On Games Workshop sprue layout and miniature design

[Evil Eye]

This has been something I've been pondering for a while and have finally decided to put into words. Quite a lot of words as it happens. Yep, that's right boys- it's time for an EEE (Evil Eye Essay)!

 

So even as someone that has...issues with some (OK, quite a lot) of Games Workshop's modern output, credit where credit is due, the actual sculpting quality of their models is generally quite good. There are some exceptions, of course, and artistically I could list a long stream of complaints, but objectively speaking GW puts out well made models. However, whilst the sculpts are on the whole very good, in my opinion there has definitely been a decline in GW miniature design- and I don't mean subjective things like "this helmet looks silly" or "the pose isn't my favourite". I'm talking about something that affects the actual suitability of the models as gaming pieces and model kits, and that's how the parts are split up on the sprues and how they go together during assembly.

 

This is a bit of a complicated one to explain so rather than go on a rambling diatribe I shall try and keep things organized into a few key points, and where I think GW could be doing better with the actual engineering of their minis. So without further ado, let the grumbling begin!

 

1: Assembly

 

I think the first, and most obvious, problem with a lot of modern GW plastic kits has to do with how they go together as a collection of parts. The advent of full CAD sculpting and parts-splitting has enabled more sophisticated joint setups and more "seamless" sculpts, but they have IMO at least come at the cost of making models far, far less well-suited to customization and, by extension, being suitable for building an army from- and has also made the simple act of assembling the models considerably more of a chore.

 

In the "before times", with the vast majority of basic infantry kits, the instructions were something of a formality. For the most part, you could crack open a box of Marines, Orks, Gaunts or Guardsmen etc and pretty easily put together the mini you wanted to from the parts on the sprue, without even looking at the manual. This gave two advantages; for one thing, the kits were very simple for even newer hobbyists to comprehend and quickly work out how to assemble, which means not only was the barrier to entry much lower for new players but more experienced modelers could create some really unique models with fairly little effort. The second is that no two models had to look the same; even a subtle difference in pose could make squads look quite distinct from each other. For a game where you are building an army, this is obviously something you want, as nobody wants the exact same models repeated ad nauseum through a force.

 

The current assembly system, however, has done away with all of this, with bespoke connections for every part and a far more limited range of poses for most kits. On top of making variation in the army much, much harder to achieve, it massively complicates assembly. Before, it was quite simple to just clip the parts off the sprue and put your models together as you saw fit. Now if you try and do that you will be making things much, much harder for yourself as each arm only goes with its respective body and so on.

 

One good example of the difference between the two design philosophies is the Tyranid Termagants kit. The last-gen kit (admittedly dating to 3rd edition and definitely showing its age) was extremely simple to build- stick body halves together, attach head and arms, add any accoutrements you might want, done. And with the balljoints for the necks and shoulders, you could get a surprising amount of variety out of a very simple kit. The new one, whilst objectively better sculpted, is I would argue a worse kit. Each gaunt is completely monopose, with static heads and fixed arm positions due to the elimination of balljoints, the heavy weapons are meant to go on specific bodies so if you have multiples of a heavy weapon in the army the repeats will be obvious, and even the RIPPERS are monopose; instead of being single models you glued to their base in whatever number or position you wanted, they now only go together in one position with dedicated peg holes. How to you monopose a swarm!?!? And given Termagants are something you will be fielding rather a lot of...oh dear.

 

The argument I hear in favour of the newer "jigsaw puzzle" design is that it gives more seamless sculpts and allows for greater detail, as the jigsaw assembly is meant to work around undercuts. Which is partially true, however I would argue that when most of the added detail is things like Marines having sculpted undersuit-clad cheeks in positions that would never be seen in a game anyway, I would rather have a slight decrease in detail amount in exchange for kits actually being fun to build again. It should also be noted that, ironically enough, the parts breakup often leads to some very ugly seams in obvious areas, which can be difficult to deal with and are eyesores if not filled in.

