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.

[roryokane]

This is why I have mountains of firstborn stockpiled. They’re all interchangeable. You wanna see peak kit/sprue efficiency, great models, and reposability? Look at the firstborn Sternguard squad. It was, and I cannot state this enough, GLORIOUS.

Moreover, the fact that the entire space marine range was cross compatible across about… what, including the older HH plastics, you’re looking at like 20 kits (including vehicle crews/bikes/land speeders etc) that could all be cross-built (ignoring the resin stuff from FW). Hell you could even slap new arms and bolters on 2nd ed metal models and make it work (or throw in an old-style shoulder-carried metal lascannon for giggles) . The variety was practically infinite. This isn’t me ragging on primaris for fluff reasons, but the difference between them and the firstborn marines we had before are genuinely good examples of the phenomena being described. Sadly HH seems to have gone a similar way too, which is just sad.

[Brother Christopher]

@Evil Eye Thank you for posting this. Your essay is well-written and addresses all of the issues I've come to experience over the last 2-3 years, basically ever since I've started a small Primaris project. I used to plan to add a lot of variety to the models, unlike most people who posted vanilla kits. But because of how the kits are designed, I find it awkward to even mix bodies and arms across Primaris kits. For example, running Primaris legs don't bash well with bolter arms - the Marines end up looking awkward.

 

And then there's another level of questionable sprue designs with 'Character' or 'Centrepiece' models which are split in an exotic way on the sprues.

 

Unsurprisingly, I agree with your arguments. And I probably shouldn't type more examples or gripes since they won't be as eloquently put as what you posted. 

 

However, I'd like to address one issue that, I think, you haven't mentioned. And I do think that it's pertinent here, even though it's slightly on the border of the topic. I want to complain about the mould lines and gaps that are still a persisting problem in many of the kits. I used to think that mould lines are normal but then I assembled two "proper models" (i.e. not intended for wargames; these were some real-world military vehicles from Edward, a company that I've never heard of before) and was blown away by both the quality of the plastic pieces, an almost non-existent issue with mould lines and ease and precision of assembly (small gaps, very easy to mask). In other words, it seems to me that a small, obscure company (as opposed to GW, with it's size and reputation) is able to design and manufacture plastic kits that surpass GW's allegedly high-quality products. And they probably do it for a fraction of GW's price. Note, however, that I've put together maybe 10 'modern' GW kits over the last three years, so maybe my observations are more anecdotal. But man, assembling a Redemptor Dreadnought was one of the worst hobby experiences of my life. Maybe I misremember it but it felt like every piece had to be split into 2-3 smaller pieces.

 

Anyway, I'm more curious to hear from people who don't have an issue with or perhaps enjoy the current sprue layout and assembly philosophy of GW's kits.

Edited yesterday at 08:52 AM by Brother Christopher

[Evil Eye]

@Brother Christopher I completely agree with you on the mould lines and gaps being more of a problem than they should be, especially given the prices of modern models. What got me was handling the Tamiya Panzer II (a kit from 1971!) and finding it had detail, quality and fit on par with, or in some cases superior to, a lot of GW kits! That's a 50+ year old kit you can buy for £10, we should really expect better from GW's modern output.

[kabaakaba]

I build new cadians and 1/48 Soviet infantry. Guess whom I cursed whole process? On other hand I have baneblade Russ and Valkyrie which are pretty old kits and have no problem with mold lines at all. Tbh it feels like quality drop in new kits.

[Domhnall]

My personal opinion!

I think the issue we have with the sprue layout and why parts are separated in such awkward places is purely down to the optimisation process of the plastic extrusion process.

Back in the day you had less parts and didn't have as much detail, so could get away with the layouts they had. With the increase in fine detail, and the ability to add so much more onto the sprue, They need to minimise how much wastage/failed casts there is, and I'll bet that they have optimised the process throughout the CAD/extrusion software/testing to the nth degree. This means that they will have had to chop and hack the models apart in the way they are to allow the plastic to flow through cast like a Nurgle tainted burger flows through your digestive tract. 

[Valkyrion]

I abandoned a DKoK project because of the absolute chore of building them. 

My hobby time is usually spent nursing a mild hangover with football or a series on tv whilst I idly glue together whatever it is. 

Space Marines I'm okay with, even if they are a bit ponderous sometimes. It's like cutting onions - it's annoying at first but once you realise onions are in everything you cook you need to get over the eye sting and crack on. Space Marines are like that. I need space marines in all my armies, so now I'm immune to their frustrations.

Except the Saturnine terminators. What an absolute pain they were and I'll only ever buy pre-built from ebay if I need any more. 

 

Compare the old box dreads - venerable, ironclad and the standard. There were a dozen full arms between those kits, maybe more, and they were all interchangeable. 

