Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was thinking of a super-heavy tank I'm planning on building, then my train of thought led me to the Land Raider, then to Gundam models, and how cheap and easy they are to assemble. As opposed to GW plastic models, which are expensive as hecknuggets, but at the same time relatively easy to assemble. My thoughts jump a lot.

I'm talking tanks, walkers, etc, although smaller models could benefit from this. By this, I mean the system the gundam models use to attach limbs to limbs. If you don't know, they are essentially ball and socket joints. Don't get me wrong, pinning/magnetizing models is great, but if you've ever built a Gundam model, you know what I'm taking about. Joint actually behave like... joints.

But what I do't get is how a fairly complex gundam model can cost around $30, yet a Land Raider (or any other tank, really) can cost up to $60 or so. I'm probably missing something here, but I think GW could take some notes from the company (companies?) that produce the Gundam models. For vehicles, mainly, although if they made actual joints for, say, Dark Eldar or Space Marines it might justify the current costs of the models.

This really depends on the material used in both, i have no idea about the quality of the material used in Gundam models, plus from what i have seen Gundam models don't have that much detail a lot of flat wide surfaces. While Land Raiders have a massive amount of small and fine detail. But yes GW does jack up the prices a bit, but i am pretty sure it would not be a 30 dollar difference.

With all honesty?

GW charge those prices because they can. As in their customer base are willing to pay those amounts ( perhaps even more )

Sorry but aren't gundam models even more expensive than GW stuff? Either way the answer for your question is easy; because they can. As long as the players are willing to spend their money on the models they will still get sold.

Drayzero wrote:This really depends on the material used in both, i have no idea about the quality of the material used in Gundam models, plus from what i have seen Gundam models don't have that much detail a lot of flat wide surfaces. While Land Raiders have a massive amount of small and fine detail. But yes GW does jack up the prices a bit, but i am pretty sure it would not be a 30 dollar difference.

i have messed around with gundams and other model kits on and off, the material used to make the gundams is a little weaker than what GW uses making it easier to snap and break, the reason there isnt as much detail on gundams as opposed to 40k is because it simply isnt in the fluff of the any Gundam series

I was just saying that they are cheaper because they have less detail.

Its simply because GW can do it and GW is pumping all of their money into those stores of theirs which cost a lot of money to run. Its as simple as that. I agree Gundam model kits are many times more complex. They even come in colors already on the sprue. You don't really have to paint it unless you want to.

Red Comet wrote:Its simply because GW can do it and GW is pumping all of their money into those stores of theirs which cost a lot of money to run. Its as simple as that. I agree Gundam model kits are many times more complex. They even come in colors already on the sprue. You don't really have to paint it unless you want to.

Yes, Gundam are way more detailed, the only reason they dont have skulls and spikes everywhere is because thats their aesthetics.

Gundam are like cars. Warhammer stuff are like.... mad max lol....

@Drayzero hmmm..... ya..... I really dont know what to tell you on how wrong you are on detail part ....

They might be more detailed, but they're far more fragile.

GW's material is not going to necessarily be the same as what a company which produces display models will use. The plastic on my $60 AFV Club Taiwan Stryker kit is far less thick than the plastic on a Leman Russ tank kit.

Why? Because durability plays a factor. If I drop or regularly handle that Stryker kit after it's fully assembled--it's likely going to be marked up in some way due to that handling.

A Leman Russ will not have that problem come up. Handling is factored into Games Workshop's models when they design them.

Been looking at a lot of google images most of the models seem to have a lot of really flat empty surfaces and as Cyvash said the plastic is cheaper and breaks more easily. since his opinion is about as valid as anybody else on here i am going to believe him.

Kanluwen wrote:They might be more detailed, but they're far more fragile.

Good, that's a start. I like honesty.

So can we agree on, the type of plastic chosen by Bandai is a preference ( with plus and down side )
and is certainly not due to being "CHEAP" as the other 2 have claimed?

More fragile = cheaper. There is no up side to the Bandai plastic you can mold it to look exactly the same but the Bandai plastic would still break more easily.

Blitza da warboy wrote:Sorry but aren't gundam models even more expensive than GW stuff?

