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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
They they are doing it on purpose, the reason being they are trying to make it more difficult to recast them. However they are failing to realize why they are loosing out to recasters is not because of difficulty to sculpt but to price.

In their quest to beat recasters they have managed to make models more complicated, which means less customization, more expensive molds, higher prices for us.

Literally everything is a conspiracy with you. Also, he's talking about the plastic Baneblade kit which, correct me if I'm wrong, is both hugely customizable AND more than a decade old.

OP fethed up his expensive kit because he didn't bother to dry-fit properly and is looking for a way it's not his fault. That's all this is.

The last GW models I built were a trio of paragon warsuits. I don't ever recall such a fiddly number of parts to make static mono-pose assemblies. In this case it seems GW is making an extra effort to prevent models having interchangeable parts once built.

If this is the new norm for GW I expect to buy even fewer of their models in the future.

ERJAK wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
They they are doing it on purpose, the reason being they are trying to make it more difficult to recast them. However they are failing to realize why they are loosing out to recasters is not because of difficulty to sculpt but to price.

In their quest to beat recasters they have managed to make models more complicated, which means less customization, more expensive molds, higher prices for us.

Literally everything is a conspiracy with you. Also, he's talking about the plastic Baneblade kit which, correct me if I'm wrong, is both hugely customizable AND more than a decade old.

OP fethed up his expensive kit because he didn't bother to dry-fit properly and is looking for a way it's not his fault. That's all this is.

Its not even a conspiracy, its a logical conclusion. GW models have gotten more and more "Complex" in terms of how they are assembled, smaller parts, any more parts in order to make it harder for a recaster to get good casts on them. Just look at the new Space marine kits in Mk VI.
The legs are broken up into 2 and 3 pieces which we have seen in the past GW has cast the entire lower sections of much more complicated models in a single bit. The studded shoulders are cut in half and need to be assembled. You see special wepaons that are split literally in half down the middle for characters when we see them cast entire special weapons in older boxes in a single go. We see them cast the little attenna piece that attatches to the helmet is a totally separate piece now. They do that specifically to make resin casting harder to get quality models out of.

The more parts you make on your model, the more likely they are going to be miscast when using cheaper resin poured casts that many re-casters use. GW uses injection molds which allow them to make these very small detailed bits.

 amanita wrote:
The last GW models I built were a trio of paragon warsuits. I don't ever recall such a fiddly number of parts to make static mono-pose assemblies. In this case it seems GW is making an extra effort to prevent models having interchangeable parts once built.

If this is the new norm for GW I expect to buy even fewer of their models in the future.

It's not that they're specifically trying to prevent parts from being interchangeable... it's just that modularity is not one of their current design goals. Their first priority right now is clearly to make the models look as pretty as they can. Other factors like modularity or durability take a back seat to that.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Its not even a conspiracy, its a logical conclusion. GW models have gotten more and more "Complex" in terms of how they are assembled, smaller parts, any more parts in order to make it harder for a recaster to get good casts on them. Just look at the new Space marine kits in Mk VI.
The legs are broken up into 2 and 3 pieces which we have seen in the past GW has cast the entire lower sections of much more complicated models in a single bit. The studded shoulders are cut in half and need to be assembled. You see special wepaons that are split literally in half down the middle for characters when we see them cast entire special weapons in older boxes in a single go. We see them cast the little attenna piece that attatches to the helmet is a totally separate piece now. They do that specifically to make resin casting harder to get quality models out of.

They really, really don't. Recasters will just reproduce the sprue in plastic, or partially assemble the model to make it easier to resin cast. (to be clear - that's not an endorsement of recasting, which is an IP infringement).

Again, the parts break down is nothing to do with recasting. It's simply a side effect of the level of detail on the current kits, and the need to avoid undercuts.

Oh i dont think what they are doing is working, because you build a better mouse trap you just get a smarter mouse, and GW is very much outta touch with the playerbase/community.

But they are doing it to try and combat recasting, we have seen just as good detail from modesl that did not get broken down the way they have now.

Again ill use the legs for example. Are there really any better details in the legs broken down into 3 parts vs 1?

