So I'm putting my new Valkyrie together today and I must say, I'm very disappointed with the design of the model and how it goes together. As if it wasn't bad enough that the engines are modeled in three parts instead of two, the two top parts don't have any pegs. You have to match the lines on the top detail and hold it together perfectly in order to make it work. The cabin also goes together in a very awkward fashion and the pieces must be glued in a specific order or they won't go together at all. Both of these problems are exacerbated by the fact that they involve long thin pieces of plastic that warp easily. Several pieces were also cast very poorly and had snapped on the sprue because the plastic was too thin. This wasn't a normal case of a box getting jostled, this was a flaw in the casting. There are also more gaps in the model than a suburban mall because the parts just don't fit together at all.

All of this aside, the model looks amazing when it's assembled and I think it's worth building. It's just a pain to put together and after the horrendously designed Drop Pod, I guess I was expecting a lot worse. GW model design has really been faltering in the last couple of years. The new stuff just isn't designed as well as their stuff used to be. Very disappointing...

I think it is a trade off. The cooler the model looks (and the more options it has) the more difficult it will be to build.

Somnicide wrote:I think it is a trade off. The cooler the model looks (and the more options it has) the more difficult it will be to build.

Yeah I don't agree. The Land Raider, Rhino, etc... look awesome and went together very well. They have a superb amount of detail and the land raider even includes some clever moving parts that work quite well and aren't hard to assemble. I think a model like the Valkyrie has some design challenges that a tank doesn't have. But GW just didn't bother to put the time in to come up with good solutions to these challenges. It almost feels like the Valkyrie needs one or two more "re-writes" before it should have hit shelves.

Kasrkinlegion wrote:Both of these problems are exacerbated by the fact that they involve long thin pieces of plastic that warp easily. Several pieces were also cast very poorly and had snapped on the sprue because the plastic was too thin. This wasn't a normal case of a box getting jostled, this was a flaw in the casting. There are also more gaps in the model than a suburban mall because the parts just don't fit together at all.

Does that basically mean the whole batch ( pretty much all the existing valkyrie boxes ) will have the same problem you discribed?

Im having 2nd thoughts about getting them now ( since i wanted vendetta instead to start with )

Kasrkinlegion wrote:It almost feels like the Valkyrie needs one or two more "re-writes" before it should have hit shelves.

I find that to be the case with many GW products, not limited just to models.

In building the Stompa I found the same modeling issues and at this point in modeling history not providing some "guide pegs" or the like is simply unexcusable on GWs part. Again the model looks good once together but it seemed alsmost at times like they clipped pieces in half at odd points just to increase the number of pieces you get in the model kit. GW really seem s to make some odd choices when it comes to their products and their customer satisfaction.

LunaHound wrote:
Does that basically mean the whole batch ( pretty much all the existing valkyrie boxes ) will have the same problem you discribed?

Im having 2nd thoughts about getting them now ( since i wanted vendetta instead to start with )

Yeah there isn't going to be a separate Vendetta. The rumors are that forgeworld is doing a Vendetta upgrade kit. Given that adding TL lascannons is fairly trivial, I'll be converting mine...

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Does that basically mean the whole batch ( pretty much all the existing valkyrie boxes ) will have the same problem you discribed?

Im having 2nd thoughts about getting them now ( since i wanted vendetta instead to start with )

Yeah there isn't going to be a separate Vendetta. The rumors are that forgeworld is doing a Vendetta upgrade kit. Given that adding TL lascannons is fairly trivial, I'll be converting mine...

Yes , i was hoping by the time vendetta kit is released , maybe GW might have solved that problem ( maybe like stack the warpable sprue some other way )

GW doesn't really operate that way. It costs them thousands of dollars to develop a plastic sprue. Once they make one, they want to milk it for all they can. This is why we're still suffering with the awful Catachan minis and the abysmally designed Leman Russ and Chimera models. It takes a certain amount of sales for them to recoup the cost of the original plastic molds. They would have to redo the molds for the Valkyrie to fix the problems I was pointing out, and it's just not worth the money for them to do that.

So this is going to be the Valyrie model that you're going to have to build if you want one unfortunately. Maybe they'll do some kind of metal upgrade (metal is the opposite, cheap as hell to mold and make changes to) but I think it's going to have to be whatever Forgeworld puts out.

Edit:

Looks like I'm wrong... there's going to maybe be an upgrade kit for the Valkyrie to make it a Vendetta or a Vulture...

http://www.warseer.com/rumours/warhammer_40_000

I for o ne welcome our new broken sprues

Being renegade guard, being forced to patch up (even make new holes and patch them up!) gives my army character.

I find the complaints of no guide pegs/holes and ledges funny. I can recall a time way before GW when I built model airplanes and tanks that if you were lucky had a guide ridge for one side to fit in, and the glue bottle output was twice the size of the biggest point for glue to be placed.

*shrug*

I say bring me the challenge. GW kits are hardly a challenging assembly. The only one that sucks arse IMO is the land speeder as that thing never fits around all the support peices it has built in it. Rubber bands and clamps all the time for those stupid things.

hmmm. gotta disagree.

I just put mine together and it fit like a glove. There was 1 slightly warped part (a canopy sill). This was easily fixed w/ a hair dryer to give some flex then hold in the proper position over the clear canopy.

IMO the newer models are very finely engineered. It is important to play with the parts first to see how they fit together prior to applying glue even if it looks straight forward. They are more like a puzzle at times then a linear build. Better images in the instructions would help and part identification would be a bigger boon then recutting the model.

The benefit of this new fit is that it allows the models to be built without gaps and seams that are apparent in the older models (rhino...etc). Also the glue points and tabs are often "hidden" which means sloppy glue doen't get on the outside of your model. This new fit also means if you don't file your sprue connection points down to absolutely flat with the face of the piece IT WILL NOT FIT RIGHT. I mean even a slight ridge in one spot will cause you issues later on in the build.