It really depends - Gundam models are divided up by complexity levels, so the same model type can have multiple prices depending on what 'skill level' it is. The last time I was at the Gundam store in Osaka, you could get the Perfect Grade level kits, which were 1/60 scale, for around 300 a piece, whereas the High Grade kits rang it at around 20.

LunaHound wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:They might be more detailed, but they're far more fragile.

Good, that's a start. I like honesty.
So can we agree on, the type of plastic chosen by Bandai is a preference ( with plus and down side )
and is certainly not due to being "CHEAP" as the other 2 have claimed?

Actually, that's exactly what it is. It's cheap plastic. It's the same kind used in the "Snap-Fit" model kits you see retailing for $6.99 at hobby shops.

Is it a preference to use that cheap stuff? Sure.

I wouldn't say there's any plus side to using the material though. Material cost to manufacturer isn't really a "plus" when it's offset by the downside of "a single misstep with a hobby knife and you've just cut clean through both sides of a $30 model".

What you're also not realizing is that Bandai is a company which has made its bones by being cheap in terms of the quality of product they produce. They offset that by sheer quantity.

Drayzero wrote:More fragile = cheaper. There is no up side to the Bandai plastic you can mold it to look exactly the same but the Bandai plastic would still break more easily.

W....t..... f.....?

Fragile does not equate to cheaper, e.g a glass cup is more fragile than aluminum cup.

Lets compare the facts , lets see if you can deny this kanluwen, and dont be biased.

The plastic Bandai use are:

More crisp
More detailed
Doesnt warp
Doesnt have mold lines
Doesnt have flashes

Now the question asked, is Gundam plastic more fragile or tougher than GW plastic.

Truth? Tougher. Now before you guys jump off the seat, let me remind you of this.

Gundam assembly are more model than toys. Which means the way its held together, is different than a GW kit.
Not to mention, almost no one use glue to bond them together.

kanluwen mentioned some $60 model kits, now I dont know how they are compared to gundam kits. But i can tell there are tons more pieces
in those model kits than a GW kit ( on average ) . In other words they broke apart purely on the FINE PIECES that it contains.
So back to gundam, if you throw a LR across the room, and throw gundam across the room, I can bet that the LR will suffer tons of damage,
while the gundam will probably snap at the joints ( because its POESABLE, the joints are held together by thin rods )
Now, if they get the same treatment as GW models ( pinning ) Than i can safely bet, Gundam will be suffering waaaaaaaay less damage.

LunaHound wrote:
Fragile does not equate to cheaper, e.g a glass cup is more fragile than aluminum cup.

But glass is cheaper then aluminum cup wise anyways.

That's not the plastic being a factor though.
That's the layout of the kit being a factor.

Things with joints tend to have clean breaks, while things which do not have joints tend to have messier breaks.

What you will likely see broken on the Leman Russ:
The interior ring of the turret, specifically the two little 'tabs' which click underneath of the main hull of the Leman Russ to allow for the rotation of the turret.
The pintle mounting for the Storm Bolter/Heavy Stubber, aka: that little tiny piece of plastic which connects it to the turret's egress hatch.
Any external antenna attached to it.

The pieces you will likely see broken on a Gundam model will be the same, in terms of pieces sticking out.
You will also see something similar to the interior ring of the turret, as the impact force will sheer the joints and their posing will play a factor here. If it's tucked into a ball before being thrown and things aren't glued together...the damage may or may not be worse dependent upon how it impacts.

As for your points you want me to contradict:
You really cannot say that it's "more crisp or detailed" when it's simple geometric surfaces with flat lines all over the place. The closest comparison is the XV-8 Crisis Suit kit, and comparing that to most Gundam kits yields a pretty close match in terms of the "crisp detail".
As for warpage, mold lines, and flash(there's no such thing as "flashes" in casting):
These can be the results of different casting methods. It can also be the result of different layouts for sprues, different levels of handling after the casting process, etc.



Truth be told though, I hate these threads. There's no point in comparing these two styles of products as it's like comparing a quality watch that is built primarily for durability to a quality watch which is built to be used as a status symbol.

