"Figure Poses" Topic

I have now done my fifth 3D print of a 1/144 figure (12mm), my first rifleman. It took a lot of effort to find a pose for my first attempt. Interestingly my first impression of figure poses is that that the poses may be compromised by the casting process. So my question is what real life poses would you consider the best for a war games table and why. Even at 12mm there seems to be considerable flexibility in what poses I can print even though the figures are a bit chubby and featureless. However who in the right mind is going to paint a boom mike on a 12mm figure anyway? With a cammoed up face nobody is going to see a nose or eyes hence pose may be the maximum detail you will perceive while playing a game.

Ideally I'd have all infantry (including MMGs) kneeling or crouching and none at all prone, but that's just me.

Apart from not buying prone figures, unless they are a specialist crew and that pose is unavoidable, I don't really care. What I won't be buying, however, is 12mm stuff.

Kneeling, crouching or walking

Not a fan of prone figures

I do get unhappy when I hear phrases like 'there only small so who cares ' etc. Maybe you dont see the detail whem 4 foot away but you do when painting them ( and decent detail makes a good paint job easier) and so does anyone who picks up a base for a closer look.
L

I see painting a necessary evil. No point painting stuff you won't see. If you are playing three is no time to "stand and stare" then it's back in the box till next week.

I detest painting as well. Fortunately after years of playing my wife has decided she likes painting and ios far better at it than I ever was.

Considering that the first instinct in a firefight is to hit the dirt, I would think prone would be the pose of choice!

I agree with Mr. Adler.

To be honest I agree with donlowry and most of my figures are prone but a few different is a challenge as I am trying to get to grips with the much wider capabilities of my printer with the Simplify 3D software.

Considering that infantry only win battles by advancing and that the most decisive part of combat is the point of contact of the assault, I'd think advancing would be the pose of choice.

After all, who wants their figures to depict the static parts of combat? This is a miniature game, not reality. (I say this tongue in cheek just so you know :D)

I like the usual mix of running, standing shooting, kneeling shooting, and maybe prone for the support weapons. Officers and NCOs should be waving or pointing.

Odd. If the look of things doesnt matter ( and it would explain the sales of some of the awfully dire ranges around), painting is a chore ( it certainly can be) and its only the 'game' that matters wouldnt it be better playing boardgames?
Surely the reason to do figure gaming is the look of the end result, nice figs well painted, nice terrain, to enjoy the modelling side of things, the research, organising the units.
I know dont worry Ill be dead soon lol
L

+1 Leon.
I'm seeing more and more comments in various places along the lines of 'what does it matter, it's only a game', or 'it's only toy soldiers'.
If that's the attitude, then you might as well just turn up and toss a coin.

+1 Leon.

Some of the naffer elements of some miniatures rules – zones of control, command radii, abstract formations called "stands" – are clearly imported from boardgames by people who'd rather be playing one of those.

To a figureme a miniature conveys more information at a glance than a diagram /artwork on a flat token. In addition I find its hard to visualise 3D terrain when drawn on a flat board. Probably generals have this problem as otherwise they would nor go and view battlefields. Hence the need for miniatures but no obsession to paint in minute detail and a 12mm even less so. I finally got to look at my existing 12mm cast figures and realised that my worries, that my figures were less detailed was going to be an issur. This is no longer a worry AT THE VERY LEAST my figures are in rough proportion. My troops may not have creases in there uniform but the don't have 2 ft wide legs. What is the point of pretending you have On the right uniform on a stupidly out of scale figure? This to be fair may not be as bad at larger scales but then folks with bigger figures tend to be more interested in the figures than the game. Perhaps this spells the end to daft out of scale figure and the end of cast figures as they were, A case of improve or die. Clearly at small scale 3D prints are the way to go.

I doubt it, theres a whole generation of gamers that think wierdly proportioned figures are the correct ones, look at the sales of GW and the look alikes lol.
I have some 3D prints of 12mm/1/44th……I think) on the design bench at the moment. Their ok but like a lot of plastics they lack sharpness, no undercuts and will be more time consuming to paint up to a reasonable standard than they ought to be. To me they lack 'presence' but whether Id notice that if they were painted and on the table is debatable.
There is an idea that designing figures is a matter of taking a real human and then 'just' scaling it down, its all a bit trickier than that. Its more akin to portrait painting than Technical drawing.
L

Leon has it. I don't want to play with 3D printed blobs. I've played board wargames for decades too, and have never had any problem with instantly understanding the information printed on the counters, nor with visualising 3D terrain from a 2D map, be that a boardgame map or an Ordnance Survey one. I love looking at O.S. maps.

Leon,
We will just have to agree to disagree, I like OS maps they are my go to for bike riding but again I prefer a models to a counter, just personal preference.
GW – not really ever understood the frankly Bizarre figures even less the logic of the game. To me definitely not an example I would even remotely consider valid when refereing to historical actual models.
As to modeling there is a difference between Portraiture which I am happy with, and gross caricature (i.e some 12mm) that I don't like. Again who care what it looks like close up, its what it looks like is the game that counts. Arguably I should have some figures that are actually just the base material, well camouflaged! However at that point I admit its too little information to make the game playable for me.

I take the attitude that my vehicle models are close to scale, only minimal changes to accommodate the manufacture process. Why would I want a complete farce out of scale figure next to it, pointless in the extreme.

I find Leon's comments to be quite compelling, and I am encouraged to see how many seem to agree.

