|
Post by designteam on Jun 2, 2020 1:34:06 GMT
Box with command figures = Command
Box with marching figures = Marching
Box with firing, loading, advancing, standing = ?
Please discuss as posters have commented that this set should not be named "Action".
|
|
|
Post by waynew on Jun 2, 2020 3:38:24 GMT
Okay - "Firing, Loading, Advancing, Standing Set." Or how about "NOT Command or Marching Set?" Why not "Action" as it seems a rather harmless catchall name and the MAC format it catchy. How about "Action - with Standing Poses Set?"
"General Poses Set?" MAG format?
Addendum - I guess it would be MGC (no ring to it IMO, though)
|
|
|
Post by rbhjr on Jun 2, 2020 4:44:49 GMT
Agree with Wayne; if a set isn’t marching figures, and isn’t command figures, then it is fine to call it “action”.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by rbhjr on Jun 2, 2020 4:57:19 GMT
Agree with Wayne; if a set isn’t marching figures, and isn’t command figures, then it is fine to call it “action”. Cheers That said, for me, there are 2 basic kinds of “action” “battalions”; 1. firing line (including reloading/attention/at ready poses) 2. Advancing: (at March, charge & engaged), which includes; marching, advancing/attacking with bayonet/charging/Receiving with bayonet/thrusting bayonet & double time poses).
|
|
|
Post by Chris D on Jun 2, 2020 6:48:19 GMT
How about Combat?
What is in a name anyway?
Surely swift production is more relevant ?
Especially the ACW range.
Best wishes,
Chris
|
|
|
Post by stevo0113 on Jun 2, 2020 8:33:51 GMT
I agree its all right to call it action, but rather talking about action please could we see some new release action sometime soon.
|
|
|
Post by Roger W on Jun 2, 2020 10:54:16 GMT
I think Action is fine. So long as the majority of figures in a box are actually doing some form of firing, reloading, attacking etc. A bit more vareity in the poses included is to me far more important than the name. I found the prussian landwehr action set dissapointing on this as 3 or 4 of the poses were too similar. May as well of just been called Prussian Landwehr in advance! No disrespect intended but your biggest competitor at the moment has got "standing sets" in the bag. They have made a big range including "shoulder arms", "order arms", "at ease" etc. If i were you i would focus more on the easily recognisable "in action" type poses. That is a gap that still exists and is ready for someone to take control of.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 2, 2020 11:32:06 GMT
It's the "Action" set, always has been and should remain so.
To be honest I don't recall that anyone did post that the set shouldn't be called "Action"; I think that some people just questioned whether the standing figure should be in the action set, because it's not doing anything.
Personally I think that figure makes more sense in the marching set but some of the March Mad Gamers here said they didn't want it in the marching set because it isn't marching.
We'll continue to have that argument for ever and a day because, if we're honest, we enjoy having those arguments; It's part of the fun of the hobby. But the argument is about the home of the figure, the name of the sets isn't the issue.
Here's the important thing: "Action" is the A in MAC, and MAC is HaT's great initiative; the concept of separate sets for Marching, Action and Command. It's what HaT does better than the rest. You don't want to change that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2020 16:48:51 GMT
I agree with Graeme. The MAC format is 100% the best idea for sets and it was your companys creation. It suits both wargamers or diorama builders as they can buy exactly the sort of figures they need in bulk rather than buying multiple sets which have loads of poses that arent wanted. As said before, if anything, a better variety of poses in an action set is far more useful & important as far as im concerned and i doubt im the only one. Could the standing poses not go in a command set, freeing up space in a action set? After all wouldnt some troops help guard the colors/HQ for example? Also why not look into the potential of doing cavalry sets in a similar MAC format too? So dont get too hung up in names, instead lets see hat get back to its best, churning out lots of sets (in MAC obviously!!).
|
|
Boom boom out go the lights
Guest
|
Post by Boom boom out go the lights on Jun 2, 2020 17:53:11 GMT
[quote author=" designteam" Box with firing, loading, advancing, standing = ? Please discuss as posters have commented that this set should not be named "Action".[/quote] I'm fine with the established term “action“, and missed the part why it should no longer be called so, but if asked for an alternative, how about: In battle or battle
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Jun 2, 2020 23:23:55 GMT
Starting to think MAC is mythical,anticipating and concept. But seriously just get some product out.
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Jun 3, 2020 11:14:25 GMT
Very happy to keep it as "Action" it's appropriate for Firing, Loading and Advancing, if there is a Standing pose in there then that's fine as long as everybody knows.
|
|
quarion
Praetor
Waiting for 1/32 Austrians!
Posts: 114
|
Post by quarion on Jun 25, 2020 9:37:32 GMT
I don't have anything against calling this kind of sets Action but if you are asking for alternative, maybe Combat or as we have Marching then Attacking?
|
|
|
Post by davidmac on Jun 25, 2020 13:26:04 GMT
I'm happy with "Action" but "Combat" works for me, too.
|
|
|
Post by Ironsides on Jun 25, 2020 14:21:20 GMT
Action
|
|
|
Post by elektrikeal on Jun 25, 2020 18:49:14 GMT
Action for me. "MAC" Format differentiates between the type of set easily. Will there be an Action ACW set ?
|
|
|
Post by designteam on Jun 25, 2020 19:06:12 GMT
No. For reasons lost to history, this set was designed as a marching/command set during a short time when only marching/command sets were designed. Only a single marching set was designed but this was expanded later on due to the ability of CAD. Will there be an Action ACW set
|
|
|
Post by davidmac on Jun 26, 2020 11:57:36 GMT
I'm confused. Does "no Action set" mean Hat isn't going to produce ACW figures firing? I know it's the Civil War, but not shooting is taking it a bit far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 12:36:21 GMT
I'm confused. Does "no Action set" mean Hat isn't going to produce ACW figures firing? I know it's the Civil War, but not shooting is taking it a bit far. Agreed. Whats the point of creating the excellent MAC format, only to not bother with the "A" part of that format?? Even if an action set wasnt designed at the time of the Marching & Command sets, couldnt an ACW action set be designed now to eventually complement the other 2 sets? Surely such decisions affect sales, as people may not be tempted to buy the ACW marching or command figures if they cant get figures in action within the same sculpting style or size (sizes varying wildly between manufacturers). The MAC format is fantastic for both diorama builders and wargamers alike. If action sets are to be discontinued, that is a massive step backwards and a big blow to the hobby. Id love to see 1815 British Line Infantry given the MAC treatment too. An action set containing kneeling figures as well as standing firing, reloading etc, so someone could either make a firing line or a square. Advancing figures too. 1815 French also need a good MAC format. We have the marching for that, its the action and command thats needed.
|
|
|
Post by designteam on Jun 26, 2020 16:58:39 GMT
OK. Let me change my answer to "an action set cannot be ruled out".
|
|
|
Post by pinotnoir on Jul 16, 2020 1:30:41 GMT
Action is fine.
|
|
|
Post by elektrikeal on Jul 16, 2020 18:12:23 GMT
Absolutely agree with Roger W. HaT please do an Action ACW Set.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Salad on Aug 30, 2020 13:48:11 GMT
"Action" is fine. "Fighting" or "Combat" would work as well.
|
|
PRJA
Quaestor
No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
Posts: 14
|
Post by PRJA on Sept 16, 2020 12:59:01 GMT
How about 'READYAIMFIRE' ?! (Only just seen this thread - couldn't resist!) 😇😂
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Sept 16, 2020 23:21:51 GMT
If it needs to change call it " in battle"
|
|