"Limited Poses, good or bad?" Topic

Having grown up in 60s with Airfix playsets and then in late 70s actually getting into miniature wargaming with 25mm Minifigs, one pose seemed enough for the rank and file. For Alexander Nevsky, Napoleonic's, TYW, ECW and ancients it worked. Today when you buy a pack of 8, there are 3 different poses. Some plastic companies, you can design every trooper different. So am I in the minority, one isn't enough?

I like to base like with like, so the fewer the better for me.

The more the merrier for me.

I do head swaps on my Peter Pig ECW figures and slightly adjust the poses on the cavalry sculpts so that each figure is individual.

I prefer some minor variety in a relatively common pose, especially for close order foot.

As many as I can get, all different is my usual aim

More is better where variety is concerned.

NO! I personally feel single posed armies look very unrealistic. Even in fairly uniform armies, there will be subtle differences in pose, facial features, etc. Even just doing slight alterations like turning heads isn't good enough. My personal standard is at least 4 poses per type, if not more.

Damon.

I've been doing skirmish style armies for the past ten years, like my Vikings for Saga/PigWars. For that, I like variety. In fact, I bought several bags of Old Glory Vikings and Rus, painted half and sold off the other half. For more uniform troops, I don't worry about variations as much. In part, this is because these figures will be viewed in mass, and I'm not at all sure I would notice the difference. Even in the case of drilled, uniform troops, I do like to have variation in the officers, because they are out front (my officers always lead from the front!) where people can see them.

Grelber

Bad. But I play skirmish/low level games usually. But if I did play larger level I would still want some variety. Pretty much what Garand said is how I feel about it…

Unless I was doing Gauls or Vikings, it was never an issue with me.
In fact with Hessians I prefer one pose.

For rank and file Horse & Musket, I think the Perry's AWI plastics have got it right (Nap French too). Enough variation and subtle differences.

I prefer as many variations as possible though, although variations of them doing similar things. Unlike, say, the Warlord plastic Celts, who are hard to rank up effectively.

Bad. Feels like 1980s pre- Dunaway period.

Where one has to forage for every obscure manufacturer, hoping rifles will be roughly of the same sizes…

I will actively avoid lines with limited poses. That's what got me to buy lots of AB miniatures for WW II-- I can have an entire platoon (TWO for the Brits!) and have almost NO repeats.

Same with my 28mm Pacific collection from Brigade and TAG.

For skirmish games and those set in the 20th century and later you will want a variety of poses.

However, for games depicting battles in say the 18th century you will want limited poses to reflect the more regimented appearance of troops in that era on the battlefield.

I quite like the way Gilder used to do it. Small variations on the same figure, different angle for head, arm etc. Makes it easy to rank up, yet looks very effective.
I really dislike the old GW style of ranks of orcs etc in the same pose (barbarian armies would be the same thing). Looks really weird to me, though it does seem to work for 18th century games.
So, irregular type armies, lots of variety. Regular armies, similar poses to represent drill. If everyone adopted Impetus type basing, this would be much easier to achieve.

I've said this before, but for any regular body of soldiers drill is essential. This means all of the rank and file holding their weapons in the correct manner at the correct angle at the correct time. I've seen some pike formations with multiple poses in their ranks and just thought how easy it would be to roll right over them given that there is no way they would be anything but permanantly disorganised and incapable of meaningful movement. Any reenactor will tell you how much trouble a couple of clashing pikes in the ranks will cause.

As for muskets, to NOT be disciplined in your weapon handling is to be a danger to yourself and your fellows and will soon bring the unwelcome attention of an irate and very forceful NCO who will inform you on no uncertain terms of the error of your ways!

So yes, single poses for very good practical reasons. Mixed equipment, facial hair, headgear etc. well that is more allowable.

I play skirmish games so the more poses the better.

FOr games with funny hats, I imagine single poses fit better.

Less poses the better, for me anyway.

Pre20th Century I like marching poses with small differences as I also like games with lots of figures in mass formations.

more than one and I am happy.

If I get a pack of AWI Perry highlanders marching, the only difference is the expression on their faces.
Does that count as "multiple poses"?

