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.

<rant ON>

Would it hurt if GW had NUMBERS in their directions for their models? I mean, they are 50% there (the parts on the sprues have numbers), but the directions themselves are without call out numbers.

Also, with the Valkyrie model, couldnt they have molded the cockpit ribs into the clear plastic (like EVERY other model company) instead of having you glue them in place? Ive seen a ton of these beauties built with the cockpit glass all fogged up. I was able to get mine on fine by very sparingly applying Zapp on the corners, but I can only imagine the challenge of those less skilled putting them on.

SM speeders, whats with the gaps??? GW seems to have gotten a handle with gaps on models like Tau armor, but some models like the Leman Russ still require some prep work. If small operations like Morphius models and bigger ones like Revell-Monogram can get it right, whats with GW?

Anyway. for the price spent on these models, I'd like to see GW go the one extra step.

<rant OFF>

GWS, hah! How about the doubled price and halved production quality that is Forge World?

For some of the larger kits, they do number them - an example being the Rhino or variant thereof. The tracks are all numbered R1, R2 and so on and the instructions direct which part goes where and in what sequence. As for other kits, most GW stuff doesn't come anywhere near the complexity to necessitate having numbered parts and directions - most of them you can get by with a picture. I can't think of any GW kits I have not worked out how to put together, what particular one are you struggling with? It could be worse, some of the old Airfix kits would make Einstein himself skulk off for a couple of Nurofen.

Re the valk, I'm fine with the seperate frame I just wish that the bars going across were seperate too - makes it much easier to paint.

BTW, if you use liquid poly it does't fog the canopy.

ETA, Zap actually make a canopy glue - I had no idea http://www.themodelcatalogue.com/shopexd.asp?id=915

filbert wrote:For some of the larger kits, they do number them - an example being the Rhino or variant thereof. The tracks are all numbered R1, R2 and so on and the instructions direct which part goes where and in what sequence. As for other kits, most GW stuff doesn't come anywhere near the complexity to necessitate having numbered parts and directions - most of them you can get by with a picture. I can't think of any GW kits I have not worked out how to put together, what particular one are you struggling with? It could be worse, some of the old Airfix kits would make Einstein himself skulk off for a couple of Nurofen.

NO! No excuses. For what Im paying, and how Im being told it's a premium luxury product, I dont want to get by. Thats the point. I've got some old Airfix models and some AMT models and even though they have less pieces than GW models, the instructions are well defined and numbered, no need to look at a part a few times to make sure it is the right one. It's bad enough their rules are loose, do their kit instructions have to be the same?

Spacemanvic wrote:

filbert wrote:For some of the larger kits, they do number them - an example being the Rhino or variant thereof. The tracks are all numbered R1, R2 and so on and the instructions direct which part goes where and in what sequence. As for other kits, most GW stuff doesn't come anywhere near the complexity to necessitate having numbered parts and directions - most of them you can get by with a picture. I can't think of any GW kits I have not worked out how to put together, what particular one are you struggling with? It could be worse, some of the old Airfix kits would make Einstein himself skulk off for a couple of Nurofen.

NO! No excuses. For what Im paying, and how Im being told it's a premium luxury product, I dont want to get by. Thats the point. I've got some old Airfix models and some AMT models and even though they have less pieces than GW models, the instructions are well defined and numbered, no need to look at a part a few times to make sure it is the right one. It's bad enough their rules are loose, do their kit instructions have to be the same?

Er OK - perhaps you need to not be so aggressive - Dakka isn't responsible for GW's sprue design you know. If you have a complaint, then you would be best directing at GW's customer service team rather than an internet forum. No-one here can tell you why they don't number their parts; all we can offer is opinion, and usually rather ill-informed at that.

It's the caffeine. Someone took all the decaf and left me with the regular stuff and im alone in the office.

I needed to vent.

Spacemanvic wrote:<rant ON>

Also, with the Valkyrie model, couldnt they have molded the cockpit ribs into the clear plastic (like EVERY other model company) instead of having you glue them in place? Ive seen a ton of these beauties built with the cockpit glass all fogged up. I was able to get mine on fine by very sparingly applying Zapp on the corners, but I can only imagine the challenge of those less skilled putting them on.

It's actually better this way for reasons of priming / painting the model. As for the fogging issue... Hobby inexperience. You should avoid using super glue on clear plastic. Should it be necessary, use it extremely sparingly. Fogging can happen by using too much glue and/or glue accelerators.

With exception of the Stompa CCW arm (which the instructions feth up anyway), do we really need numbered parts? I mean, these kits aren't Dragoon or Tamiya level of difficulty. GW kits never were rocket science.

