PDA

View Full Version : Logic behind "recut" sprues



spaint2k
17-09-2007, 05:09
It's been bothering me for some time, so I was wondering if anyone here could offer some insight.

What's the logic behind "recut" sprues for new army releases? By that I mean the basic troops and equipment are the same, while the actual sprue formation is altered with extra equipment added.

Given that the mould costs approximately the same no matter what you're putting on it, and given that the moulds for the old kits already existed, wouldn't it be cheaper to just make small accessory sprues rather than going and recutting the whole thing?

Do the current arrangements on the sprue minimize waste plastic to such an extent that GW saves a lot of money in the long run? Is this optimization a function of the moulding software they're using now?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Cheers,
Steve

Hellebore
17-09-2007, 05:14
The moulds do wear out though.

Perhaps they do a recut instead of a remould? Makes them look like they are doing something cool for gamers, and replaces something that needed replacing anyway...

Hellebore

IJW
17-09-2007, 05:21
I think the clue is in the name - 'recut' (AFAIK) means altering the existing mould, not making a new one...

EDIT - and there are production issues involved with increasing the number of different moulds needed for a box set. If a box requires two moulds instead of one you are doubling up on either the number of machines running, or doubling up on changeover time. And believe me, doubling the changeover time on a production line is not something you want to do if you can possibly avoid it...

spaint2k
17-09-2007, 05:35
The moulds do wear out though.


But surely not that quickly, no?


I think the clue is in the name - 'recut' (AFAIK) means altering the existing mould, not making a new one...


It's a misnomer that has common currency on Warseer. It's actually an entirely new mould, but the figures are the same as the old ones.




EDIT - and there are production issues involved with increasing the number of different moulds needed for a box set. If a box requires two moulds instead of one you are doubling up on either the number of machines running, or doubling up on changeover time. And believe me, doubling the changeover time on a production line is not something you want to do if you can possibly avoid it...

The old marines came ten to a sprue, on a central "branch" if you will. The sprue design allowed you to break off individual marine sprues from the main branch. There was also an accessory sprue. The new marines are five to a sprue, plus another (different) accessory sprue.

EDIT: I don't know how any of the other "recut" sprues compare to their earlier counterparts.

Steve

Lord Malek The Red Knight
17-09-2007, 07:22
could packaging (inc. shelf space and shipping) also be an issue?

(more compact sprue = smaller box/more to a box)

~ Tim

Crube
17-09-2007, 07:38
I've noticed a change to slimmer boxes recently, so Lord Malek may have a point

yabbadabba
17-09-2007, 07:38
Can't see the issue here.

Considering the 1000s of pounds it takes to invest in these moulds, not forgetting the new design time, they wouldn't be doing this without a good reason.

There could be a myriad of reasons. The one it won't be is "because they can".

Dr Death
17-09-2007, 08:03
From a consumer point of view it means they can incorperate components that were previously in demand but not covered by the plastic sprue. This in turn makes the sprue more 'conversion friendly' and so allows them to get rid of metal componants as they move towards further plasticfication.

It also does save what (on mass) could be hundreds of pounds worth of plastic. The old marine sprue was a classic example of this- with separate sprues for backpacks, main bodies, arms, accessories etc, the sheer amount of sprue needed to present these componants separately was immense (i'm pretty sure there were times when there was more sprue than actual componants).

With a recut it allowed GW to cut that waste and either redestribute the plastic to useful items (such as accessories or kneeling legs or god specific components) increasing customer satisfaction, or plain just not use it in the first place.

I'm all in favour of recuts to be honest. It improves the core troops of the armies which has to be a more sensible thing than attempting some hit and miss redesign of the kits.

Dr Death

yabbadabba
17-09-2007, 08:15
Not to forget Dr Death with all that reduction in excess plastic, it's good for the environment too :D

spaint2k
17-09-2007, 08:34
It also does save what (on mass) could be hundreds of pounds worth of plastic. The old marine sprue was a classic example of this- with separate sprues for backpacks, main bodies, arms, accessories etc, the sheer amount of sprue needed to present these componants separately was immense (i'm pretty sure there were times when there was more sprue than actual componants).


That's pretty much what I was wondering. I've not seen most of the recut sprues and I don't have the old ones to compare anyway, so I was wondering if the massive expense of new moulds really offers a dramatic saving in plastic.

Steve

Brother Loki
17-09-2007, 11:10
Another thing is that with a recut sprue they get to treat it like a new release all over again, with an attendant boost in sales.

synapse
18-09-2007, 07:48
one obvious reason i can think of - the old csm spure came with 4 marines. considering the base size for GW marine bozes is 10, they couldnt do it with the old sprues, so they recut them to take 5 marines each.

it was a similar thing with the new marine sprue. anyone remember the old ones that were made of mini sprues for the bodies, backpacks, arms etc? they just streamlined them and got them put onto proper sprues where you get everything you need for 5 models on the one sprue.

blongbling
18-09-2007, 07:55
repackaging so that boxes are smaller....also as the technology increases they can get more things on the sprues

Sai-Lauren
18-09-2007, 08:18
could packaging (inc. shelf space and shipping) also be an issue?

(more compact sprue = smaller box/more to a box)

~ Tim

More likely:
More compact sprue = less sprue = less plastic used = cheaper(less material used and less energy to heat it up to melt it)/better for environment.
You may be taking fractions of pence per sprue, but even for GWs production runs, it'll all add up.

It could also be as a result of quality control, if a number of a particular sprue are showing a lot of defects, then they'll take the opportunity to recut it to eliminate that problem.

scarletsquig
18-09-2007, 12:01
It'd be nice if they could do this for future fantasy releases, now that ranks are 5 wide instead of 4, but most of the boxsets still come in multiples of 4...

Cap'n Facebeard
21-09-2007, 01:48
Anyone bought the new-er Night Gobbos box? It has 1/4 the sprues of the old one. For the same price. I'm not really annoyed, but its pretty whack. Plus the gobbos are teeny...

KingNic
21-09-2007, 05:55
Gobbos tiny?! NOOOOO Why on earth would they make small gobbos?! I was personally so fond of the oversized goofy night gobbos from before.

The new night gobbos are a huge improvement on the old ones and have tons of extra bits which fit the models a lot better. Definitely an improvement in my eyes. Of course, you'd think that a ~60 point unit would come 40 to a box now that the sprues have been halved but oh well.