 

2: Sprue Design

 

I have heard GW sprues touted as the best in the industry due to the sheer amount of parts they can squeeze into a single frame. Which is sort of true. However, there is a catch; due to the prior-mentioned parts breakdown, you aren't really seeing any increase in value, as instead of fitting 4 arm options into a space on the sprue they have instead opted to consume the same space with 4 parts for a single subassembly (like an arm). Furthermore, any leftover parts you DO get are generally odds and ends with very little use. In this way the value of the kit is actually lower than an older, more "empty" sprue because not only do you get more assembly options, you also get actually useful spares for conversions.

 

In addition to this, the organization of the parts on the sprue is completely baffling often, with no rhyme or reason to what parts are on what sprue. Different sub-assemblies have their parts scattered across multiple different sprues, again making assembly more confusing and also seriously decreasing the ability to supplement the kit via switching different frames in. For example, the venerable Falcon kit, whilst absolutely ancient and having a LOT of unused sprue space, is quite sensible in that each sprue makes a different part of the kit. The hull and turret are their own sprues and the parts for the Wave Serpent are their own sprue again (recently packed in to the Falcon box). On the other hand, the Contemptor Dreadnought- which I should add is a very nice kit- has everything scattered across the sprues to the point where the weapon sprues have a few unrelated spare parts on there too.

Finally, I would argue the sprue setup is actually less efficient than older kits in terms of GW's bottom line, as shared sprues are basically a thing of the past now, and this actually leads to some missed opportunities. A common complaint with the Intercessor kit is that the sprue space is mostly wasted on different actions/receivers for the boltguns, significantly limiting the variability of the kit. And whilst GW could just nix the existing kit's gun options in the next refresh it gets, they could also use a "more shared sprues" approach, and have the Intercessor bodies themselves be constructed off one or two larger frames whilst the bolters are much smaller sprues which you get enough of in the box to arm the entire squad, much like how WHFB kits used to have shield sprues which each contained 4 shields, but due to the smaller size of the sprues you could fit plenty in the box. Not only would this allow more meaningful options to be crammed into the kit, it would save money in the long-run too; sprues could be shared between kits, reducing the amount of R&D cost on tooling a bespoke set of moulds for every new unit box.

 

3: Actual Miniature Design

 

This is a more minor point but does connect with the previous paragraphs. Whilst what GW can achieve with plastic kits is very impressive, they are ironically enough not necessarily the best-suited designs for actual game pieces.

 

I have touched upon this already (lots of detail you won't even see during a game, models being harder to meaningfully customize etc) but one other point that should be mentioned about modern miniature design is the increased detail often comes at the expense of actual playability. Exaggerated poses atop tactical rocks with weapons splayed in all directions makes storage and transport more difficult, let alone actually playing with your models; minis breaking off the tiny plume of smoke connecting them to their bases or getting their enormous weapons tangled in scenery or other minis are considerable problems with some of these kits. The desire to make every model a mini-centrepiece has compromised their function as playing pieces.

 

And again this is without touching on my personal views on artistic merits, as I am trying to stay focused on more objective/practical concerns.

 

4: Conclusion

 

Now I will say, the actual solution to these issues is quite simple, and not exactly beyond GW's means. They can and indeed do still make nice kits (the Tormentor kit for the Emperor's Children is a really nice, simple and fun to build box). The real issue is more a mindset one than anything especially practical.

 

Realistically, all they really need to do is swallow their pride a bit on sculpting every last nook and cranny of every model (regardless of whether it can even be seen or reached with a paintbrush) and start thinking about model design with each sculpt being part of the game/kit ecosystem rather than as a standalone piece that exists in a vacuum even from the rest of its box. If they started designing kits with similar layouts to, say, Wargames Atlantic, which have similar parts-per-sprue counts but are far better value in terms of how much you get out of a kit, they could be onto a winner. And GW sculpts are generally much sharper than WGA ones (and I say that as a big WGA fan), so it isn't like slightly more consideration for modularity, ease of building and sprue ubiquity would make every model look like a 6E WHFB Clanrat.