Is there really any better detail in shoulder pads that are a single solid piece vs being split it half down the middle?

Is there really any more detail in a solid chest peice for a dread vs the new one that has about 3 pieces to its solid, smooth, detailess chaise?
Which the idea of "They do it to be economical" does not float when you look at the new sprues and all the extra they need in order to suspect all those broken down parts.
I dont doubt for a moment that some of it is to get more detail out of it, but some of it is done for no other logical reason other then making it harder to cast.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Again ill use the legs for example. Are there really any better details in the legs broken down into 3 parts vs 1?

Is there really any better detail in shoulder pads that are a single solid piece vs being split it half down the middle?

Is there really any more detail in a solid chest peice for a dread vs the new one that has about 3 pieces to its solid, smooth, detailess chaise?

The answer to all three question is yes. When you look at how GW kits break down it is obvious that they're doing it to get around the inability to handle undercuts without sacrificing detail. And when you have this obvious explanation it's ridiculous to make up tinfoil hat theories about GW spending a ton of time and money to make things slightly more difficult for recasters, especially when it has already been clearly demonstrated that the people who buy recasts will continue to buy them even when there are major casting flaws.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Its not even a conspiracy, its a logical conclusion. GW models have gotten more and more "Complex" in terms of how they are assembled, smaller parts, any more parts in order to make it harder for a recaster to get good casts on them. Just look at the new Space marine kits in Mk VI..

Uuh no. You were already pointed out reason for mkvi shoulder pad split. Undercuts. Plastic moulding doesn't allow those. Steel doesn't bend. So the rivets puts gw into situation where either they split the shoulder pad(more work to assemble but highest end quality), warp the rivets(inferior look) or drop rivets all together(iconic part of mkvi).

Same reason plastic guns don't have holes and need to be drilled unless it's cast in 2 pieces. Steel doesn't bend.

Resin/metal model undercuts ain"t issue because mould isn't steel(no need to survive) and you can bend the material to remove model easily. Steel...much less so.

And you know recasters can reduce piece count by assembling masters? With gw's "this bit goes in with this only" that's even easier so gw is making life of recaster easier...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


Is there really any better detail in shoulder pads that are a single solid piece vs being split it half down the middle?

If you want rivets, yes. There's example of worse quality rivets with warping on edges you know.

And you realize right recaster can just assemble pad and recast whole thing? With resin that works. It ain't anti-recast method.

YOu know ill give you the undercut point, on that one, thats a fair reason.

Ill admit a lot of this also is because as of late GW has has a strange facination with putting a lot of heavy models on breakie bits thats been annoying me for the last few years.

I still stand by that some of their design choices are to spite re-casters

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I still stand by that some of their design choices are to spite re-casters

With what evidence? Do you have any examples that aren't related to technical limitations on injection molding, or are you just "standing by" your opinion because you want GW to be guilty of something?

Yea...those recaster "troubles" are actually no trouble particularly when gw does "this piece goes to only this piece" so recaster can simply assemble and then recast. Could even call it marketing tool for recaster...less assembly required!

Gw prides itself as premium product(with price to match) so even tiny increase in quality goes.

Also sprue space optimatization to reduce empty air and keep # of sprues per kit less(and thus cheaper for gw. Going from 3 to 2 sprues would cut almost 33% of production cost for kit)

And all in all compared to modeller's kits gw kits are trivial the tiger i assembled was way worse and that was simple...

tneva82 wrote:
Yea...those recaster "troubles" are actually no trouble particularly when gw does "this piece goes to only this piece" so recaster can simply assemble and then recast. Could even call it marketing tool for recaster...less assembly required!

Gw prides itself as premium product(with price to match) so even tiny increase in quality goes.

Also sprue space optimatization to reduce empty air and keep # of sprues per kit less(and thus cheaper for gw. Going from 3 to 2 sprues would cut almost 33% of production cost for kit)

And thats also a good point, that honestly you know what. Ill concede that, looking at it yeah i was wrong.

It definitely has nothing to do with recasters. They're such a small part of the market that it's just not worth putting in all that effort just to spite them.