For me, it depends on the troop type and the scale.

For 28mm, give me as many poses as possible.

For 15mm, two or three poses in a unit is fine. The original Mighty Armies sets, for instances, were designed to use four figures per stand, and they gave you figures in a ratio of three (identical) troopers to one pointing guy. So, three crossbowmen and one pointing crossbowman. That worked for me.

Some troop types are supposed to look alike. That's their training and equipment. And in fantasy and sci-fi, while I expect Chaos to come in many poses, Fishmen should be in one pose because they have no imagination!

This all comes down to painting, doesn't it? With varied (even subtlety)poses at least you (or..well I) get the feeling there's a new miniature to do. I'm honestly not sure if I can paint exactly the same mini again and again these days. Even a moustache can make a difference.

I like lotsa poses, but I like them to be variations on a type. For example, if I want to have a fireteam of riflemen advancing, I like to have four different figures each posed similarly to simulate four men moving or shooting together.

Less is more….

Skirmish games = many poses.

Anything bigger than 1:5 model:men scale = same pose for same roles (officer, musketeer, grenadier).

For 'irregular' armies I do like different headgear and stuff, but the POSE should even then be the same: in a shieldwall all men really will have their shields up.
If you want, add a vignette here or there (shield weighed down an enemy spear stuck in it), but that's optional.

To me too many 28mm armies these days look like bands of crazed men, who have no idea what they're doing, very unrealistic: if you want to play chaos, stick to fantasy!
It does save some money I suppose, because all those fluttering arms and legs leave a lot less room for actual men on a base.

Cheers.

Circumstance. Wild, irregular or barbarian armies the more the merrier. Regulars in formation, one rank and file pose quite enough.

End of the day they aren't real – it's what they represent and how they look on the table that matters.

Depends.
I play with 28mm, and occasionally 15mm.

For skirmish, variety of poses must be high.
Even larger battles in C20 genres lots of poses is good.

For C17/18 with large firing lines etc, fewer poses are ok.

I prefer variety in poses, even for the more regimented troops.

Any reenactor will tell you how much trouble a couple of clashing pikes in the ranks will cause.

As for muskets, to NOT be disciplined in your weapon handling is to be a danger to yourself and your fellows

Don't even need a reenactor. Just buy minis with long weapons and put them in close formation.

Even with single basing, rifles will clash, interfere, and knock each other over.

But I can't believe that managing your weapon properly for formation means everyone is at the exact same angle and the people aren't the same height, girth, or build.

Of course, with my accuracy and skill in handling and straightening miniature pikes and rifles, even identical figures aren't.

For regular, close order armies (horse and musket etc), I prefer single poses. They just look a lot more like the Grenadier Guards trooping the colour and not a bunch of raggedy muffins about to accidentally shoot each other in the back.

Once the chaps spread out a bit (1900 onwards), then more variety is possibly in order, but even then, not too much variety as multiple poses reduce the rate at which you can paint them. The ideal is actually H&Rs 6mm infantry sections – NCO with SMG, LMG team and a bunch of riflemen in exactly the same 'advancing' pose. Perfect.

I do dios so variety is essential to me. Not everyone is the same height, not everyone is the same build, not everyone looks the same. But it depends on the period, you will get more uniformity in a Macedonian Phalanx than in a WW2 Infantry patrol.

OTOH if one firing pose is good enough for you, then more power to you. But I need character and variety in my poses.

The more the merrier.

My toy soldiers are simply stylised representations of formed bodies of troops, not dioramas, so I am content with one pose that will not look ridiculous whether the unit is waiting in reserve or engaged for close-order troops of the black powder era. Some variety in mounted officers, generals and aides is good as it makes it easier to identify individual commanders.

Formations = limited poses.

Skirmish = varied poses.

Horse and musket fewest possible, unless it is a skirmish game.

I think that the more variety in detail is more important than in actual pose. I like my 15/18mm 32man Napoleonic battalions to look as if all the troops are in step and performing the same actions – but variations in facial details, slight changes to angle of rifles etc, all go towards bringing the unit to life whilst keeping to the rigidity of the formation. A couple of "character" figures spread through the unit always helps as well.