer Fantasy Battle for the first time, it was 4th Edition (1992) and what I have now heard people describe as "monopose" was all the rage. It was perfectly normal back then, it seemed to me, to have your army composed of 90% identical plastic spearmen and archers, with a special metal hero and perhaps a metal war machine or monster. It was the same with the dungeon crawling board games; it was simply the done thing to have your heroes enter a room full of identical orcs or skaven, for example:



However, when I made my first tentative, experimental steps back into wargaming in 2011 after a misspent fourteen (or so) years of video-gaming and general hermitry, this had all changed. Games Workshop was selling multi-part kits, and the folks on the Oldhammer Forum (which I had somehow stumbled upon) made much of their grand 1980s armies that were apparently populated entirely by unique, individual, metal miniatures! From both camps, the old and the new, there appeared to me a general disdain for the "monopose 90s", which I didn't really understand, as that era had been my "golden gateway" into the magical world of Warhammer.

Even now, in the current phase of my own experimentation in this hobby, I still find myself employing "clone" warbands of identical miniatures, particularly in scenarios which pit a band of heroes against a small horde of monsters (where the monsters will all be identical), simply because it seems "normal" to me.

For those who are much older and more experienced in this hobby than I (which I imagine is most people on LAF), I was wondering, are "monopose" armies alien to you--an aberration from a decadent age? Or, do you consider them to be the standard, default mode of play throughout wargaming history, with this current emphasis on unique/varied individuals being something much more recent, or perhaps indicative of particular periods?

I'd appreciate your insights!

[Vis Bellica]

I know this is a Fantasy question, but for me, for anything prior to the 20th Century (or the Fantasy equivalent in tech terms) it depends on the ethos of the army I'm fielding. Well drilled regulars look fine in monopose with command figures/personalities, and irregular hordes look better in multipose. My go to for regulars is actually largely monopose with the odd variant to break things up a little, irregulars is variations in pose, manufacturer etc...anything to get the random look going.

[v_lazy_dragon]

I came in on the tail end of the monopose era, but was sold by the multipose models for the variety  - especially as my pocket money budget leant me much more towards the smaller skirmish games (GorkaMorka, Mordheim) than full WHFB!

[Sunjester]

When I started wargaming in the 1970s "monopose" was the only choice most manufacturers offered at all (historical or fantasy), particularly for rank-and-file bodies. I think it was probably the growth in Fantasy RPGs in the late 70s that led to an increase in more variety in poses from the likes of Ral Partha and Grenadier.

[Moriarty]

Metal minis ‘back in the day’ tended to have one variant, one pose for a particular type. The nearest you would get to ‘multipose’ were the likes of Airfix polythene (soft plastic) figures in 1/72 scale. Each box came with a variety of posed figures on the theme. Wargamers would then buy multiple boxes to make up units of same pose figure :-)

Citadel (GW) made early forays into polystyrene (hard plastic) with their dwarf and orc multi part kits, which offered different weapon arms/hands and heads, and their Batallion box (?) of multi part orcs, goblins, elves, dark elves, rat men and dwarves. These had alternative heads, but were essentially monopose.

[dwbullock]

Personally, while I love the idea of cutting and chopping on models to make each and every orc unique ... there's just something awesome to me about those older 40k grots with the little German helmets.  So I would say it largely depends on the model, as to whether I like monopose or the more conversion friendly later kits.

I have noticed that with newer stuff, it's harder to convert GW stuff since it's all 'this let must go into this torso that also has half an arm' ... so more and more, my assembled set of models looks exactly like your set of assembled models.  It's like a more complicated monopose.

[jon_1066]

The original Citadel regiments of Renown were monopose with a champion, leader and musician and you can't get much more oldhammer than that.

It's all about molds and sculpting costs.  So early lead the main sunk cost is sculpting and mold making.  If you can minimise that you minimise your risks and increase your returns.  As fantasy lead got more popular you see a trend of basic dollies being adapted (so variants on a pose).

Once plastics started the costs of the molds was once again a large investment (being much more expensive than one for lead).  Add in the hangover in sculpting techniques from lead and you end up back with monopose figures - but in plastic.

[AdmiralAndy]

Well on the 40K side it started off with multipart RTB01, although the first Ork Raiders were metal, so kinda limited poses/sculpts.

For variety and value for money the multipose Rogue Trader was great, although only got Orks, Space Marines, Squats and Imperial Guard box sets at Ł10 a pop for 30+ models everything else being metal.

So 2nd ed with more expensive monopose was  although I think they have a certain charm and these days the monopose tends to be the cheaper option, think they call them the easy build snapfit range, although pre covid there were those boxes you could get 3/4 models with differing poses for about Ł5/6 so if bought multiples would have the squad look all the same.

I think what matters more what you do with them on the painting and basing side.

[Patrice]

I still have, from the 1980s, some Essex medieval historicals in the same poses; but at the same time I was buying fantasy miniatures all in different poses.

Since then I never want to have two identical minis – but as I play only skirmish now I don't need hundreds.

[fastolfrus]

When I started gaming there was not only a limited choice of metal figures, but there were lots of gaps in ranges. There were a very limited selection of Airfix figures and some of those were in very odd poses.
I still have some of the first metal figures I got, and some of them are painted too.

Although I play some skirmish games I have always liked big games where monopose figures aren't an issue. The modern multipose figures have limits, especially for big games.

The first rules I played had a basic infantry unit of 48 figures (plus an optional command group that could take units up to 54 strong) and cavalry in squadrons of 24 or 36. Artillery came in batteries of 3 or 6 guns, with limbers and caissons.

[nickdives]

I have gone back to my roots building up S&S armies using Minifigs and Garrison Miniatures, pretty well all that was available in the 70s, quite fun to paint, they have a certain charm and monopose all!

[Onebigriver]

As much as I am fond of the monopose figures from my entry into miniature gaming in the early '90s (Space Hulk, Heroquest & Advanced Heroquest, I still prefer to use multipose figures now whether for warbands or units.

[DivisMal]

I started with the Fantasy Warriors game by Grenadier soon followed by Warhammer 4th. So monopose units with special champions were a normal sight to behold. Even when you went full metal, the availability of models in Germany meant that at beast you had 3-5 poses per unit.

I think it’s mainly GW‘s fault, of course  . They invented plastic monopose to turn Warhammer into a large scale game and changed to multipose to keep people who already had monopose armies buying new stuff. 

[Elbows]

I grew up with GW in the 90's, so I'm familiar with monopose.

While I wouldn't bother today outside of the occasional "encounter" for a game, I wouldn't mind if it was something like a Napoleonic marching column, etc.

One thing I don't understand is the polar opposite - guys who can't stand to have the same pose anywhere on a table, even in 15mm or 20mm scale figures.  Arguing that they know that two of their 40 Soviet riflemen are the same pose, and that somehow ruins the game for them...this baffles me.

While I like multi-pose miniatures, I'm also fine with the "2-4 poses per guy" classic style.  Just enough visual interest without being monopose, etc.

[Onebigriver]

While I like multi-pose miniatures, I'm also fine with the "2-4 poses per guy" classic style.  Just enough visual interest without being monopose, etc.

Got to agree there, not realistic or economical perhaps to expect every figure to be different in a large unit, and a lot of the differences will be lost en masse anyway.