I however have to say that I do dislike how GW toolls sprues nowadays. And it's not just the monopose nonmodular thing either. It has more to do with how you need the manual to put together even the simplest figures. And I, well, I have a tendency to lose those.

 Dolnikan wrote:
It definitely has nothing to do with recasters. They're such a small part of the market that it's just not worth putting in all that effort just to spite them.

I however have to say that I do dislike how GW toolls sprues nowadays. And it's not just the monopose nonmodular thing either. It has more to do with how you need the manual to put together even the simplest figures. And I, well, I have a tendency to lose those.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerInstructions/

GW also sends you the manual if you contact them.

Try putting fething push to fit together....I've never been more mad at a set of models in my life and I've built so many old scary ones.....

Slipspace wrote:
I'd invite everyone saying modern GW models are easy to assemble to attempt to put together 10 Flayed Ones. I've encountered quite a few kits over the last couple of years that are annoying as hell to assemble.

I assembled 43 of the new ones (I managed to snag loads dirt cheap from the Imperium magazine) and I converted a couple into characters.

They're really nice models and go together well if you're patient and actually follow the instructions. After assembling a sprue or two you can then do your own thing and start to modify them if you're confident.

I mix them with my 3rd edition metal models for variety. (I never got any of the good awful end generation ones)

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
It definitely has nothing to do with recasters. They're such a small part of the market that it's just not worth putting in all that effort just to spite them.

I however have to say that I do dislike how GW toolls sprues nowadays. And it's not just the monopose nonmodular thing either. It has more to do with how you need the manual to put together even the simplest figures. And I, well, I have a tendency to lose those.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerInstructions/

GW also sends you the manual if you contact them.

Thank you so much! I should really have thought about that before I had to fix way too much with greenstuff.

 CynosureEldar wrote:
Try putting fething push to fit together....I've never been more mad at a set of models in my life and I've built so many old scary ones.....

The solution to that is to trim off the push-fit pins & just glue the model together as you would any other.

ccs wrote:

 CynosureEldar wrote:
Try putting fething push to fit together....I've never been more mad at a set of models in my life and I've built so many old scary ones.....

The solution to that is to trim off the push-fit pins & just glue the model together as you would any other.

At the very least I find cutting a good half of the pin off helps. Also using the blade to make sure the initial edge hasn't got any bits sticking out. They are generally very tight fit and you can't put glue onto the full peg (it will melt and fume and tends to stop you pushing it in all the way). But trimmed down they work fine. The only risk then is push-fitting to test and then getting parts s tuck together

 Backspacehacker wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yea...those recaster "troubles" are actually no trouble particularly when gw does "this piece goes to only this piece" so recaster can simply assemble and then recast. Could even call it marketing tool for recaster...less assembly required!

Gw prides itself as premium product(with price to match) so even tiny increase in quality goes.

Also sprue space optimatization to reduce empty air and keep # of sprues per kit less(and thus cheaper for gw. Going from 3 to 2 sprues would cut almost 33% of production cost for kit)

And thats also a good point, that honestly you know what. Ill concede that, looking at it yeah i was wrong.

Good on you!

Not sure if relevant, but I've really struggled with the recent MKVI kit leg assemblies. The leg contacts have the tiniest supports, and messing up the leg join assembly by even a few degrees in any axis results in a shoddy bond which breaks in a minute or two, requiring reassembly! I don't recall Primaris Interecessors being this hard to assemble..

The "pose 5" is especially torturous to build, since both legs require glueing in place

never had an issue with a GW kit beyond the occasional miscast. I will give GW customer service their due if you send them the picture of the messed up kit showing what is messed up they are quick to send you a replacement (then you can kitbash to fix it or greenstuff repair and have 2! just one not looking factory fresh). i basically paid for college assembling and painting minis in the early 2000s and GW its were always the easiest to assemble. some lines you literally needed fresh green stuff at all steps of assembly to make them look halfway decent.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I suppose this is me just venting but I have to ask, does anyone else think GW makes their more expensive models hard to assemble in hopes we screw up and have to buy another? Not even counting FW there are models that they seem to make that only take a bit of wrong placement and it’s over. In my case it’s a Baneblade and the tracks/wheels, there are so many unstable parts here and pieces that can be misaligned which can just totally screw you if you’re off a fraction of an inch.