The stompa would have had giant mold lines if it had been engineered w/ pegs aroung the body vs. the figer joint method it was given around the plating. As it stood everything fit togther very nicely. This results in a nicer model appearance for a begginer modeler IMO since the kit is built to disguise these lines.

The models actually require forthought and can't just be whipped out in an hour like some of the older kits but they are vastly superior. This is both fantasy and the 40K stuff.

The drop pod is a challenging kit but I've built 5 with no issue. the Radial symmetry of the model makes it a challenge to fit everything since you can't assemble it in stages but all at 1 time. I find that "tac welding" w/ a little superglue helps.


Again, this is my opion but I think it is a great looking model and went together in about 2.5 hours for me with a break for some glue to dry in spots.

Hordicant wrote:I find the complaints of no guide pegs/holes and ledges funny. I can recall a time way before GW when I built model airplanes and tanks that if you were lucky had a guide ridge for one side to fit in, and the glue bottle output was twice the size of the biggest point for glue to be placed.

I too have similar memories of my childhood, but they are just that, memories. Modern model airplanes and tanks are worlds apart from those crude older models, and almost as distant from what GW happens to produce. They go together well, look awesome, aren't any more fragile than GW gaming pieces, and so on. Indeed, compared to some of those (especially the ones produced in Japan or China), I'd hesitate to call GW plastics "models" at all.

I haven't even gotten mine and I am already disappointed that the Vendetta las cannons were not included in the kit. Yes there are bits available but for most of us that adds cost and is a hassle. I think bits might be the way to go as you can make a chin mounted twin link las cannon on a turret like modern fighters and gunships have instead of the one on the side that looks like its from WWII.

I was considering doing a total scratch build but apparently so far Valkyria Chronicles doesn't seem to have any aircraft so I probably will go with a Cobra theme for my IG.

As far as it being hard to build it can't be more annoying then the old metal steam tanks those had defects and were really hard to get to go together. might have to get their new plastic one for my third steam tank.

Hordicant wrote:I say bring me the challenge. GW kits are hardly a challenging assembly. The only one that sucks arse IMO is the land speeder as that thing never fits around all the support peices it has built in it. Rubber bands and clamps all the time for those stupid things.

I too like to assemble challenging models. Challenge should come from a model with exacting detail and a brutal amount of parts.

Tamiya is a good example of a company that makes models that are challenging to put together, but the result is amazing and the fit is very fine tuned.

http://www.tamiyausa.com/

GW is an example of a company that is very hit or miss with their plastic vehicle models lately. The Drop Pod is engineered abysmally. Instead of it having some kind of solid structure to work from, half the model is suspended from horrbly fitting fitting fins that were cast terribly. The Valkyrie is better but it has serious issues that are really unforgivable given the size of GW and the quality they're actually capable of.

Re:Jgemrich

I've been putting models together for 30 years. I know all the tricks. But I also know a good model when I see one. I'd rather sand down some mold lines than deal with ill fitting model with poorly engineered parts. A truly well engineered model will not show mold lines and fit together well. GW is capable of that, but the Drop Pod and the Valkyrie just drop the ball.

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

Re:Jgemrich

I've been putting models together for 30 years. I know all the tricks. But I also know a good model when I see one. I'd rather sand down some mold lines than deal with ill fitting model with poorly engineered parts. A truly well engineered model will not show mold lines and fit together well. GW is capable of that, but the Drop Pod and the Valkyrie just drop the ball.

I'm glad you know a good model when you see it and that you've had 30 years experience, but when you talk about "holding" pieces together I assumed that you really didn't know all the tricks. And when you complained about a little warping or thin pieces that didn't say 30 years experience to me. Maybe it is my low standards.

Regarldess my comments were to the group and presented as counterpoints which outlined my experience with the Valk and other recent experiences with these models. In summary, your experience with the same kit wasn't mine.

jgemrich wrote:And when you complained about a little warping or thin pieces that didn't say 30 years experience to me. Maybe it is my low standards.

Regarldess my comments were to the group and presented as counterpoints which outlined my experience with the Valk and other recent experiences with these models. In summary, your experience with the same kit wasn't mine.

Not sure why anyone would think a model with significant warping in the parts is a good model. It's entirely possible that you got lucky and I ended up with a model from a bad batch. I don't really think that's the case as I have put two of them together now and had similar problems with both models.

Also not sure how you glue models together without holding the parts in your hands and touching the parts together. I've never learned the hands free technique for putting models together, but I'd really love to know your secret .

Kasrkinlegion wrote:
Also not sure how you glue models together without holding the parts in your hands and touching the parts together. I've never learned the hands free technique for putting models together, but I'd really love to know your secret .

Hands impart grease and other undesireable things to the equation that can effect your paint unless you wash post assembly. This could be over come with gloves.

But on top of this, rarely are your hands stable to hold a model together for the suffiecient period of time it takes plastic glue to set. There are a good variety of clamps, tweezers, and vices for this process depending on your needs.


http://www.hobbylinc.com/prods/raa.htm
http://www.hobbylinc.com/prods/ram.htm

...you haven't tried to assemble the Forge World Valkyries have you?

I still have nightmares about having to sand down the rear of the cockpit and the interior of the passenger compartment halves to fit.

jgemrich wrote:

Hands impart grease and other undesireable things to the equation that can effect your paint unless you wash post assembly. This could be over come with gloves.

But on top of this, rarely are your hands stable to hold a model together for the suffiecient period of time it takes plastic glue to set. There are a good variety of clamps, tweezers, and vices for this process depending on your needs.

GW models are not even close to being complicated enough to require that kind of gear. This is one of my problems with the Valkyrie. It takes a dozen steps to assemble the whole thing, and therefore should go together quickly and smoothly. This is far from the case however. When I'm gluing together entire suspension systems for a tank with 30 wheels, then I should have to resort to using tweezers and vices. Two out of three pieces of an engine housing that are 4" long, should pop together in a second. If the engine had 30 pieces, and I had to line some up manually, I wouldn't mind. But having this giant 4" section on the top of your model with no guides, where if you're off my few millimeters it ends up looking like crap is just bad design. One peg in there, which would have no effect on the already brutally long screamingly obvious mold line going right down the top of the model, would have made this infinitely easier to put together. Yeah I can make it fit perfectly and my engines look pretty good, but skill shouldn't have to compensate for a bad design.