 

...Of course, more efficient sprue design would give GW even less excuse to keep their ridiculously high prices, so it would never happen.

 

Anyway. Discuss!

[Rain]

To add to your point 1, the new philosophy is, quite literally, less seamless than the old. Under the old model design philosophy, the seams between pieces were at logical points where one piece of armor ends, and another begins. The legs and torso, each arm, the shoulder pads, the head. I guess the one exception was bodies that came in a front and back and glued together, but that was fairly minor.

 

Now, you will have seams running down the sides of legs, or across parts of arms or bodies. The new demon prince, while looking great if/when done, is an absolute nightmare of randomly cut chunks that fit together like a Fabergé egg. Such models are very annoying to build, and require a significant amount of extra green stuff work and sanding to get rid of all of these ugly seams, which in turn massively increases the time that it takes to build said models. Removing mold lines was already the most time consuming part of modelling for me (and most frustrating as there are always a few that sneak through) and now this new fresh hell of filling the semi-random jigsaw seams is somehow even worse.

 

I basically agree with the rest of what you said, especially the transportability. Some of these new models are an absolute nightmare to pack quickly and safely. Sure there is some upside, as many of the new pre-designed poses are good as long as you are only fielding 1 or 2 units. 6 Flawless Blades look great despite the repeated leg and body poses because of the variance in swords and heads. Beyond that it would start to look very odd, though luckily(?) no one would ever run more than 6 anyway.

 

 

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree with a lot of what you say. I personally feel building models has become much more of a chore than it ever used to be. I’d wager it took me less time to put together my first ever kit (a squad of tactical marines) many years ago than it would to put together the equivalent kit now, even with lots more experience and better tools. 
 

Building had become my least favourite part of the hobby by far, which is partly due to the complexity but also, like you say, because it used to be much easier to make your own dudes a bit more unique and kit bash some great models. Now it’s just fiddly building of repetitive models. 
 

The only saving grace of the new approach is that I’m not sure how much of the current heresy plastification would’ve been possible without the new approach, particularly mechanicum but then I’m also not an expert so I can’t really say.

[Ahzek451]

Not that I disagree with other points, but I mostly want to touch on #3. Yeah...a million times yes. Yes, GW...most models are *chefs kiss* gorgeous. Hands down. Love to look at them. But one of the things I miss most about playing with pewter and more "solid" plastic models was that there was a lot less hassle with breakage(thin clear flight stands not included). And in most cases, the point of contact that the part broke off of was fairly easy to stick back on. This sort of build is great for foam transport abd tabletop wargaming. However, with all the extra fidly bits and delicate plastic parts that extend outward from wild and amazing poses that are sometimes only held on by a tiny fragment of plastic that tend to catch on the foam and break....well on to magnet trays.

I do hold my painting to a decently high standard so more than ever I try to protect my models. So while I do love the protection magnet trays can give, it becomes tedious to remove every single model from the tray without accidentally gripping the wrong part of the model or bumping into another. Keeping the magnets strong enough so they dont move in transport but not too strong that you break something trying to separate the model from the metal. I am waiting for the day that the lightning effects that suspend my void dragon or silent kind just snap. 
 

Compared to the older model design methodology, generally speaking I had an easier time moving and dealing with accidental breakages on models. I feel like compared to the past,  now you need to slow down your physical movements and be more diligent unless you simply don't care about damaged models. But I will criticize those clear flight stands again. That tiny little peg that would snap off in the hole of the model. Hopefully that model had a cavity that you could push the peg into the body. Then you have a model plastic broken tip shaker. 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

It definitely seems GW designers have far less thought and concern to these being used as gaming miniatures and thus needing to be practical. 

 

I do think GW puts out very high quality miniatures and in general the sprues are very well done. The problem I feel is the design doesn't feel like it matches the price. I feel for what GW are charging the design element should be exceptional. 

[kabaakaba]

Finger separated from powerfist. Idk how they come to this. But once again thumb on fist, all other fingers separated. And I heavily miss ball joints. New one are terrible.