Try building a Puma in Bolt Action. It's a nightmare.

Intentionally make it difficult; nope.
Want the assembler to screw up; nope.

I will say that GW recently and more often loses focus on what their models are supposed to be. That is; they are game pieces.

The Triumph of Saint Katherine... This is a diorama, not something to be used in a game.

Katakros, Mortarch of the Necropolis (AoS)... This is a display piece, not a game piece.

A lot of GW's recent models, though beautiful, have become extremally fragile and almost impossible to transport. This is not conducive to a piece needing to be used in a war game.

ERJAK wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
They they are doing it on purpose, the reason being they are trying to make it more difficult to recast them. However they are failing to realize why they are loosing out to recasters is not because of difficulty to sculpt but to price.

In their quest to beat recasters they have managed to make models more complicated, which means less customization, more expensive molds, higher prices for us.

Literally everything is a conspiracy with you. Also, he's talking about the plastic Baneblade kit which, correct me if I'm wrong, is both hugely customizable AND more than a decade old.

OP fethed up his expensive kit because he didn't bother to dry-fit properly and is looking for a way it's not his fault. That's all this is.

How would you dry fit tracks on a bane blade that wrap all around it? I can’t hold all those parts together. Further the major piece I have issue with is free standing so it doesn’t have anything to stabilize against so it’s quite prone to shifting around

 Jidmah wrote:
The issues with some newer models being a PITA to assemble is because they are cut apart by an algorithm which relies on material properties and pays no real attention to how easy they are to assemble. Pair that with a mediocre instruction manual and slightly warped sprues and you feel like the model is hot garbage to build... until you ever assemble something 3D printed by a friend

This isn't even remotely true. Such algorithms do exist, but they only work on fairly basic sculpts and require a lot of details to be flattened/normalize in order to work. When they are used, you get miniatures that are more along the lines of Para Bellums or Wyrds in terms of how they are cut and meant to fit together. GWs minis are definitely being cut and parted manually and then run through a post-processing algorithm after its parted to normalize the features on a more limited basis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
They they are doing it on purpose, the reason being they are trying to make it more difficult to recast them. However they are failing to realize why they are loosing out to recasters is not because of difficulty to sculpt but to price.

In their quest to beat recasters they have managed to make models more complicated, which means less customization, more expensive molds, higher prices for us.

Literally everything is a conspiracy with you. Also, he's talking about the plastic Baneblade kit which, correct me if I'm wrong, is both hugely customizable AND more than a decade old.

OP fethed up his expensive kit because he didn't bother to dry-fit properly and is looking for a way it's not his fault. That's all this is.

Its not even a conspiracy, its a logical conclusion. GW models have gotten more and more "Complex" in terms of how they are assembled, smaller parts, any more parts in order to make it harder for a recaster to get good casts on them.

If you've dealt with recasters you would know why this has zero bearing on recasting. Most recasters usually recast in assemblies, i.e. the pre-assemble sections of the kit rather than dealing with each and every part individually. While more complex parts might make it a bit more annoying for their sweatshop laborers to build those assemblies, it doesn't stop them from actually recasting the kits.

The reason for the smaller parts and more complex builds is 100% due to the increased level of detail and more dynamic posing of the models. You can claim the fact that they have cast space marines legs in 1 piece in the past but are now doing it in 2-3 pieces for no apparent reason as proof all you want, but it doesn't make it true. If you actually look at and compare the legs closely, and understand what the limitations of plastic injection molding are, then you would understand immediately why they are splitting the legs up the way they are doing now. Newer style legs have significantly more detail (and more importantly detail fidelity) to them and way more three-dimensional dynamism in how they are being posed than the old legs which suffered from lots of flattened and normalized details and planar posing due to tech limitations.

Is there really any better detail in shoulder pads that are a single solid piece vs being split it half down the middle?

Absolutely. On the pads that are cast in 2-pieces the studs are actually dome/hemisphere shaped. On the single piece pads the studs are actually more cylindrical with a hemispherical tip. If you look closely and compare them you will quickly notice the difference.