Also, don't even get me started on these new flying stands. Who makes a flying stand that requires pinning? The whole point is that the work is done for you, otherwise just make your own flying stand. The base of the flying stand that attaches to the bottom of the Valkyrie doesn't even fit properly in the slot that it's intended for. My Valkyries, and I'm sure lots of other people's, will be on the ground.

It took me about 50 minutes to assemble my first (of nine) Valkyries, and that was mostly due to talking with people about the kit, and answering that "Yes, I am the fether that bought 9 Valkyries"

No warping or broken parts yet, just a bit of extra flash here and there.

jgemrich wrote:But on top of this, rarely are your hands stable to hold a model together for the suffiecient period of time it takes plastic glue to set. There are a good variety of clamps, tweezers, and vices for this process depending on your needs.

It's no superhuman feat to hold parts in alignment for extended periods of time, with epoxy for resin models, sometimes it takes fifteen. All you need to pull it off is something to get your mind off your hands, especially if they start cramping. The human hand is the most complex, most sensitive vise you can put your parts in, replacing it with a crude metal or plastic apparatus is often a recipe for disaster.

LunaHound wrote:

Kasrkinlegion wrote:Both of these problems are exacerbated by the fact that they involve long thin pieces of plastic that warp easily. Several pieces were also cast very poorly and had snapped on the sprue because the plastic was too thin. This wasn't a normal case of a box getting jostled, this was a flaw in the casting. There are also more gaps in the model than a suburban mall because the parts just don't fit together at all.

Does that basically mean the whole batch ( pretty much all the existing valkyrie boxes ) will have the same problem you discribed?

Im having 2nd thoughts about getting them now ( since i wanted vendetta instead to start with )

I wouldn't get cold feet about it in my opinion. FRom the one valkyrie i own so far it seems to be fine with few gaps from what i have noticed. Yeah some parts are quite a hassle to assemble, namely the cockpit area, the 2 side HBs, but thats all i could really complain about, the model looks great and i cant wait to start gaming with this bad boy. It may have just been a bad box he got

4 Valks Down, no problems.

My Valk was in perfect shape, went together easy. Much better than the Drop Pods...

And there actually are (kind of) a set of "guide" slots. They're where those two top parts match up with the bottom part as well as the interior component that provides detail for the rear of the thruster. If you glue the detail bit to the bottom half of the engine, then use it to line up the other two halves (making sure the pegs on the bottom part match with the guiding indentations on the upper sections) it comes together fairly easily. Just don't try to glue the two halves of the top together before dropping it onto the bottom.

My only gripe about the kit is no Vendetta option, an oversight I'm still working on a solution for. I may just grab a pair of Land Raider sponsons and invert them, attach them to the underside of the wing (where the Hellstrike Missiles/Rocket Pods go) and split a Razorback turret to put on either side of the cockpit. It's an inelegant solution, but it might work. Otherwise maybe FW will get it in gear...

Mine was soooo easy to put together, I got home from work at 6pm and my 8pm it was built and primed.

All the bits went together fine!

Anyone who says they are disappointed about this kit is a very hard to please person. We are paying £35 for a model that at the start of the year cost £82 and its now in plastic!

No more warped and bubble filled resin that needs washing and sanding!

Be happy people these are great times we are in!

Pifff...some people always need to complain.

The Valkyrie is very easy to put together, almost all parts fit very,very well together. I built one kit and am building the 2nd one now, it´s nearly finished. I think you can finish one entire kit in about 3 hours which includes filling down any small gaps etc. If you have problems holding parts together, get some rubber bands, a must for any slightly experienced modeller or hobbyist If you are unsure how to proceed in some stages of the build just dry fit the parts before glueing. With a little bit of common sense it´ll work out fine! All in all a great kit!

Grandmaster wrote:
Anyone who says they are disappointed about this kit is a very hard to please person. We are paying £35 for a model that at the start of the year cost £82 and its now in plastic!

To be honest, thats a very bad comparison to make statement on.

[quote=GrandmasterAnyone who says they are disappointed about this kit is a very hard to please person. We are paying £35 for a model that at the start of the year cost £82 and its now in plastic!
Be happy people these are great times we are in!

I thought the Valk model was okay.

Issues I had were:
assembling the main passenger compartment - bit fiddly as the side go under the front so both sides and the front have to get glued to the bottom at the same time. Not really a problem.
instructions for assembling the cockpit interior do not adequately show order, specifically that the weps officer needs his arms glued on before attaching the console. Could catch some people out.
exposed join down the top of the engines - that's poor design. There are plenty of other ways the engines could have been moulded or designed to avoid that.

Parts were clean with minimal mould lines. No defects or warpage. I'm also quite happy with the flying stand which is far superior to the old ones. I can only hope that any new skimmers will come with a mini version of this as it's a far superior design.

My biggest complaint is that the passenger compartment is bigger than it needs to be and makes the valk look a bit fat.

My background is historic modeling and billings boats along with years racing RC cars. Ive built 1000'd on kits from resin, metal, plastic to wood that you soak in the bath to bend to the shape of a hull.

Ive also built the FW Valk and the GW valk. The GW was a doddle to assemble and IMO a well thought out kit! Yes GW instructions are not as good as Tamiya or Dragon but its pretty self explanatory!

I guess your not happy and I am and there is nothing I can say or do to change that.

Ive been doing this hobby for along long time now and trust me these are good times to be in it!

Ps i don't want to argue

Im sorry your not happy!

I had no issues with it, except for looking for two pieces that the instructions seemed to think should go under the wings, but weren't in there. No gaps, no warps, no issues. Much better than some of their other kits.

