Pose Preferences

[fsn]

Ladies, Gentlemen and Milord Fenton,

The sculpts of the British Napoleonics and a recent thread that took me back to the days of the Airfix Infantry Combat group have highlighted within me my own preferences for posture within my miniatures. I also admit to having some inconsistencies in these preferences.

I'm aware that the period matters. I like a variety of poses for post 1900 (probably because I use a 1:1 figure ratio), but want more uniformity in 1600-1900. Pre 1600, it depends. I want a good deal of regularity with say ancient Greeks or Romans, but with the Norsemen, anything goes!

For a start off, I hate kneeling or lying poses. Just can't abide them. I will accept them on for crew served weapons post 1900, but that's only because I don't think I've ever seen a set of figures lugging the disassembled elements of a Vickers gun in any range in any scale - though I am prepared to be wrong about that one.

Secondly, firing poses. Not for me. Look really stupid for example with a column of British Napoleonics all apparenlty aiming at the back of the head of the chap in front of them. OK, when they're in line, but just wrong. Again, I will accept about one figure per platoon as a designated sniper post 1900 in shooting pose, and if I gamed modern conflicts I would be quite happy to have everyone running about with weapon at the shoulder (when did  this start?)

Thirdly dead, dying or wounded. Never use 'em. I've seen wounded figures built into wargames units. In the thick of the action, this may be all well and good, but when marching into contact?

Fourthly, officers waving swords.  This is a pure bias. I don't want my divisional commanders  whirling naked blades over their heads. Rather they were reading a map.

Lastly, I'd like to see more NCO type figures. I tend to use a 1:1 figure ratio  post 1900 and NCOs are vital.

My personal preference is for figures with arms a the port or carried in some other way that shows readiness.

[FierceKitty]

I do increasingly like a single pose with minor variations in gear; thus hoplites in one good position, but a mix of Attic, Corinthian, and pilos helmets, with a few transverse crests, and some in linothorax, others in muscled cuirass.
Of course, that's for more or less drilled regulars.

[Ithoriel]

Interesting post.

I like as much variation as possible whatever the period and army.

Serried ranks of figures in identical poses looks weird unless you're modelling a parade ground and slightly odd even then.

I like some kneeling poses for post-1900 armies and also for firearm armed skirmishers of any period.

Don't like prone figures for any period.

Dead/ wounded figures are also something I don't really want. If I need a casualty for a diorama base there's almost always a living figure which can be swiftly converted. The dead Russian on my German Forward Air Controller stand is just an advancing figure with the base carved off, for example.

Officers with sword - depends on the army and period but I'd want at least some officers giving active encouragement.

NCO's are not a big issue for me as I tend to go for rules where a stand is anything from a platoon to a brigade.

For me, a sizeable chunk of troops with missile weapons should be shooting/ firing/ throwing.

[Matt J]

lots of sword waving, shooting, being shot, about to shoot, loading, all good. More bayonet charging please, it happened alot.

When I get around to Nap's I might do each unit twice though - one marching in column one firing in line.

[NTM]

As I have stated before the most important thing for me is that the poses work together. Nothing wrong per se with prone/kneeling as long as it makes sense and you don't have to put advancing figures on the same base for example.

[fsn]

I think part of the prompt for this thread was remembering the early Airfix WWII infantry with the running figure that just would not stay upright.

Add running figures with one foot off the ground to my gripe list.

[Nick the Lemming]

I like lots of poses myself. Even if you just have a set of marching figures, I'd like as wide a variety of poses marching as possible. For more irregular groups, I want a really wide variety of poses.

[paulr]

As I have stated before the most important thing for me is that the poses work together. Nothing wrong per se with prone/kneeling as long as it makes sense and you don't have to put advancing figures on the same base for example.

I think this is the key.

Also the tone of the poses should suit the troop type. For example, my AWI Militia have a lot of figures standing around not doing a lot, some loading and only a few firing. This contrasts with the British who are getting stuck in with the bayonet. Officers should also fit the tone of the unit, sword waving works for a British brigadier but would look silly for a Militia brigadier.

The variation of poses, around a theme, is what made me make the jump from 6mm to Pendraken 10mm for AWI.

[Leman]

Dead, dying and kneeling are a must in my games, especially as I try to limit the use of disorder and casualty tokens. Just because someone doesn't like them doesn't mean they shouldn't be produced.

[fsn]

Indeed not, Brother Puritan. My query was more to illicit from other forum members their preferences to compare and contrast to my own. I may snarl mildly about post 1900 Pendraken packs having kneeling figures, but I seem to use most some of them.

I believe one of the joys of our hobby is the different ways in which we approach it. 

[Hertsblue]

Horses for courses is my preference. Stiff, wooden same-pose figures for the "flintlock era", when marching shoulder-to-shoulder was de rigeur for line infantry, more flowing, hurrying figures for later periods when getting forward a.s.a.p. was a way of staying alive. Some crew weapons (MG, mortars, ATGWs) demand figures that are kneeling or prone. Dead or dying - no; I never use them. That's far too morbid for my taste.

Again, firing figures en mass are fine for front ranks of line battalions in close order, or mixed in with other poses where a looser order prevails. I'm not convinced that poses are terribly relevant when troops are viewed from the usual half-metre distance on the table. It's the "block" effect that the various units present that stands out in our battles IMHO.     

[FierceKitty]

A most illicit abuse of illicit.

[Rob]

I do increasingly like a single pose with minor variations in gear; thus hoplites in one good position, but a mix of Attic, Corinthian, and pilos helmets, with a few transverse crests, and some in linothorax, others in muscled cuirass.
Of course, that's for more or less drilled regulars.

This is my preference too but not just for Ancients. I want my regular flintlock era troops to look veteran but also competent and professional. So they are all marching in the same pose but are slightly different. E.g. headgear missing, wearing greatcoat, no coat (?), no pack, or no roll on the pack. I have noticed on the 1809 trange there is quite alot of this with variations in water bottles etc.

The pose itself would I think depend on the troop scale and the rules. If your infantry are in line for the whole game then a firing pose is acceptable but if they are also to move around the battlefield in column then its not so good. So march-attack is probably the best. Open order skirmishers do not want to be in march-attack so a loading and firng pose including knealing would be preferable.

I find in 10mm I do not want casualty removal so some sort of marker is required to show effects on troops. This is a personal thing but I cannot stand to see dice, plastic or carbord used as markers. They draw the eye (which I suppose is their purpose) but in so doing they detract from the spectacle IMHO.  A marker should be something you would possible see on the battlefield so a wounded soldier or horse would be very useful.


My 2 pennetfh 

[Jim Ando]

Hi

Attacking poses with fixed bayonets for me with up to two poses.

Multiple poses for warband figures.

Jim

[fsn]

A most illicit abuse of illicit.

Bloomin' auto correct