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.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
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

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.

That's why I refer to those models as Easy-to-Build-Badly. They are easy to build, but even easier to build with gaps and other errors.

As for Abaddon, it is starting to be awhile, but that model was the most like a Gundam build. What I mean by that is the Abaddon model sort of has you build him with his under armor frame and then add the outer armor atop it. Kinda like he is getting suited up. It's still very elementary compared to Gundam, but I never really experienced something like that from a GW kit. For me, it did make the build experience a bit more fun.

 Stormonu wrote:
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..

Yeah, when it was first released, the plastic landspeeder was prone to warping on the main hull section, which made assembly really difficult. Although still nothing like the nightmare that was the metal/plastic hybrid Vindicator.

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.

I would say quite the opposite. Sure I think they're money-sucking leeches, but if anything their kits have become much easier and better over time. Some are more fiddly than others of course but generally, better than they were.

Sumilidon wrote:

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.

I would say quite the opposite. Sure I think they're money-sucking leeches, but if anything their kits have become much easier and better over time. Some are more fiddly than others of course but generally, better than they were.

It really depends on the factions though. SM maybe, probably, but orks are definitely harder. They used to have massive flat surfaces as joints to be glued.

 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.

con confirm they've done it for me, in my case it was an OLD boxed set's contents (the Ork half of ABR) that was long out of print, they STILL sent me the instructions swiftly. I was EXTREMELY impressed.

One big bonus of GW keeping almost their entire process in-house is that they can more easily keep hold of everything in their archives.

 Overread wrote:
One big bonus of GW keeping almost their entire process in-house is that they can more easily keep hold of everything in their archives.

As long as it's not rules from a not current edition or game.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Overread wrote:
One big bonus of GW keeping almost their entire process in-house is that they can more easily keep hold of everything in their archives.

As long as it's not rules from a not current edition or game.

Assuming that they can easily keep hold of their current rules is a bold statement

main range prolly no, mono poses enshures easy assembly.

The specialist range on the other hand, partly yes. I do titanicus and there is ALOT of traps when it comes to the legs and arms of the titans, i went in one myself, had to throw a titan in the bin. I dont know of a single AT player who has not assembled the legs on one of their titans wrong.

This is due to the legs are visualy identical both from the front and rear, and that the parts CAN be assembled wrong, due to the nature of lack of mono posing and forced positioning. No amount of good assembly instructions can prevent you from gluing a part the wrong way if the parts can freely allow you to do so.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Overread wrote:
One big bonus of GW keeping almost their entire process in-house is that they can more easily keep hold of everything in their archives.

As long as it's not rules from a not current edition or game.

They do have those. They just won't sell them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
main range prolly no, mono poses enshures easy assembly.

The specialist range on the other hand, partly yes. I do titanicus and there is ALOT of traps when it comes to the legs and arms of the titans, i went in one myself, had to throw a titan in the bin. I dont know of a single AT player who has not assembled the legs on one of their titans wrong.

This is due to the legs are visualy identical both from the front and rear, and that the parts CAN be assembled wrong, due to the nature of lack of mono posing and forced positioning. No amount of good assembly instructions can prevent you from gluing a part the wrong way if the parts can freely allow you to do so.

Luckily those generally you can fix if you aren't demanding perfection.

This thread gives me flashbacks to building blissbarb archers...

Please GW, please, no... they're a good battle line unit for Slaanesh with fun fluff... gw stop... No please, don't make the arms go through the center of the torso.. no! Aaaahh!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Please GW, please, no... they're a good battle line unit for Slaanesh with fun fluff... gw stop... No please, don't make the arms go through the center of the torso.. no! Aaaahh!

...sounds like the sort of thing Slaanesh might enjoy.

Part of the problem is that GW is stuck in the past as far as mold-making goes. Pretty much all of the hobby kit manufacturers moved on to slide molding years ago, allowing them to do detail like hollow muzzles and detail like the studded MkVI pads as one peice without having to distort the studs into blobs. I am just getting back into GW after over 10 years away, and I immediately noticed that while the sculpts and detail has improved, the actual kit making hasn't. Still massive, poorly placed sprue attachment points, still multi-part castings of complex parts due to old-style mold limitations. I still have to drill out the muzzles of bolters when I can get a 1/350 warship with hollow muzzles on the 5" guns, which are a smaller diameter then the anntenae provided in GW tank kits.

The Praetor in the HH:AoD box has a 3 part cloak because of the folds in it, with slide molds, it could have been 1 single piece.

At the same time GW can out-produce in-house pretty much any competition.

GW's systems aren't so much old-school as they are simply scaled and geared for vast mass production, the likes of which most other manufacturers could only dream of.

GW's printers can output models very very quickly. Way faster than resin or metal or even the new Sirotech (sp) plastic casting - which gets around some mould limitations by using a silicon mould. However those moulds don't last as long and sometimes do have far more issues with mould lines than GW models do with aluminium (I think) moulds.


It's not old school, its simply the realities of injection moulding plastic with long lasting moulds.

And its not just GW - Warcradle has the same "no hollow gun barrels" element with their plastic models as well.