DONT! get me started on the Baneblade!

Kasrkinlegion wrote:... A model which costs $60 from any other company is generally going to have far superior detail, be much larger, or both.

Second is that I'm still paying money and I expect a certain amount of quality from my models no matter how much or little I spend.

I think GW is fairly consistent with their models. I think if you can't grasp a realistic level of expectation of GW models from past experiences you probably shouldn't spend your money on their products.

I also think that "superior detail" misrepresentation of the distinction between GW models and other companies' model. GW designs their models to be actively handled, so the plastic is generally thicker. An important advantage of this is GW can have deeper details than other models companies can; also the extremes from highest surface to lowest surface, are better than most companies I've seen. This is actually a more advanced manufacturing technology then most model manufacturers use. GW is also able to produce models that have less draft, giving their models more distinct edges. The down side to all this is that they have to use a generally more viscous plastic. That sort of plastic lends itself to warping, which generally reinforces its need to be thicker.

Another issue is that GW models are not scale models. Scale models take a ultra-realistic approach, they are like portraits painted in the Realist style. While GW produces its models more akin to a portrait in an Impressionist style. This is not to say those are specifically the styles of their work, just to contrast that GW's models are not the same style of artistry that other companies produce. You only need to look as far as the basic human guardsmen and compare him to a 1/35 or 1/48 scale soldier to see that.

I've never had any problem getting GW's plastic models together. They seem pretty straight forward to me.

I dont know what super technology GW uses , but anything thats easy to warp , hard to assemble , lack of detail yet tons of mold line and badly planned assemblies isnt very smart to me.

Not sure what does artistic approach have anything to do with GW's poor quality products either.

I mean , im willing to accept GW product also serves as a game , so lack of quality for the model itself i can excuse abit.

However they do not deserve any praise they certainly dont deserve when it comes to model quality.

i Say this :

Its becouse , the harder it is too put it together , the harder it will too get ruined

Right ?

Not really , its sort of hard to talk about it if you havnt touched asian model kits.

I mean everything about the quality is inferior.

The only thing that makes it tolerable is , it doubles as game piece which is ok

till you think about the price again.

hmmm I've heard a lot of good things about this kit, so I'll reserve judgement on it until I actually have one in my grubby mitts.

BTW, there is a "How To" tutorial thingy on the GW website,for those not aware.

LunaHound wrote:Not really , its sort of hard to talk about it if you havnt touched asian model kits.

I mean everything about the quality is inferior.

The only thing that makes it tolerable is , it doubles as game piece which is ok

till you think about the price again.

And how many of those Asian kits do you end up actively handling?
I've got a friend who has a ton of the High Grade Gundam kits. He's spent years building them, and he knows that unlike the stuff I build for 40k....his stuff cannot be actively handled.

It's not a question of mold lines or a question of durability.
You don't build those high end Asian 5k piece models for anything but a display piece. There's a reason there's all that detail in it. There's a reason there's complete assembly lists, specific ways they go together, etc. The builders of those kits usually have had a ton of reference materials to work from.

@kanluwen:

Solution to all the thing you just said =

buy lower grade.

No, you're completely missing the point.

You're expecting Games Workshop models to be on par with these high end kits from Dragon, Tamiya, and Haesagawa.
They won't be. They're also cheaper than alot of those same kits, when you go through and actually compare the level of detail on a specific kind of model to a GW model.

Yes but even the low grade asian models or Gundams are made of a more brittle plastic. I really want to see what sort of detail people are talking about when they say, "look at how scale models are better" or "look at this gundam, it better." Its important not to confuse the quality of detail with just how small certain components or features are. From the manufacturing side, where I've worked, the quality of plastic component is judged by:
A) how much surfaces and planes are angled beyond their intended design for mold release
B) the crispness of features and depth of deepest features
C) mold lines, mold separation, part and sprue orientation
D) Resistance to warping: flat surfaces remaining flat, shrinkage...

On A and B GW are by and far the best plastic models I've seen; near right angles and only .005" curves added to edges. C, I've only had a couple of times. D, I've had only once, which was with a Rhino. Common enough problems, GW probably doesn't have much of a QC department to check the parts.

GW models though are not void of detail; I think its funny because scale modelists complain about the superfluous detail. How do you make something that's effectively a cartoon "more detailed?" I don't think you can just say the detail is disappointing without saying what detail is disappointing.

I've seen the same sort of technology GW uses in action. Its worthy of praise even if you don't think GW utilizes to a degree that they deserve praise.

I had one problem with the first Valk I assembled... and that is the new base stem would not fit into the piece that attaches to the valkyrie itself. I have shaved it some... but still don't have a good fit.

My biggest complaint so far is also the engines. Easy enough to put together, just not as well designed as it could have been. I would have preferred a single moulded piece instead of a 2 piece top that leaves a visible join line near the most noticable area of the model. Otherwise, it's been going together well.

I'm going to hold off judgement as well until I have one in my hands. But I do not expect it to be hard to assemble at all. After building 4 of the old Land Speeders I feel that the Valk will be no problem. And if you have suck a bitch about the quality and price of GW models. THEN WHY DO YOU STILL BUY THEM AND PLAY THE GAME?????

Kasrkinlegion wrote:As if it wasn't bad enough that the engines are modeled in three parts instead of two,

the two top parts don't have any pegs. You have to match the lines on the top detail and hold it together perfectly in order to make it work.

Both of these problems are exacerbated by the fact that they involve long thin pieces of plastic that warp easily.

Several pieces were also cast very poorly and had snapped on the sprue because the plastic was too thin.

If they were 2-part engines, they wouldn't have 3-D detailing. There'd be a goofy flat spot due to the use of metal molds.

As a scale modeler, not having pegs is not a problem if you're careful and precise. As this is a plastic kit, it'll go together just fine with standard plastic cement, so I don't see any problem as long as there's sufficient surface area to get a good join. Now, if you're foolishly using CA to assemble a plastic model, then that's your fault, not the kit design.