I recently had the pleasure of building a venerable dreadnought for the first time in 10+ years. I was so used to having to decide which weapon I should build I completely forgot that you can build all 4 complete with arms! And they push fit! A modern GW kit gives you all the weapons but only 1 arm. 

Also, would it really cut back so much on profits for there to be 1 deredeo kit, 1 rapier kit, 1 leviathan kit? 

 

But - to my mind at least when comparing apples to apples - the HH tactical kits are miles better than the Calth/Prospero o.g kits and are worth the minor (IMO) inconvenience of matching part for part. 

[Blissful Brushes]

As an avid converter, more so than a painter, the possibility and scope to kitbash the marines of 2007 vs 2025 is heaven and hell. I would consider myself pretty handy with sculpting, pinning etc and to get new poses out of marines is a real chore now, I dread to think what it’s like for the ranges where there isn’t just a single ‘type’ of body as the basic silhouette. This is compounded by the fact that torsos and legs must match or it’s gap city and I think it must actually turn people off from the hobby after a while - not those of us who are on places like B&C as I imagine we’re the sweats, but the guys who pick up a couple of boxes here and there.

[Firedrake Cordova]

As someone who grew up with 4th Ed WHFB and 2nd/3rd Ed 40K, I share your pain. I remember when you didn't need assembly instructions, many kits were inter-changeable, had lots of spare parts for the bitz box, and sprues had great plains of unused space...  

 

If I remember correctly, GW have previously said they use software to dice up the models into parts on sprues, and to lay out the sprues so that the plastic flows to all the parts correctly, etc. It's entirely possible that this is a contributing factor to the slightly less-than-obvious ordering of parts on the sprue (I'm guessing this goes to point #1 and #2).

 

Regarding point #3, I share some of your concerns - the modern models are certainly excellent from a technical perspective (and I absolutely do not want to take away from that), but I do worry about the utility of some of them due to the fineness of some of the parts (if you have a look at the Grimghast Reapers of Janus Draik's sword, they look/feel a bit "vulnerable" as gaming pieces, whilst being excellent models).

 

I would add that perhaps what we're seeing is a trend that's been underway for perhaps longer than we think - back in 2000, about 2 years after GW released Jes Goodwin's re-done Tactical Squad kit, they released the Black Orc kit where each of the legs were separate from the torso.

 

In terms of truly modern kits, my exposure is mainly limited to the modern Necromunda and Aeronautica Imperialis kits, with a dash of Adeptus Mechanicus and Genestealer Cults for Kill Team thrown in. 

 

I have four distinct memories from assembling the Aeronautica Imperialis kits - you really needed to read the instructions to understand how they went together before you started doing anything, finding the parts on the sprue was sometimes a trial as related parts weren't always next to each other, some of the parts were tiny and sometimes the vents/gates weren't in "ideal" locations (i.e. were on delicate bits like gun barrels), however, once you got into the rhythm, they went together beautifully. 

 

The Necromunda models were a little bit of a surprise to me, with my memories best being summed up by, "they've got separate necks?!". I think what I said about the Aeronautica models largely applies again, so I'll not repeat myself. Comparing the assembly process to say, Stargrave or Frostgrave gives quite a stark difference.

 

My memories of the Genestealer Cult and Adeptus Mechanicus kits are somewhat dimmer, although from memory they felt more like the older kits I'd been used to.

 

I think I should add that GW's modern push-fit kits that I've looked at (e.g. those in Blackstone Fortress) have been really nice. 

Edited yesterday at 11:41 AM by Firedrake Cordova

[Rusted Boltgun]

Whilst I appreciate the comments regarding mould lines and the design of older kits, my recent experience with a Tamiya car kit has caused me larger headaches than assembling Intercessors.

 

I have to assemble all my models with the aid of a magnifier, to identify the part number and then get that part in the right place! 

 

I skipped the 'golden era' - before coming back to the hobby in '22/23 my most recent model was a metal / plastic Mk8 Errant armour. 

 

I would argue that there is definite 'bang for your buck' element to GW kits. Yes, it takes time and care to assemble them to a decent standard but the sense of satisfaction is worth it - the juice is worth the squeeze. It also sets you up for painting them, having developed a relationship with the details and the shape of the model. I also paint in sub- assemblies (being ham-fisted as well as ocularly impaired) and have also attempted magnetization.

 

In contrast, I have to use tweezers on my Tamiya Jaguar and the plastics have not taken paint as well as the GW minis (I don't airbrush). The kit is still languishing part finished in the box at the moment. 

 

I absolutely agree that the ability to convert the minis is harder than the older kits and it is more difficult to mix-and-match. One argument for GW might be 'why bother'? They produce such a range of kits now that there are sufficient models (or nearly enough) to fill a roster with visually diverse units. (I appreciate part of the fun of the hobby is converting and I do it myself so please don't shoot me down!)