Is that minor level of detail worth the extra trouble? To most gamers, probably not. To competitive miniatures painters and artists, probably yes. If you're a company thats advertising yourself as makers of high end luxury miniatures, then yeah its probably worth it to you and your business model to produce plastic miniatures with the finest levels of detail and geometric fidelity possible.

Most of the models I feel are easier to put together today than in the past. I remember struggling with the first plastic landspeeder and trying to keep my original monolith from crumbling when putting it together.

There was a bump, around the time of the first Admech drops that GW was putting in some insane details that were a bit too much for gaming models - like the data disk for the castellan robots, and fully detailed vehicle interiors. That changed around the time the Corvus came out, and the excessive details started to fade away.

As others have mentioned, the only tricky things I have run across are the monopose models, where details cannot be switched between models. The fits are almost perfect if you do put the right pieces in the right place, but God help you if you're the type who clips everything out and then puts things together.

 oni wrote:
Intentionally make it difficult; nope.
Want the assembler to screw up; nope.

I will say that GW recently and more often loses focus on what their models are supposed to be. That is; they are game pieces.

The Triumph of Saint Katherine... This is a diorama, not something to be used in a game.

Katakros, Mortarch of the Necropolis (AoS)... This is a display piece, not a game piece.

A lot of GW's recent models, though beautiful, have become extremally fragile and almost impossible to transport. This is not conducive to a piece needing to be used in a war game.

So much this! It used to be that special characters were just fancier regular dudes and there's a skill in sculpting something that stands out without resorting to billowing clouds of magic/smoke/disease and huge diorama-style bases. Now, if I want to use something like The Silent King, or Void Dragon, I almost need a dedicated case for it. I get that it's really cool that we now have the technology to cast really intricate models, with much smaller and more delicate parts than previously. I don't think that's something we should be doing with primarily gaming pieces.

ccs wrote:

 CynosureEldar wrote:
Try putting fething push to fit together....I've never been more mad at a set of models in my life and I've built so many old scary ones.....

The solution to that is to trim off the push-fit pins & just glue the model together as you would any other.

Both of these. GW's "Easy to build" models are actually "harder to build" models, because they all need an additional step: cut all the pegs, because otherwize nothing will fit without 1mm gaps everywhere


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add a thought to the discussion: GW also said they want the building of the model to be part of the hobby experience, so when you build Abaddon you're actually dressing him up, putting several layers of his armor on, some of which can't be seen in the end.
I haven't built Abby but Mortarion and I feel this applies to him, too. I can't say he's hard to assemble, though. Most new models go together very fine, it's like building Lego. Unlike Lego they're not as easy posable anymore, though.
People usually bring up Land Speeders or Drop pods in discussions like these, but I think there are no newer models that are as bad as these old ones. In the past you had things like a Balrog made of metal and plastic, those were bad times.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I haven't built Abby but Mortarion and I feel this applies to him, too. I can't say he's hard to assemble, though. Most new models go together very fine, it's like building Lego. Unlike Lego they're not as easy posable anymore, though.

I agree, except for Mortarion's winged attendants. Feth those wings.

The one thing about modern models I don't like is when you have the typical 3-part torsos on infantry models (one leg and front, one leg and arm, other arm and back), sometime it's hard to figure out how they actually fit together and the instructions are not any help at all. I then sit there and twist and turn the two parts against each other for minutes until I find the magical position where they fit into each other.

 Overread wrote:

ccs wrote:

 CynosureEldar wrote:
Try putting fething push to fit together....I've never been more mad at a set of models in my life and I've built so many old scary ones.....

The solution to that is to trim off the push-fit pins & just glue the model together as you would any other.

At the very least I find cutting a good half of the pin off helps. Also using the blade to make sure the initial edge hasn't got any bits sticking out. They are generally very tight fit and you can't put glue onto the full peg (it will melt and fume and tends to stop you pushing it in all the way). But trimmed down they work fine. The only risk then is push-fitting to test and then getting parts s tuck together

Yes, like I said, trim off the pin....