I think the OP has a point, even though a lot of us on Dakka are experienced modelers there are those who are just getting into the hobby who may not be. Something to bear in mind with GW kits which sets them appart from most other manufacturers is the fact that they are pure fantasy, even the most experienced military modeler may potentialy strugle when faced with a kit like the Stompa should there be no instructions as there is nothing else like it which you can reference to. If the numbers are on the sprue anyway and GW have to print instructions then not including those numbers in the instructions seems a bit half arsed and lazy. If it helps their customers, without actualy costing them anything, then they should do it.

With the Valk canopy I think this comes down to personal preference, I think that seperate struts are just fine.

Trouble with gaps in existing kits is mainly down to the age of the kits, land speeders and russ' have both been about for a while and whilst they are still selling and don't look too out of place with newer models, GW will continue to use the same sprue molds as they cost a crazy amount to re-cut. This is annoying because as stated it is a premium product and not addressing production flaws to increase profits is poor practice indeed.

squilverine wrote:GW will continue to use the same sprue molds as they cost a crazy amount to re-cut.

Actually, that isn't true. GW cuts their own molds in-house, and it is relatively inexpensive for them to do so.

GW keeps the molds, warts and all, because they are lazy and want to push other shiny stuff.

Let's see, been building models since I was 6 (snap together 1/72nd Huey gunship my mom helped me with was my first) and Ill be 40 in 35ish days. Ive been building GW models since '88. Ive built resin kits, vinyl kits, metal kits, balsa kits, bass wood kits, and plastic, so Ive had extensive experience with a multitude of material in model building.
Squilverine is right. I should not be using instinct to build a model, I should be relying on well written, clear instructions. Say the Leman Russ. I wound up with extra parts, one of which is actually supposed to be brackets to hold the Jerry cans, and the other are parts for an alternative hatch/cupola. The brackets werent even called out, they were burried in a blow-up shot of the tank, and the hatch isnt even mentioned in the instructions. It's that lack of detail/professionalism that gets my goat. It's coming from a company that purports itself to be a luxury product, yet gives me shoddy product support.

I'd just like to see GW get its act together. Some of the older GW kits had the instructions printed on the box cover. They've been at this for what, almost over 30 years, and they still havent gotten it right?

Spacemanvic wrote:Let's see, been building models since I was 6 (snap together 1/72nd Huey gunship my mom helped me with was my first) and Ill be 40 in 35ish days.

I should not be using instinct to build a model, I should be relying on well written, clear instructions.

I've been building scale model kits for just as long, if not longer.

Now that GW's simplifed stuff, I don't think there's a GW 40k kit short of the Valk that actually needs instructions. Apoc kits like the Stompa & Baneblade are more complex, so instructinos are more critical.

I completely agree with your rant good sir.

Models that have made me want to kill myself due to "F-ing Lego" mishaps...

Lord of Change
Daemon Prince
Talos (ESPECIALLY REPAIRING A BROKEN TAIL!)
Ravager
ASDRUESJB SER SEOIRAJWN RESENRT<SM RAWER VECT (want...to...kill...)
OBLITERATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Many Chaos Daemons Models
Pintle Mounted Weaponry (HAVOK LAUNCHERS!!!!!!)

The list goes on and on. At least with some numbers(and better instructions), you wouldn't be half way through a Greater Daemon before realising "O wait, that tiny square was needed to get this arm on" or "Damnit, I needed to glue the staff BEFORE the skirt-thingy!!!!"

For nigh 100$ for two tanks, it wouldn't be too difficult to throw in some complimentary instructions...

>

GW instructions have been getting heaps better - ever since the Demolisher and Hellhound were released I think. There was a period where they just had an isometric picture with no real clue given as to what to do in what order, making for some really confusing instructions (the Valkyrie is the single best example of this horrific instruction style), but things are getting better.

When I got my son's Monolith I was totally stoked for him, until I saw the instructions printed on the side panel of the box. It was sheer luck that a stack of used WD's arrived the same day - one of which included complete instructions for prep and assembly of the Monolith. After reading it, I discovered that the instructions on the panel are actually incorrect and can result in a faulty assembly.

I don't understand it either - I have a landraider I picked up in 96 that I'm just now assembling that came with a complete assembly guide like I usually find in other manufacturer's model kits. Why the lack of consistency from a company like GW?

Some of the individual blister things should have a tiny little slip that tells you how to construct it. It took me almost 2 hours to build a Goblin Spear Chukka because I had nothing to reference aside from the picture from the GW website. The infantry don't need directions, some warmachines do (mostly the blisters).

i bought an entire batallion of wood elves that didn't even come with a basic insert that showed anything. my husband's warriors came with a basic slip of paper that showed pieces. anyway. yeah they should have some basic instructions.

Gavin Thorne wrote:Why the lack of consistency from a company like GW?