One of these things is built to be used one way, the other is not. The first one will see a lot of everyday usage, whilst the other will see rare usage or be pulled out to show off.

Why are Gundam models more fragile? There are multiple reasons for it that I can think of.

1) The model is not meant to be played with. A Gundam model is meant to be displayed and barely touched until you want to change the pose its in.

2) How the model itself is assembled plays a factor too. Gundam models wouldn't work out too well if every piece of plastic was thick and heavy. Can you imagine trying to have the Gundam with both of its arms or wings stretched out if the plastic is super thick? As it is the Predator's Turret falls from the weight. Also most GW models tend to be solid pieces with very little assemble required where a Gundam is many small pieces that make one big whole. Go look at a Master Grade Kit. Its an inner frame on which you build the armor and anything that's on the outside.

3) It could be cheaper too, but it makes sense. Why Make your models incredibly durable when they aren't intended to be used in a game? Warhammer models are meant to be abused because that's how the game is set up. This isn't to say Gundam's can't take a beating. Most of my models have fallen multiple times and if any piece breaks you know what it usually is? An antenna because its thin. Most Gundam models now are actually quite resilient in comparison to the ones that were available when Wing aired over here (Those models were such crap even by the standards then).

That's not the plastic being a factor though.
That's the layout of the kit being a factor.

Yet one can argue that the way layout is planned can be related to how the materials react.

Things with joints tend to have clean breaks, while things which do not have joints tend to have messier breaks.

What you will likely see broken on the Leman Russ:
The interior ring of the turret, specifically the two little 'tabs' which click underneath of the main hull of the Leman Russ to allow for the rotation of the turret.
The pintle mounting for the Storm Bolter/Heavy Stubber, aka: that little tiny piece of plastic which connects it to the turret's egress hatch.
Any external antenna attached to it.

My point was, a model kit where say a turret for your ( $60 model kits ) may have 20+ pieces assembled together,
will for sure break easier than say a GW turret ( held together by 6 pieces )

The pieces you will likely see broken on a Gundam model will be the same, in terms of pieces sticking out.

Lets leave the small thin pokey pieces out, its too fragile to be used as a controlled scenario

You will also see something similar to the interior ring of the turret, as the impact force will sheer the joints and their posing will play a factor here. If it's tucked into a ball before being thrown and things aren't glued together...the damage may or may not be worse dependent upon how it impacts.

Lets look at it from another perspective for a moment. Say we made a cube. One made with GW plastic and one made with gundam plastic, both are sealed with glued on all sides.
Which one is tougher when thrown.

As for your points you want me to contradict:
You really cannot say that it's "more crisp or detailed" when it's simple geometric surfaces with flat lines all over the place. The closest comparison is the XV-8 Crisis Suit kit, and comparing that to most Gundam kits yields a pretty close match in terms of the "crisp detail".
As for warpage, mold lines, and flash(there's no such thing as "flashes" in casting):

But both you and I know GW kits have mold lines ( some of them dont even line together ) http://gaming.thecasavants.com/Minis/flash.htm

While you can argue Bandai plastic are cheaper, I can argue its a preference because that certain material is capable of yielding these better results that I stated.

These can be the results of different casting methods. It can also be the result of different layouts for sprues, different levels of handling after the casting process, etc.

One can say the way Bandai make their models, they are capable of producing GW.
Yet GW's technology and method, I doubt they can use them to produce Bandai's stuff.

Truth be told though, I hate these threads. There's no point in comparing these two styles of products as it's like comparing a quality watch that is built primarily for durability to a quality watch which is built to be used as a status symbol.

Hm I guess thats same for me, but just like you can't stand people complain about GW, I cant stand OP stating things he doesnt know.

One of these things is built to be used one way, the other is not. The first one will see a lot of everyday usage, whilst the other will see rare usage or be pulled out to show off.

Thats what i said earlier, one is model. And the materials used to yield the result. Nothing to do with being cheap. Though nothing is wrong with 2 birds with 1 stone right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drayzero wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Fragile does not equate to cheaper, e.g a glass cup is more fragile than aluminum cup.

