Franz G Co (
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:19:57 -0500 (EST)

Which is why Bandai must justify having variable kits with a


PERFECT GRADE VALKYRIE!!! Mwahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha!!!^O^

*raises beam umbrella*

---Original Message------
From: garrick lee <>
Sent: February 20, 2001 2:01:25 AM GMT
Subject: Re: [gundam] "transforming" kits

--- "Matt, defender of stuff that is pretty cool!"
<> wrote:
>> just wondering what the general consensus was on the
>> list regarding
>> so-called "transforming" model kits. I just spent
>> about 15 minutes trying to
>> get a VF-19 kai to go from gerwalk to jet mode, with
>> pieces falling
>> everywhere and things not connecting right. I have
>> trouble with my MG Zeta,
>> as well, as a Gundam it doesn't pose very well, and
>> as the wave rider it uh,
>> pretty much collapses on itself.
>> What I don't get is, what's the big deal? They make
>> these toys that
>> transform - I've got a VF-19 that I took apart and
>> painted piece by piece,
>> and managed to reassemble it and it still works. Why
>> not just make the
>> "transforming" kits of higher quality plastics and
>> more flexible joints, but
>> more expensive?
>> Any thoughts?
>exactly my beef with all of the valyrie model kits.
>plus, the fact that they need part swapping, when
>they're already fragile as heck.
>which extends to my beef with the macross plus toys of
>toycom release. crud. bandai got it right the first
>time with the classic valkyries and the plastic mac7
>valks (superb toys!). what the hell is toycom
>mucking around with the macross plus valks for? i
>still think the yf-19 screw ups are inexcusable (and
>combined with the enormous price tag, almost
>unforgiveable) -- insofar as the mech design of yf-19
>(toycom) is a direct carbon copy of vf-19 (bandai),
>with only cosmetic differences, and no significant
>structural design differences whatsoever.
>the only reason i can think of as to why they are
>having a tough time with the fragile valkyrie kits is
>that they are prioritizing proportions and technical
>accuracy in ALL THREE MODES over workability of the
>entire kit.

>as for the transformable gundam kits...i don't like
>'em. i'm not really fond of transformable gundams in
>the first place (amuro complex :P) or gundams with
>core fighters.
>technically, my problems with transformables are -- it
>essentially means that the structure of the suits are
>several magnitudes weaker (c'mon, the zeta is
>practically hollow in many parts when in mobile suit
>mode...ugh). it also means flakey unfeasible
>uberfunky mechanics (double zeta, fazz, sentinel,
>enough said) and that don't make my day any. most of
>the time, gundam transformables are also ugly like
>heck (wing gundam, airmaster, psycho, zz).

>hobbywise, i just can't stand the thought of paint
>jobs scratching as the various parts mesh and grind
>together while the mech transforms. ugh. hobbywise,
>also, the fragile structure of transformables mechs
>reveal themselves all too readily that it kind of
>hinders the suspension of belief regarding mecha model
>kits (and what they're supposed to simulate).

>long live noble grunt mecha!

Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

Shop through Barnes and Nobles
help me earn cash too.
FREE Personalized Email at
Sign up at

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Feb 20 2001 - 22:20:14 JST