You're just being facetious, right?

You're not, y'know, actually asking that question with any seriousness?

As I said, GW went through a period recently where they were so in love with their CAD programs that they thought they could just print pictures of the 3D models from one angle and with a few dotted lines and that'd be enough to get everyone by. Started just after Apoc was released. Eventually they realised that people need more than isometric pictures of CAD models to put things together, so with the release of the new Demolisher and Hellhound started providing actual proper instructions. This trend has continued with newer kits, so it's a win for all of us.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Gavin Thorne wrote:Why the lack of consistency from a company like GW?

You're just being facetious, right?

You're not, y'know, actually asking that question with any seriousness?

GW has been my cheating, lying girlfriend for close to 15 years now, I've come to expect it from her.

Gavin Thorne wrote: GW has been my cheating, lying girlfriend for close to 15 years now, I've come to expect it from her.

This is the best sum-up of my relationship with GWS that is possible to covey without it being accompanied by a saxophone and a trumpet. She done me wrong, and I know she's no good, but I'm with her still.

I find theyre inconsistent with their instructions as opposed to downright neglectful.

The plastic Deffdread has numbered instructions. But it also loses points for not showing that certain parts have to be glued to form a whole leg, for example.

somecallmeJack wrote:I find theyre inconsistent with their instructions as opposed to downright neglectful.

The plastic Deffdread has numbered instructions. But it also loses points for not showing that certain parts have to be glued to form a whole leg, for example.

Their inconsistent instructions (and rule set by extension) ARE downright neglectful. Model instructions (in effect blueprints) are meant to be precise, not loosey-goosey and left open to interpretation. That tired excuse may still work for their rules, but it does not wash when it comes to the presentation of high priced "quality" models.

Spacemanvic wrote:Model instructions (in effect blueprints) are meant to be precise, not loosey-goosey and left open to interpretation.

That may be true for historical models. But in 40k you have options, you can alter the pose models, mix bits within a kit, mix bits from other kits, bitz from kits from other armies, mix greenstuff bitz... all these require an eye that can easily spot whether a bit will 'fit' or not. If you want to ensure you don't pickup these skills, numbered parts is the way to go.


(edited for mis-attributed quote)

nostromo wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Model instructions (in effect blueprints) are meant to be precise, not loosey-goosey and left open to interpretation.

That may be true for historical models. But in 40k you have options, you can alter the pose models, mix bits within a kit, mix bits from other kits, bitz from kits from other armies, mix greenstuff bitz... all these require an eye that can easily spot whether a bit will 'fit' or not. If you want to ensure you don't pickup these skills, numbered parts is the way to go.


(edited for mis-attributed quote)

You totally missed the point:
1) Historical AND non historical models (sci-fi, fantasy etc) have come with options for years, so let's dispel that notion first.

2) Options for models from OTHER companies are still listed in PROPERLY written directions. Flight gear or stowage as well as brass etched are prime examples of options.

3) No company says you cannot add to their base model from other companies (except maybe GW). This is called KITBASHING. It is a technique that has been in use since well over 70 years (the advent of model railroading has made use of scratch-building and kitbashing - two totally different skills). Scratchbuilding is building a model from scratch-like a cake, and kitbashing is just that: bash a model together from multiple parts.

4) Picking bitz and mixing bitz and gluing said bitz isnt so much a skill -my 5 year old does that with playdoh. It's composition that is the skill (which makes me chuckle when I see a rather good sculpt of a miniature festooned with skulls as "detail"). Composition is not only adding a "bit" but making it fit within the theme of the model or imparting a pose and character to a model - that takes skill.

5) Dont make excuses for GW's laxity. As a customer, GW should show you and your money more respect and offer a complete product rather than one that is purported to be a premium product yet delivered in an amateurish manner. GW is not that special of a model company that they can do a half assed job and still charge what they charge. There are other, smaller model companies that do a much better job.

Some of their kits are pretty hopeless. Look at the quality of other plastic kits and then GW. Why all the gaps and poorly fitting parts? How many parts have locator pins so they go together just right? Most manufacturers produce kits that fit together perfectly with no ambiguity in part placement. Why no numbers on the sprue? Some kits are straight forward, but others are not. Most plasic kits are ok but some of the metal ones are a mess. The penitent engine was a pig, the instructions consisted of a postage stamp sized diagram on the back of the box. Come on GW, even small independent manufacturers usually manage to include sensible instructions. The penitent engine was a bit of guess work.

I agree with the OP. As someone who hasn't ever had to put together large kits and is relatively new to the hobby even the simpler ones seem horrible. Honestly, the Razorback intructions may have well been written in Chinese script. Then again I guess thats where miniwargaming and such on youtube comes into play.