But glass is cheaper then aluminum cup wise anyways.

....... say a soda can

The layout of a model kit has nothing to do with the reaction of the materials being thrown across a room. You're making an assumption which is not supported by any facts. While the layout of a model kit might help in one case or another, it's like setting your entire head on fire to get rid of a pimple.

And in the cube scenario...it would be the GW cube. The plastic mixture they use is meant to be more solid and able to withstand more handling and abuse.

Mold lines are not necessarily going to line up together for a variety of reasons. Wear and tear of a mold can account for part of it, two sprues in a box may not necessarily be from the same produced batch, etc.

As for the production bit...
Without seeing Bandai's production capabilities, I can't say. Given that they have a hard time with resin casting I'd venture that they would not be able to match GW's production though.

Kanluwen wrote:Given that they have a hard time with resin casting

How so?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drayzero wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Fragile does not equate to cheaper, e.g a glass cup is more fragile than aluminum cup.

But glass is cheaper then aluminum cup wise anyways.

....... say a soda can

Yet both companies use the same polystyrene plastic for their kits (just with different dye batches). Otherwise the same plastic glue wouldn't work to glue them both together.

Gundam kits have THINNER parts, GW have thicker parts.

This is because Gundam kits are designed as display models.
Whilst GW kits are designed so that ham-fisted people with less physical grace than a rock can play brmmmm brmmmm pew-pew with them.

Wikipedia article on Bandai, since I'm not about to browse through billions of review sites wrote:Bandai has also released some Gundam garage kit under their branch, B-Club. These models are composed of unpainted resin with no decals provided, often needing modification by the modeler due to the inherent properties of the manufacturing process. While comparably more expensive (some surpassing $400) compared to plastic kits, they offer an unparalleled level of detail for the dedicated and experienced model builder.

Now, do notice that the manufacturing problems are actually the same that we see from Forge World. That's not a bad or a good thing--but it does put a damper on the whole "They can do everything better" bit.

Well the assumption that just because plastic glue works with it does not mean its made of the exact same type of plastic. There are stronger types of polystyrene(models and some toys) and weaker version (CD cases, yogurt containers ect) those are the two extremes but just because its made of polystyrene dose not mean its the same strength.

Drayzero wrote:

Well that's just dumb then you cant even compare a glass cup to a aluminum can. Yeah the soda can is cheaper but that's because it uses less material. pound by pound glass is cheaper and it breaks easier just like a Gundam model.

No its not dumb, because you missed the point. A Glass cup can easily surpass the value of an aluminum cup,
yet its still more fragile.

Fragile means delicate, it has no connotations to being cheap.

But it dose not matter its because you are using less of the material, i should have been more specific.

More fragile=cheaper, if the two materials in question are used in similar quantity, unless you factor in the value of metals such as Gold and Silver which are omitted because their price is based on how they look not how durable they are. Your glass cup aluminum can argument does not factor into the argument over Gundam and GW. Gundam plastic is still cheaper and more fragile.

Drayzero wrote:More fragile=cheaper, if the two materials in question are used in similar quantity. Gundam plastic is still cheaper and more fragile.

I have yet to see any proof of this claim you constantly spew out.

Build-able airplane model or something similar they use very if not exactly the same plastic as Gundams. I have a few airplane models, the plastic models are quite a lot weaker and i can easily bend even the thickest pieces. GW plastics i would need a vice grip and a pair of pliers to even start to bend the same thickness of plastic. Now this makes sense since Gundams are meant for display not to be handled a lot, Most display models are like this that is why they can make them out of inferior plastic. GW product are meant to be messed around with and handled constantly. Comparing the two is a terrible idea and cant be done its like comparing apples and oranges sure they are both fruits but they are vastly different. Just like this GW and Gundam are both plastic models but they are so vastly different its silly to try to compare them. This whole argument is pointless, and to answer OP question the reason they are cheaper because they used slightly inferior plastic and the pieces are thinner. The only reason a display figure would be more expensive is because it might have hundreds of parts and that translates into costs more money.

Drayzero wrote:inferior plastic

Still waiting for proof.