Long thin pieces of plastic are easy to unwarp with a hair dryer or warm water. Scale modelers do this all the time.

Snapping is a problem, and that ties to bad mold / part design. Like the old 3E SM knives. Those things sucked.

Ghost in the Darkness wrote:And if you have suck a bitch about the quality and price of GW models. THEN WHY DO YOU STILL BUY THEM AND PLAY THE GAME?????

You find their price justified and cheap?

And nope didnt buy the Valkyrie

Redbeard wrote:I had no issues with it, except for looking for two pieces that the instructions seemed to think should go under the wings, but weren't in there. No gaps, no warps, no issues. Much better than some of their other kits.

Yes those pieces were weird. I didn't see what they were for, and I could only find one on the sprue.

LunaHound wrote:@kanluwen:

Solution to all the thing you just said =

buy lower grade.

By "lower grade", I'm assuming you're talking about Ben-Di and other knockoff of Bandai HG kit?

And the 1/144 HG kits aren't *that* fragile. It's the larger 1/100 Master Grade / Perfect Grade kits that are real problems - you cannot game with them.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I had no issues with it, except for looking for two pieces that the instructions seemed to think should go under the wings, but weren't in there. No gaps, no warps, no issues. Much better than some of their other kits.

Yes those pieces were weird. I didn't see what they were for, and I could only find one on the sprue.

They hold the wing weapons, the picture is really poorly though out though.



If you look on the unpainted one, you can see it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

LunaHound wrote:@kanluwen:

Solution to all the thing you just said =

buy lower grade.

By "lower grade", I'm assuming you're talking about Ben-Di and other knockoff of Bandai HG kit?

And the 1/144 HG kits aren't *that* fragile. It's the larger 1/100 Master Grade / Perfect Grade kits that are real problems - you cannot game with them.

Lower grade as in quality ( Super Deformed / Speed Grade / **Fix Figuration** ) Also unless the giant HG kit is the special 1/100 ones there is no reason
why it cant support its own weight to be touched.

I mean you can drop them from 2 floors up and they'll only break off at the joints and nothing else. Try doing that to GW items.
And the fit are so sharp and precise i always get cut when i assemble for the children i baby sit.
As well as they *snap fit . not same as GW snaps lol

Kasrkinlegion wrote:... A model which costs $60 from any other company is generally going to have far superior detail, be much larger, or both.

IMO, you are grossly misinformed. The Baneblade is competitively priced with anything else in its size class. Same with any of GW's newer kits.

Now, if you are comparing decades-old kits like the Leman Russ, that might be true. But then, you'd have to compare with decades-old kits from Revell or Airfix, rather than Japanese / Hong Kong kits that weren't well known at the time.

____

aka_mythos wrote:GW designs their models to be actively handled, so the plastic is generally thicker.

Another issue is that GW models are not scale models. Scale models take a ultra-realistic approach,

Exactly.

GW models will survive a drop off a table with far less damage than any comparable scale model ever would. Scale parts make for much thinner and more fragile details that are far more easily broken.


I *dare* someone to take an individual-link Dragon Panzer kit of comparable size to a Baneblade and drop it from a foot off the tabletop, tracks down.

Then do the same with a Baneblade...

Baneblade wins on durabilty hands down.

So far; haven't had a single problem with my Valkyrie. I'm not done yet, but I've mocked everything together, haven't noticed any thin spaces in the plastic, cracking, or warping. The whole time I have been working on it I have been commenting what a wonderful model it is! I'm not entirely happy with the landing system (seems kinda slapped on but it isn't junk). In general, except for the price, very happy with it. I have two more on order from my LOCAL HOBBY SHOP and I think everyone should order one through THERE LOCAL HOBBY SHOP! and anything else they are getting should be purchased through THERE LOCAL HOBBY SHOP! And in conclusion, BUY ALL YOUR STUFF FROM YOUR LOCAL HOBBY SHOPS!

Kanluwen wrote:And how many of those Asian kits do you end up actively handling?
I've got a friend who has a ton of the High Grade Gundam kits. He's spent years building them, and he knows that unlike the stuff I build for 40k....his stuff cannot be actively handled.

As always, I must ask: What the heck are you guys doing to your models? I don't own any scale model that I would not be comfortable using as a proxy in a 40k game. Tanks, trucks, hovercraft, spaceships, whatever. That doesn't mean I'll let you touch it, though, but I'm not okay with other people touching even my infantry without permission. Every plastic model kit I've ever built is ten times more gamer-proof than the FW Arvus or Vulture.

Unless you're twelve, or playing in an earthquake zone, models are unlikely to break during gaming, barring unfortunate accidents, which hurt GW stuff just as badly.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW models will survive a drop off a table with far less damage than any comparable scale model ever would. Scale parts make for much thinner and more fragile details that are far more easily broken.

I *dare* someone to take an individual-link Dragon Panzer kit of comparable size to a Baneblade and drop it from a foot off the tabletop, tracks down.

Then do the same with a Baneblade...

For what it's worth, my Baneblade absolutely bloody shattered when it got knocked down during construction. I file that under "unfortunate accidents", above, and consider it rare enough to be a non-issue.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And how many of those Asian kits do you end up actively handling?
I've got a friend who has a ton of the High Grade Gundam kits. He's spent years building them, and he knows that unlike the stuff I build for 40k....his stuff cannot be actively handled.

As always, I must ask: What the heck are you guys doing to your models? I don't own any scale model that I would not be comfortable using as a proxy in a 40k game. Tanks, trucks, hovercraft, spaceships, whatever. That doesn't mean I'll let you touch it, though, but I'm not okay with other people touching even my infantry without permission. Every plastic model kit I've ever built is ten times more gamer-proof than the FW Arvus or Vulture.

Unless you're twelve, or playing in an earthquake zone, models are unlikely to break during gaming, barring unfortunate accidents, which hurt GW stuff just as badly.