 

As for differences between units, whilst the poses are duplicated, you can add differentiation with details (arms, pitches, trinkets, heads) and paint. A bit like my original box of plastic beakies!

 

I don't know how true this is but I had seen it asserted that GW sprues are broken down as much as they are to reduce the ability for them to be copied. This makes sense to me and I don't blame them for making them as hard as possible to counterfeit given they are the largest player in the market.

 

With regard to Termagants, I think of them a bit like TOW archers, all the same pose, a massive block. Maybe I'll think differently once I have a decent number on the table.

 

Should they be better on mould lines? Yes 

Should some of the 'easy to build' kits be better? Yes! I have been really disappointed in my Outriders. Absolutely dreadful.

Should there be greater cross-compatibility? Probably

More poses? It would be nice.

Separate fingers? No!!! I hate that, way too fiddly.

 

At the end of the day, this is just my tuppence and I mean no offence to anyone. I don't think the above opinions are wrong in any way.

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

Monopose, overly dramatic posing, sculpted "special effects" and just 5 pose options across SM units aside, I don't thinkt that "jigsaw puzzle" design is an issue per se. Considering limitations of two-part molding, it's inevitable byproduct of the quest for detail in figurines. Considering the year, the size of GW and the prices they ask, I would say that's the bare mininum of effort they can put to stay on top. In my opinion, especially in fully armoured kits, the jigsaw design is not inherently linked to those problems. Or at least I don't see the connection in SM kits, which are the most familiar to me. I would also say that in infantry, they for most part do quite well at the joint line and the divisions are usually quite logical, like clearly separate armour plates, kneees etc. GW infantry doesn't strike me as overdesigned and their tanks are polar opposite of the overdesigned. Maybe it's because of scale modeling that the growing part count is not weird to me.

 

As for the centerpiece heroes, well, all such sculpts tend to be interrstingly broken into parts. You have one or two of them, so posability is not much of an issue and you want them as detailed as possible. See other companies, like Kingdom Death or even something like Tamiya 1/35 German infantry. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Brother Christopher said:

However, I'd like to address one issue that, I think, you haven't mentioned. And I do think that it's pertinent here, even though it's slightly on the border of the topic. I want to complain about the mould lines and gaps that are still a persisting problem in many of the kits. I used to think that mould lines are normal but then I assembled two "proper models" (i.e. not intended for wargames; these were some real-world military vehicles from Edward, a company that I've never heard of before) and was blown away by both the quality of the plastic pieces, an almost non-existent issue with mould lines and ease and precision of assembly (small gaps, very easy to mask). In other words, it seems to me that a small, obscure company (as opposed to GW, with it's size and reputation) is able to design and manufacture plastic kits that surpass GW's allegedly high-quality products. And they probably do it for a fraction of GW's price. Note, however, that I've put together maybe 10 'modern' GW kits over the last three years, so maybe my observations are more anecdotal. But man, assembling a Redemptor Dreadnought was one of the worst hobby experiences of my life. Maybe I misremember it but it felt like every piece had to be split into 2-3 smaller pieces.

 

Anyway, I'm more curious to hear from people who don't have an issue with or perhaps enjoy the current sprue layout and assembly philosophy of GW's kits.

 

 

Mold lines in general and gaps on vehicles are definetly problems with GW. Also, it's true that for whatever reason GW plastic and molding technique do not produce as sharp details as one could expect for a model kit in that price range. Of course it's partially due to the "heroic" scale convention, but it's very visible on the vehicles., less so on the regular infantry, which I would rate as the best in miniature wargaming (there are some very good plastic kits, like new Victrix releases, but they are not on GW level yet).

 

It pains me to hear that for someone in an, afterall, adjacent hobby the main aircaft kit producer is something unheard of. Eduard is a fitting example, because they produce in Europe, in Czech Republic. Together with ArmaHobby and Miniart, both producing in Poland, it shows that you can produce top level scale kits in EU (admittedly, Miniart is currently the overdesigned kit producer, e.g. see their panzer IV). However, Eduard still divides fuselage into traditional two halves, while FineMolds has shown us that with some slidemolding sorcery you can try to bypass the issue. Anyway, both quality-wise and price-wise GW vehicles simply can't compete with scale models.

 

 

 

 

[roryokane]

2 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

I abandoned a DKoK project because of the absolute chore of building them. 

My hobby time is usually spent nursing a mild hangover with football or a series on tv whilst I idly glue together whatever it is. 

Space Marines I'm okay with, even if they are a bit ponderous sometimes. It's like cutting onions - it's annoying at first but once you realise onions are in everything you cook you need to get over the eye sting and crack on. Space Marines are like that. I need space marines in all my armies, so now I'm immune to their frustrations.

