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.

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.