My point was more that whenever we had parties at his place, the Gundam kits get locked up and hidden(that whole alcohol and "Look at this!" factor being the main issue), while the 40k stuff just gets put into its cases.

And you're right about the Forge World stuff. But everyone knows resin is fragile, just some people don't realize how fragile it can be.

No complaints on the Valkyrie for me either. Everything was well formed. No warps. Only thing broke on sprue was the handle in one of the gunners hands. Clean break right in the middle (easy fix).

I didn't find it any harder than the Land Raider to put together.

Kanluwen wrote:My point was more that whenever we had parties at his place, the Gundam kits get locked up and hidden(that whole alcohol and "Look at this!" factor being the main issue), while the 40k stuff just gets put into its cases.

And you're right about the Forge World stuff. But everyone knows resin is fragile, just some people don't realize how fragile it can be.

Yes, other people are usually the problem. I mean, if I've built a model, I usually have a pretty good idea of its material strengths and attributes, as well as things such as whether it's front or back heavy, and what the safe places are to grip it. An opponent or curious spectator doesn't have that knowledge, which is why I do not want their hands on my models if I can help it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:IMO, you are grossly misinformed. The Baneblade is competitively priced with anything else in its size class. Same with any of GW's newer kits.

Now, if you are comparing decades-old kits like the Leman Russ, that might be true. But then, you'd have to compare with decades-old kits from Revell or Airfix, rather than Japanese / Hong Kong kits that weren't well known at the time.

I *dare* someone to take an individual-link Dragon Panzer kit of comparable size to a Baneblade and drop it from a foot off the tabletop, tracks down.

Then do the same with a Baneblade...

Baneblade wins on durabilty hands down.

I have built several Tamiya 1/35 scale tanks for use with 40k. They end up about the same size as the Baneblade (a little smaller perhaps) but end up looking a lot better. I used to use them as super heavies all the time. I handled them as much as I would handle any GW mini and they held up fine.

Here's a link to one you can buy for $35, about 1/3 of what a Baneblade costs. So no, it's not competitively priced at all.

http://www.scalehobbyist.com/catagories/Military_Vehicles/TAM00035269/product.php

No I am not grossly misinformed...

Also, measuring whether or not a model is good by how high a height you can drop them from is just silly. Not any kind of meaningful way to measure how good a model is.

I have also used many different kinds of Gundam models in 40k games and they're as durable as any GW model I've ever put together. Just because someone is obsessed with their Gundam collection and doesn't care about their 40k collection, doesn't mean the models are overly delicate.

Hard to argue in a warhammer board , i give up :x

just like love i guess, have to experience it first hand.

The point is that the Baneblade is designed to be played with by people not wearing kid gloves. The M1 and other scale models simply cannot be handled anywhere near the same way. That is, the Baneblade is more *durable*, because it was designed that way.

Uhh... If you honestly think Bandai's Gundam models are more fragile than GW's figures ... wow... what..? Have you ever built/handled a Gundam model before? They're pretty damn sturdy, especially for their size. Granted some joints may be weaker than others, but still.

And for $60, I could get this!
http://dalong.net/review/mg/m116/m116_p.htm

Look at how sexy/awesome that is. Lacks detail? Look at that internal frame!

but zomg you need stickerz. Well guess what, you kindof sort of need to paint your Warhammer models too =_=.

Not only that, the whole movable/poseable frame is something that GW/Forge World needs to incorporate into their titans!

I can't speak about the Valkyrie, but I am a bit annoyed about more recent GW plastic kits. I've only got back into the hobby fairly recently, having left before the current Rhino mould was put into use, and I can't stand the new one. I love the sculpt, and the overall look, but putting the thing together is like pulling teeth. Mostly because I demand flash be got rid of, and seam lines be filled, like I would for scale models or Gundam kits... Speaking of which, the main reason Gundam kits are relatively fragile is because they have so many moving joints and tiny parts. As someone who's flown with assembled and painted 1/100 MG Gundam kits overseas for model contests (and won them, but that's incidental), I know from experience that if you disassemble them at the major joints and pull off the V-fin, they can basically survive anything. Discounting the ABS plastic a lot of the more recent ones use in their internal frames (which is either indestructible or brittle like sheet glass depending on the day of the week), they aren't more or less fragile than any other model kit. Also, for what it's worth, I had no fit problems with assembling my friend's Baneblade. Which also survived a plummet off my table (though it wasn't all glued at the time).

...Argh, this wasn't meant to become a rant, but I had to get those things off my chest. I have like new 10 Rhino-based tanks where the hulls don't align that I need to fix up, and I keep finding myself wistfully looking back at my MK 1 Rhinos.

Other thing to remember is, GW kits are made of a softer plastic.
You can get a better detail definition with the harder plastics the Japanese use..
Personally, if you don't like the GW kits, don't buy them.
it's that simple.

AdrianG wrote:Other thing to remember is, GW kits are made of a softer plastic.
You can get a better detail definition with the harder plastics the Japanese use..
Personally, if you don't like the GW kits, don't buy them.
it's that simple.

That would be great if the game places arnt so strict on using none GW items.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The point is that the Baneblade is designed to be played with by people not wearing kid gloves. The M1 and other scale models simply cannot be handled anywhere near the same way. That is, the Baneblade is more *durable*, because it was designed that way.

Like I said before as well... I've put lots of 1/35th scale models on the table during 40k games. Never had a problem with durability...

Kouzuki wrote:Uhh... If you honestly think Bandai's Gundam models are more fragile than GW's figures ... wow... what..? Have you ever built/handled a Gundam model before? They're pretty damn sturdy, especially for their size. Granted some joints may be weaker than others, but still.

Yes, I've got plenty enough Gundams going back nearly 20 years.

The joints get sloppy over time, and then the robot won't stand up so well. This is more of a problem with the larger kits that tend to be top-heavy & more unbalanced.