 Overread wrote:
At the same time GW can out-produce in-house pretty much any competition.

GW's systems aren't so much old-school as they are simply scaled and geared for vast mass production, the likes of which most other manufacturers could only dream of.

GW's printers can output models very very quickly. Way faster than resin or metal or even the new Sirotech (sp) plastic casting - which gets around some mould limitations by using a silicon mould. However those moulds don't last as long and sometimes do have far more issues with mould lines than GW models do with aluminium (I think) moulds.


It's not old school, its simply the realities of injection moulding plastic with long lasting moulds.

And its not just GW - Warcradle has the same "no hollow gun barrels" element with their plastic models as well.

I'm sure that the fact that GW's models are also designed to be played with is a factor, . Sure, they could get fancy new slide mold injection machines and make fine thin detal in plastic, or make the kits with thinner plastic for the hulls and more to scale plastic guns(looking at you, heavy stubber)and such. And then we will complain that the vehicle kits fall apart and detail keeps breaking during games.

Even the scale model manufacturers don't use slide moulding that extensively. Airfix toyed with it 5-6 years ago (the 1/72 Kittyhawk from around that time relies on it) and I think Tamiya and Hasegawa have also dabbled. However it is far from common in the plastic kit world so I'd wager no one has ever made a strong enough case for the additional tooling costs. Slide tooling tech has lots of uses but they tend to be in situations where plastic parts are used as part of a completed final product.

 maccrage wrote:

 Overread wrote:
At the same time GW can out-produce in-house pretty much any competition.

GW's systems aren't so much old-school as they are simply scaled and geared for vast mass production, the likes of which most other manufacturers could only dream of.

GW's printers can output models very very quickly. Way faster than resin or metal or even the new Sirotech (sp) plastic casting - which gets around some mould limitations by using a silicon mould. However those moulds don't last as long and sometimes do have far more issues with mould lines than GW models do with aluminium (I think) moulds.


It's not old school, its simply the realities of injection moulding plastic with long lasting moulds.

And its not just GW - Warcradle has the same "no hollow gun barrels" element with their plastic models as well.

I'm sure that the fact that GW's models are also designed to be played with is a factor, . Sure, they could get fancy new slide mold injection machines and make fine thin detal in plastic, or make the kits with thinner plastic for the hulls and more to scale plastic guns(looking at you, heavy stubber)and such. And then we will complain that the vehicle kits fall apart and detail keeps breaking during games.

This is something that is plaguing the 3D print STL market heavily. It's a result of having a lot of 3D artists used to design work for digital games and art coming over into 3D model work. They can make some outstanding renders that are beautiful. However when they are printed you end up with super fine detail. Yes the resins and printers can make it work, but the detailing is so thin that the models are often hard to put together let alone have any durability for play. It's a whole area that sculptors need to learn. Those overly thick swords might look a touch goofy in a render blown up to the size of your screen (sometimes many times over); but when actually printed as a 28-35mm model they have the right proportions not to snap when you look at them funny.

One reason its taking longer is a lot of sculptors don't print and play with their models. Some don't even print them at all. So that holds them back from making practical observations and realisations.

Can't help but think that you shouldn't release a model as "ready to be printed" if you haven't at least tested that fact, y'know?

 Dysartes wrote:
Can't help but think that you shouldn't release a model as "ready to be printed" if you haven't at least tested that fact, y'know?

the thing is not everyone that prints models uses them to play. Some people only wanna paint and display them.

But yeah, for the specifically "gaming-oriented" creators, its something they have to adapt.

 Dysartes wrote:
Can't help but think that you shouldn't release a model as "ready to be printed" if you haven't at least tested that fact, y'know?

Some are released as an STL without any presupports. Less common now but it still happens, esp for some of the newer people who don't have the money/investment to pay for someone to do the supports themselves.

You also hit the issue of quality. Some people are fine with missed islands, thick chunky support marks, softer details and might not even have set their printer up correctly. Ergo their model prints that's enough. They aren't looking at the detailing, the quality of print or if it cures well and if it survives actual use as a model for gaming.

It doesn't help that there's a good few designers in poorer counties where 3D printers really are exotic things and where they are hired to be cheap and time is highly pressured. Ergo again where the whole patreon model works against reliable releases






I do agree, we should have designers making models that print well, which have practical detailing. Heck when they do a 75mm and 32mm offering the 32mm should be adjusted at the sculpt level. Swords and arrow shafts made thicker etc..., to account for the change in scale and likely use as well as making it practical. Right now most rely on just scaling in slicers. That's fine, it works well but it just scales everything, it makes no allowances for the thickness of parts. Parts that will print, but will be super fragile once printed.

I figure 3D printing is going through a period of reduced growth now; existing customers are starting to get huge backlogs of models; new ones are dwindling a bit compared to the last two years as "life gets back to normal" and "living costs dramatically increase". It would not surprise me if we see the 3D print market slow down and the Patreon model might even collapse save for the very big names as a main revenue generator.

Odd, I thought GW was using slide moulding for their miniatures?