endlesswaltz123 wrote: Weird the combat patrol is not available, unless it's due to fairly poor direct sales of cadia stands so they want to shift them first - only just about sold out at third parties in the last few weeks in the UK.
Hard to say if it actually sold poorly. Cadia Stands was released on Black Friday. One would think if GW deviates from their normal release day to get those Black Friday sales, they would also have made a suitably large number so they don't sell through in five minutes.
Stands to reason they'd consider the possibility that a Combat Patrol won't sell so well after flooding the market with the army box, and give it some more time before dropping it.
Yeah as it was out for Black Friday / pre-xmas it seems likely GW made more Cadia Stands sets than typical army boxes.
I doubt that affected plans for the Combat Patrol though. This isn't the first time large army releases have been split into multiple waves with the CP arriving later. They don't want to release too much at once as customers are more likely to spend more over a longer period, so that box gets dropped in favour of the tank (re)releases.
Baneblade went from 120€ to 130€ for the extra sponson, not the worst but also not great.
The Leman russ only went up 5€ for the extra guns which doesn't seem too bad but nobody paid the full price due to the SC before.
The Rogal Dorn is cheaper than I expected same as the other kits (except characters of course) so the Combat Patrol isn't as good of a discount as I thought but still a good 37,7% discount.
Not quite as good as the current best which is Genestealer Cults with 45% but still one of the better discounts
Matrindur wrote: Baneblade went from 120€ to 130€ for the extra sponson, not the worst but also not great.
The Leman russ only went up 5€ for the extra guns which doesn't seem too bad but nobody paid the full price due to the SC before.
The Rogal Dorn is cheaper than I expected and since the other kits are also slightly cheaper than I expected but the Combat Patrol is still a good 37,7% discount.
Not quite as good as the current best which is Genestealer Cults with 45% but still one of the better discounts
I haven't looked at the Baneblade retail price for a while.
Is the new price equal to old price + upgrade sprue price or does it include a markup.
In other words, have there been two price rises. One for being required to have a sprue one may not have wanted plus an extra percentage for the Big Guy?
Matrindur wrote: Baneblade went from 120€ to 130€ for the extra sponson, not the worst but also not great.
The Leman russ only went up 5€ for the extra guns which doesn't seem too bad but nobody paid the full price due to the SC before.
The Rogal Dorn is cheaper than I expected same as the other kits (except characters of course) so the Combat Patrol isn't as good of a discount as I thought but still a good 37,7% discount.
Not quite as good as the current best which is Genestealer Cults with 45% but still one of the better discounts
I haven't looked at the Baneblade retail price for a while.
Is the new price equal to old price + upgrade sprue price or does it include a markup.
In other words, have there been two price rises. One for being required to have a sprue one may not have wanted plus an extra percentage for the Big Guy?
The upgrade sprue was 22.5€ if I remember correctly so cheaper than before but the Dominus knight also didn't get a price increase when the Valiant and Castellan where bundled together so I was hoping for no increase this time too, especially since this is only extra sponsons and not main weapon options like the Dominus Knight or Leman Russ
Dysartes wrote: So Cadia Stands! works out at ~1/3 of retail?
£202 for the contents individually. £120 for Cadia Stands, so £82 less.
£152.5 for the models, £90 for combat patrols, so £62.5 difference. About the same ratio, so not the book and cards propping up the savings
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Weird the combat patrol is not available, unless it's due to fairly poor direct sales of cadia stands so they want to shift them first - only just about sold out at third parties in the last few weeks in the UK.
Hard to say if it actually sold poorly. Cadia Stands was released on Black Friday. One would think if GW deviates from their normal release day to get those Black Friday sales, they would also have made a suitably large number so they don't sell through in five minutes.
Stands to reason they'd consider the possibility that a Combat Patrol won't sell so well after flooding the market with the army box, and give it some more time before dropping it.
Yeah as it was out for Black Friday / pre-xmas it seems likely GW made more Cadia Stands sets than typical army boxes.
I doubt that affected plans for the Combat Patrol though. This isn't the first time large army releases have been split into multiple waves with the CP arriving later. They don't want to release too much at once as customers are more likely to spend more over a longer period, so that box gets dropped in favour of the tank (re)releases.
Also, right now people will be willing to buy individual kits and tanks to go with them. Keeping the Combat patrol back will avoid cannibilizing some of the sales of the individual kits, and make a solid core for new buyers to add the second wave models to. Buying a combat patrol to add some rough riders and a commissar to is a lot easier mental leap than buying 5 separate boxes to get the same result.
The Phazer wrote: I take it the availability of the psyker means we're never getting that Blackstone Fortress sprue reissued, even as a MTO or something.
Sigh.
The Community site is wrong. She wasn't part of Blackstone Fortress, but the much more niche Combat Arena Box game, along with the Techno Archeologist that was released on his own for AdMech recently, a Crusader, Servitor, and Rogue Trader.
MajorWesJanson wrote: The Community site is wrong. She wasn't part of Blackstone Fortress, but the much more niche Combat Arena Box game, along with the Techno Archeologist that was released on his own for AdMech recently, a Crusader, Servitor, and Rogue Trader.
They were in the Blackstone Fortress – Escalation expansion first.
MajorWesJanson wrote: The Community site is wrong. She wasn't part of Blackstone Fortress, but the much more niche Combat Arena Box game, along with the Techno Archeologist that was released on his own for AdMech recently, a Crusader, Servitor, and Rogue Trader.