AdrianG wrote:Personally, if you don't like the GW kits, don't buy them.
it's that simple.

One can be critical of a product but still see enough redeemable in it to still buy it. I like putting Valkyries on the table... I don't like putting them together. So it is it a little more nuanced than love it buy it vs. hate it don't buy it.

I guess all I can add is, if you don't like the valk don't ever buy a FW titan!

Grandmaster wrote:I guess all I can add is, if you don't like the valk don't ever buy a FW titan!

I'll buy them off ebay pinned and sanded and stuff.

see there are ways!

HungryTaz wrote:I had one problem with the first Valk I assembled... and that is the new base stem would not fit into the piece that attaches to the valkyrie itself. I have shaved it some... but still don't have a good fit.

I had the same problem, it took a lot of shaving with a knife to get the damn thing in there, it didn't want to fit in at all. I also had a problem with the first cockpit, it was warped a bit and wouldn't fit in properly.

LunaHound wrote:

Grandmaster wrote:I guess all I can add is, if you don't like the valk don't ever buy a FW titan!

I'll buy them off ebay pinned and sanded and stuff.

see there are ways!

very clever luna

You know what i mean

Kouzuki wrote:Uhh... If you honestly think Bandai's Gundam models are more fragile than GW's figures ... wow... what..? Have you ever built/handled a Gundam model before? They're pretty damn sturdy, especially for their size. Granted some joints may be weaker than others, but still.

And for $60, I could get this!
http://dalong.net/review/mg/m116/m116_p.htm

Look at how sexy/awesome that is. Lacks detail? Look at that internal frame!

The whole lacking detail is based on a perspective. What if a life size vehicle has lots of flat surfaces void of fixtures fittings or what ever else, does that mean a model of it lacks detail? Detail especially on a model has more to do with what its based on. I would argue that your Gundam model has too much detail, that it doesn't represent what was shown in the TV show or movie. With most modeling accuracy and not detail are the more important thing, but this being based on fiction, in both cases who's to say how much detail is representative of what the model portrays.

Bandai's models are more fragile. I had my RX-78 MG break at the hip from the weight of its own leg. And this was a newer kit. I've never had a GW model do that.

I think GW models cost more than they're worth. I also know that the workers who work in their US and UK factors probably get paid better and have more benefits than the Japanese worker that made that gundam model. Not to say that's the only thing, but one of many.

Also I laugh at internal detail, hahahaha, whats the point of some of the detail if you end up having to cover it up.

aka_mythos wrote:
I think GW models cost more than they're worth. I also know that the workers who work in their US and UK factors probably get paid better and have more benefits than the Japanese worker that made that gundam model. Not to say that's the only thing, but one of many.

Also I laugh at internal detail, hahahaha, whats the point of some of the detail if you end up having to cover it up.

I agree with you about how scale affects detail, and Bandai seem to agree with you about the "too much detail" thing with the 2.0 MG kits (which are pretty TV-accurate, and kinda ugly for it). But I'd be surprised if the Japanese guys working for Bandai get the worse end of the stick, pay-wise, I imagine the guys in the UK are worst off overall. Admittedly, the relative value of health insurance of anyone working in the US is probably enough to outweigh any salary differences, but I digress...

Internal Detail is useful when all your hatches and panels open, as well as when you have moving joints. You might as well laugh at the detail on the inside of the Rhino or Landspeeder...


This thread is becoming like a car crash... I don't want to look, but I can't help it, and when I do, I see something that upsets me. >_>;

GlauG wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:
I think GW models cost more than they're worth. I also know that the workers who work in their US and UK factors probably get paid better and have more benefits than the Japanese worker that made that gundam model. Not to say that's the only thing, but one of many.

Also I laugh at internal detail, hahahaha, whats the point of some of the detail if you end up having to cover it up.

I agree with you about how scale affects detail, and Bandai seem to agree with you about the "too much detail" thing with the 2.0 MG kits (which are pretty TV-accurate, and kinda ugly for it). But I'd be surprised if the Japanese guys working for Bandai get the worse end of the stick, pay-wise, I imagine the guys in the UK are worst off overall. Admittedly, the relative value of health insurance of anyone working in the US is probably enough to outweigh any salary differences, but I digress...

Internal Detail is useful when all your hatches and panels open, as well as when you have moving joints. You might as well laugh at the detail on the inside of the Rhino or Landspeeder...


This thread is becoming like a car crash... I don't want to look, but I can't help it, and when I do, I see something that upsets me. >_>;

What do you expect for internal detail?

I mean, honestly. I'd like to know.
Most of your vehicles don't ever require having hatches or the like open, unless you choose to do it. If you're going to do a diorama or some kind of hyper detailed model, then prepare to invest the time into it. Most of the kits that you see from other companies with incredibly detailed interiors, also sell those interiors separately. If you want GW to start taking that route, be my guest.

I've looked closely at the Valk in my local GW. It isn't that hard to put together. Gaps and stuff is usual for ANY scale model kit. This thing should be finished in a few hours. The Baneblade took me two hours to build (in sections).

I'll use my usual tools and skills (including rubber bands - a technique which I've been using for 20+ years), I'll use my usual gapfiller (Squadron green mixed with a little liquid poly). It's sandable when dry and dries/hardens a lot faster than GS (and is a trick that a pro modelmaker taught me).

meh. I might buy one of the new HG gundams when I get back to Tokyo and use bits and pieces to modify a Wraithlord or something... make it (almost) fully posable.

Cyporiean wrote:
They hold the wing weapons, the picture is really poorly though out though.

No, not those, I know what those are for...

Look at the third page of the instructions. They show a small piece that is supposed to fit under each wing strut. My kit didn't have them.

Redbeard wrote:

Cyporiean wrote:
They hold the wing weapons, the picture is really poorly though out though.

No, not those, I know what those are for...

Look at the third page of the instructions. They show a small piece that is supposed to fit under each wing strut. My kit didn't have them.

Oh yes, those things.

They don't exist, no idea what they are supposed to be.