For me, miniatures address something inside me, in a rather different manner than board games. Board games can engage my intellect. I can think about how I might move, and depending on the game the play may recall to me my readings and knowledge of history, etc.

Miniatures games can also engage my intellect in much the same way, albeit at a higher investment of time and effort. But I get more payback for the investment, because they also engage my imagination, not just my intellect. I can "see" what the battlefield might have looked like. I can "place" myself in the battle. It exercises an entirely different part of my brain.

This is the main reason that looks matter to me. In earlier years I did not fully appreciate this factor, and viewed painting as a necessary chore at best. Most of my painting was done using batch processing techniques, spraying dozens of tanks and doing minimal detailing. My infantry were similarly painted -- just green blobs glued to plastic bases. But I have found, after accumulating many dozens of game experiences with armies and scenery modeled at widely varying levels by a variety of other gamers, that the pleasure I derive from the game is greatly enhanced by having good miniatures and scenery to play with -- and by good I mean well modeled and well painted.

I can still play Panzerblitz, or even backgammon, and enjoy the game. But it's not the same thing. My miniatures are not just backgammon pieces that are more of a chore because I have to paint them. They are little treasures, that I cherish for the way they tickle a corner of my brain that used to dominate my play time in childhood, but is now isolated and mostly abandoned by the daily ins-and-outs of adulthood.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

To me the question is, given that you can have a close to scale figure with detail appropriate to its actual scale, or massively out of scale figure (my estimate is about 4 time based on area (assuming the sculptor can actually manage to get the height right) that has stupidly our of "scale" detail.

My answer is in scale is far better and more plausible. It has long irritated me that the figures would never have a hope in hell of getting in the vehicle as it make sit look daft. Then to find that the model could have been made a plausible size is maddening. Also ther are enough ground scale to figure scale issues as it is, plausible basing of oversize figures make it far worse. More accurate figures spaced believably take up much less ground.

I guess that I should be glad such stupidity has not made it to my other hobby N gauge railways.

It does go a long way to explain scale creep, the art of putting detail before scale.

I guess that I should be glad such stupidity has not made it to my other hobby N gauge railways.

Which N Scale would that be? 1/148 or 1/160? :-)

Neither, As I understand it US is 1:156 and UK its 1:144 ;-). Mine is definitely 1/144.

Ps remembered US may also be 1:160. Thats why I like to quote and actual scale.

If I could only have one pose my vote would be for an advancing under fire pose. Slightly crouched with weapon at port across the body. Probably easier to sculpt and cast too.

Elenderil, If Im thinking the same pose its actually a complete pain in the rear to cast. Anytime theres two axis to a figure its a problem.
L

Leon is the issue with the figure being bent forward at the waist slightly making getting it out of the mold difficult? I hadn't thought about that. It explains why most ancient era figures are stood with the spear vertical and to the side of the body.

Elenderil,
Not easy to explain what I mean in text but I'll have a go.
Look at a firing figure, its all on one axis, then take a figure holding his rifle across his chest, again on one axis, but the two axis are basically at 90 degrees to each other. If you combine a running figure with one carrying a weapon across the body you end up having two axis at right angles to each other. Thats why a lot of running figures have the rifle held in a forward position. In reality no one really runs with a weapon like that very often. When your moulding a figure you want to keep everything on one axis if you possibly can.
As a deigner you try make em look 'realistic' while keeping the axial deviation down to minimum.
The Bren gunner below carries his gun across the body but the legs are posed so that they are pretty close to the same axis as the gun for example.
Hope that makes more sense to you than to me…………

I think the vertical spear bit is more to do with the spear breaking base to base problem. I still have a about 20% of my advancing with levelled spears Hincliffe Hoplites needing the spears refixing after the Xmas Platea refight………………
L

Interesting discussion thanks all of you for your contributions. I did wounder if even now casting was limiting figures. So here your chance to show real figure poses you would like to see.

Its not the moulding/casting that the limitation its whats viable commercially thats the limitation. I have a US Para in 20mm going full pelt, head down holding his rifle across the waist level. Problem is to cast it the weapon/hands are a seperate part. How many people want to have to assemble a 20mm figure? Its a doddle to fix but try convince more than 10% of customers thats so lol.
L

Leon your explanation makes perfect sense and I was able to visual the geometry fairly easily. I would be very happy with the poses you show for advancing infantry.

Intresting moment today. During the week I had some time so I guessed a pose that was kneeling down to get the angles roughly right. I was was worried it might look a bit off, it looked fine. Tonight was 1/72 night as the guy does not like 1/144. So out came my Revell modern Germans. I became suspicious looking at one of the kneeling poses it looked odd. I tried it out, it was impossible to do without being a contortionist. So much for these so called detail merchants, what is the point when even the basics, like poses are near on physically impossible and certainly not even vaguely logical in a combats situation. Did the reviewers give these figures a poor review or were they swayed by stupid detail even when the basics were so wrong?

Clearly 3D print figures are the only way to go if you want the correct scale and sensible poses.
It seems mad we accept rubbish figures but insist on proper detail on vehicle.

Errrrrr some of the worst figures I have ever seen have been CAD/3D printed. Its a matter of the skill of the designer not the technology. In fact those Revell figs were CAD work as I remember.
L

Leon, could be, but they were not printed, they were obviously compromised horribly for injection moulding. 3D printing as a means of production does not force those compromises.

Running at Port Arms/Tactical High Port, running, crouching, kneeing, prone … etc. The only pose I don't really like is Shoulder Arms. TMP link