Except the Saturnine terminators. What an absolute pain they were and I'll only ever buy pre-built from ebay if I need any more. 

 

Compare the old box dreads - venerable, ironclad and the standard. There were a dozen full arms between those kits, maybe more, and they were all interchangeable. 

I recently had the pleasure of building a venerable dreadnought for the first time in 10+ years. I was so used to having to decide which weapon I should build I completely forgot that you can build all 4 complete with arms! And they push fit! A modern GW kit gives you all the weapons but only 1 arm. 

Also, would it really cut back so much on profits for there to be 1 deredeo kit, 1 rapier kit, 1 leviathan kit? 

 

But - to my mind at least when comparing apples to apples - the HH tactical kits are miles better than the Calth/Prospero o.g kits and are worth the minor (IMO) inconvenience of matching part for part. 

Yeah I found saturnines really hard to assemble (especially the bits that hold up the gigantic pauldrons - the instructions really were not very clear how those were supposed to fit together)… but I far prefer the old HH tactical kits because they’re interchangeable with the rest of the old firstborn range, and the new MkIII helm is a straight downgrade.

[Lexington]

One of the reasons I'll be rather sad to see 11th Edition roll in is that the Ork range finally seems due for its massive overhaul, and we'll see the true death of of 2000's-era interchangeability. The basic Ork was only five parts, but you could do so much with those five parts. Every new kit added new options for creating any basic infantry model, and the reliable legs-torso-arms-head system made for easy creation of 3rd party kits. I'll miss that, almost as much as I'll miss the sheer fun of the Bryan Nelson sculpts. Real end of a particular era for 40K modeling.

[Valkyrion]

35 minutes ago, Lexington said:

One of the reasons I'll be rather sad to see 11th Edition roll in is that the Ork range finally seems due for its massive overhaul, and we'll see the true death of of 2000's-era interchangeability. The basic Ork was only five parts, but you could do so much with those five parts. Every new kit added new options for creating any basic infantry model, and the reliable legs-torso-arms-head system made for easy creation of 3rd party kits. I'll miss that, almost as much as I'll miss the sheer fun of the Bryan Nelson sculpts. Real end of a particular era for 40K modeling.

 

The 40k ork boyz kit was virtually identical in fitments to the WFB orc boyz kit too,  so you could easily kit bash the two if you wanted more feral or snakebitey orks.

 

A long discarded dream project of mine back when I had more ideas than time or money was to basically get one each of every plastic space marine power armour kit and turn them into red corsairs. Thousand Sons, Berzerkers, Space Wolves, Sanguinary Guard, DA Veterans etc - legs from here, torso from there, arms from this, head from that. Apart from a few outliers they all fit together.

Best you can do now would be to use arms, head and backpack. Still doable, but harder. 

[Robbienw]

Agreed on all points.  I liked it back in the 2012 to 2017 era when we still had poseability in kits with some complex parts for an alternate build of a model/models in squad sets (think like the Tempestor Prime in the Scions kit) and on characters, but it has gone too far now.

 

The side effect is that i buy less squad kits now than i would have done back when poseability was good.  Why buy more the 2 squads of Cadians for example, when the variation isnt there to make each squad look different enough.

[DemonGSides]

7 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

I abandoned a DKoK project because of the absolute chore of building them. 

 

Weird I've built 30 of them over the last month and had no issues putting them together or shifting around weapons. 

[Valkyrion]

3 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Weird I've built 30 of them over the last month and had no issues putting them together or shifting around weapons. 

 

Fair enough, not everyone's threshold for chores is the same. 

[kabaakaba]

Building old cadians also chore task. If you remember there is cadians, veterans, special weapon, conscripts. And not like they super variative or posable. 

[calgar101]

Agreed on all points and with other posters too. I haven't bought many Primaris models but there is definitely a trend of less customising/kitbash potential in my opinion and experience of these kits compared to older first born. Even the HH plastics have a more regimented building feel, than an individual one.

 

As for mould lines, I don't know enough about the process to comment much but when you are buying and building military vehicles from other companies that are cheaper but have 0 mould lines... you start to ask some questions. 

[Jukkiz]

While GW is pushing production to it´s limits and over (which is shown on limited stock/FOMO/long waiting times) I do agree that they can make good looking models when they get some freedom. 

Most xenos start looking better and better while everything marine, be it loyalist or chaos, seems to dance between clean and simple, to overly static and monopose. Converting has become frankenstein puzzle and requires more cutting, sawing and cursing then ever before. 

On other hand something like Horus heresy line brings back some familiarity with the old kits, with some limited options but with a hefty prices, E.G: New breacher upgrade sprue