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.

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.