Kanluwen wrote:
What do you expect for internal detail?

I mean, honestly. I'd like to know.

Most of your vehicles don't ever require having hatches or the like open, unless you choose to do it. If you're going to do a diorama or some kind of hyper detailed model, then prepare to invest the time into it. Most of the kits that you see from other companies with incredibly detailed interiors, also sell those interiors separately. If you want GW to start taking that route, be my guest.

FWIW, whenever I've built a 40k tank, I build it "buttoned up", with all hatches glued shut. It makes for a sturdier gaming piece.

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The point is that the Baneblade is designed to be played with by people not wearing kid gloves. The M1 and other scale models simply cannot be handled anywhere near the same way. That is, the Baneblade is more *durable*, because it was designed that way.

Like I said before as well... I've put lots of 1/35th scale models on the table during 40k games. Never had a problem with durability...

I don't think anybody is trying to deny your experience, but scale models simply are not as durable as GW models. They might be durable enough for you, but in my experience, the GW models are very robust for relatively detailed kits.

Polonius wrote:

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The point is that the Baneblade is designed to be played with by people not wearing kid gloves. The M1 and other scale models simply cannot be handled anywhere near the same way. That is, the Baneblade is more *durable*, because it was designed that way.

Like I said before as well... I've put lots of 1/35th scale models on the table during 40k games. Never had a problem with durability...

I don't think anybody is trying to deny your experience, but scale models simply are not as durable as GW models. They might be durable enough for you, but in my experience, the GW models are very robust for relatively detailed kits.

I agree, try breaking a leman russ or a rhino, it would take serious effort. I remember trying to feth an old russ I had to use it as wrecked terrain, it took serious effort just to get it to come apart.

Any plastic model breaks if you hit it hard enough.

I've never had to make much of an effort to break a (someone else's) model (I'm not stupid enough to break my own). A hammer generally works well. That said, I've got an old char B1 (1/35) that is still reasonably intact, despite having a table collapse onto it.

Those missing pieces are supposed to be winches or something. They don't exist. Pieces they cut from the sprue master before it went into production.

Kouzuki wrote:meh. I might buy one of the new HG gundams when I get back to Tokyo and use bits and pieces to modify a Wraithlord or something... make it (almost) fully posable.

:/ Aww man, not another one. You might as well just drop 800yen on 2 sets of WAVE/Kotobukiya/Yellow Sub option joints, especially for Eldar stuff a set of joints like this http://www.hlj.com/product/YLSPPC-T09 would be enough to make the whole thing move, no need to waste a perfectly good Gundam kit (or the extra money on one). Though if you were going to do it, you'd probably want a HG 1/144 Flag or Overflag. Go to a Volks or somewhere like that, though Yellow Sub stores have an annoying habit of not having the Yellow Sub parts I actually want whenever I visit.

aka_mythos wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
What do you expect for internal detail?

I mean, honestly. I'd like to know.

Most of your vehicles don't ever require having hatches or the like open, unless you choose to do it. If you're going to do a diorama or some kind of hyper detailed model, then prepare to invest the time into it. Most of the kits that you see from other companies with incredibly detailed interiors, also sell those interiors separately. If you want GW to start taking that route, be my guest.

Its fine to include internal detail for Gundam type models because they are intended for a much more statuesque presentation. GW models are meant to be played with and an interior does little more then add to the amount of material in the kit driving up the cost needlessly.

Polonius wrote:I don't think anybody is trying to deny your experience, but scale models simply are not as durable as GW models. They might be durable enough for you, but in my experience, the GW models are very robust for relatively detailed kits.

But not as durable and can't use on the table at all because they're way too fragile are too different things. A baneblade will be more durable. A 1/35 Tamiya tank will be durable enough.

i disagree strongly . ilove this kit its awesome ! and they look great ! gw did another great job!!nobody makes big sfi fi plastic kits like gw !

So far, my biggest issue with the Valkyrie kit has been the flying stand. It just doesn't fit together very well.

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

Polonius wrote:I don't think anybody is trying to deny your experience, but scale models simply are not as durable as GW models. They might be durable enough for you, but in my experience, the GW models are very robust for relatively detailed kits.

But not as durable and can't use on the table at all because they're way too fragile are too different things. A baneblade will be more durable. A 1/35 Tamiya tank will be durable enough.

I think you're just going to have to realize that not everybody has the same durability concerns that you have. I own a couple dozen GW tanks, and they're just stacked like cordwood in various tubs. They get knocked around, moved, played with hard. I simply could not do that with a Tamiya kit and not risk losing a lot of peices. I don't pretend that GW stuff is as finely detailed as the Tamya stuff, I don't see why you keep trying to pretend that the GW durability has no added value.

Its just a guess , but i think what they meant was.

GW is only durable because the pieces are way thicker and less detailed.

If (for example) If we are comparing plastic of same thickness GW vs Tamiya , the durability of the GW piece would be weaker.

LunaHound wrote:Its just a guess , but i think what they meant was.

GW is only durable because the pieces are way thicker and less detailed.

If (for example) If we are comparing plastic of same thickness GW vs Tamiya , the durability of the GW piece would be weaker.

You're saying that GW models are only more durable because they use more plastic? Well, that totally ruins everything for me. /sarcasm

Seriously, of course that's why they're more durable. GW has no interest in truly fine scale models, but wants to build gaming pieces. They're more durable because they're thicker, and the thickness makes detail more difficult to add.

In the far future of the 41st millenium, there are only thick-walled vehicles!

Polonius wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Its just a guess , but i think what they meant was.

GW is only durable because the pieces are way thicker and less detailed.

If (for example) If we are comparing plastic of same thickness GW vs Tamiya , the durability of the GW piece would be weaker.

You're saying that GW models are only more durable because they use more plastic? Well, that totally ruins everything for me. /sarcasm

I think what he's saying is that GW plastic is comparatively soft, and it is. Tamiya and Dragon use a stiffer kind.