They were in the Blackstone Fortress – Escalation expansion first.
I have two of each of the models on that sprue I picked up one in the Norfolk, Virginia Barnes and Noble after buying a Combat Arena box
As I have two, there must have been a Blackstone Fortress expansion released in the UK.
Gert wrote: Those character prices are maximum cringe.
Ursula especially, has instantly meant that she will not be purchased by me. I can kindof justify Solar due to his horse and scenic base, plus with whatever discount the online retailers are offering nowadays.
The_Real_Chris wrote: So the Leman Russ comes with 2 turrets now or am I misunderstanding it?
It comes with all 7 turret options now, if it is identical to the old sprues you will get 2 turrets. Depends if they have recut the sprue, as iirc you would get 2 hulls as well if they are just reusing the old sprues. Guess we will find out when preorders go live on the GW site.
The_Real_Chris wrote: So the Leman Russ comes with 2 turrets now or am I misunderstanding it?
Yeah, supposedly they will rebox the kit with : the sides / sponsons / tracks sprue + the standard LRBT hull & turret sprue + the Demolisher hull & turret sprue. Hence the price hike !
Still hate Ursula, this is a pretty easy release to skip tbh - I like the big ol' tank but the rest of it is not great (I'd take a few of the wargames atlantic plastic ranges over the new cadians)
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: I think hike is a bit of a strong term, it has gone up £1.50 in the UK. I expected a lot worse. Not sure about the European price increase.
Oh you are right. The old EU price for LRBT was € 47,50 but as I did not buy one recently, I still had a lower price in mind.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Kind of happy with Rogal price, I expected $100 or so. 70 Euros is less than that even in GW magic conversion rate land.
Well, a while ago they had a post with a size comparison with a Baneblade and a Leman Russ. The Rogal Dorn was a fair bit bigger than the Leman Russ, but by today's standard, a Leman Russ is not that big of a model anymore (just a bit taller than a Rhino). I suspect the Rogal Dorn will be a bit smaller / have less mass than a Primaris Repulsor, which is currently 67.50 Euro, so there is that.
My first thought was that 'firepower' and 'wasteful' in the same context is probably the most un-Guard-y thing ever... but then I realized that it is the Astra Militarum now so it's okay .
The Phazer wrote: I take it the availability of the psyker means we're never getting that Blackstone Fortress sprue reissued, even as a MTO or something.
Sigh.
The Community site is wrong. She wasn't part of Blackstone Fortress, but the much more niche Combat Arena Box game, along with the Techno Archeologist that was released on his own for AdMech recently, a Crusader, Servitor, and Rogue Trader.
The Community site is correct, the sprue is originally from the Blackstone Fortress: Escalation expansion which is out of print and very hard to find, but that sprue was reused for Combat Arena in the US.
The Phazer wrote: I take it the availability of the psyker means we're never getting that Blackstone Fortress sprue reissued, even as a MTO or something.
Sigh.
The Community site is wrong. She wasn't part of Blackstone Fortress, but the much more niche Combat Arena Box game, along with the Techno Archeologist that was released on his own for AdMech recently, a Crusader, Servitor, and Rogue Trader.
The Community site is correct, the sprue is originally from the Blackstone Fortress: Escalation expansion which is out of print and very hard to find, but that sprue was reused for Combat Arena in the US.
Not only in the US. I bought Combat Arena here for about the price they are now listing for just the psyker (never played the game, only wanted the models). Which shows again how whacky their prices are.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just had a look. The next Combat Arena is going to cost less than 23 Euros.
tauist wrote: Time to find out how the bashing of KTDKoK kit vs nuCad Artillery kit is going to end up like
I said this when the Cadia Stands box dropped, but it bears repeating:
The field ordnance pieces can be built without crew on them. If you're not opposed to going through FW, the Heavy Artillery Crew figures are pretty close in size to the plastic DKoK...and would be able to hold the "loose" shells/rockets.
The Cadian arms fit the Death Korps bodies and the new shoulder pad design is more similar to the DK ones. I've seen a few people kitbash using only plastic kits and it works really well.
Gert wrote: The Cadian arms fit the Death Korps bodies and the new shoulder pad design is more similar to the DK ones. I've seen a few people kitbash using only plastic kits and it works really well.
They absolutely do, but the Field Ordnance Batteries that I'm assuming the poster I replied to do not have shoulderpads and it would look funny seeing Krieg with rolled up sleeves.
H.B.M.C. wrote: For posterity's sake, the Leman Russ is AUD$89, and the Baneblade is AUD$165.
Let's see what they are come Saturday.
[EDIT]: I never liked the Regimental Standard, and this latest entry trying to justify why they come in batteries of 2 really hits home as to why.
Yeah, we all know it comes down to how many they could fit in a box based on their various calculations of profit:plastic ratios and such. So many other things can be taken in 3's. Sentinels, heavy weapon teams, squadrons of leman russes... But this random thing? Nope. Because only 2 come in the box, and it would be silly to ask players to buy a second box to fit a 3rd in a unit and have another left over. We know this. GW knows this. You don't need to make a silly tongue-in-cheek 'wanna-meme' post about it.
I mean, I ended up with 12 of the things, so I'm going to do three of each type, and then convert the remaining 3 into light-AA batteries using leftover quad Autocannon parts from the old Aegis Defence Line boxes.
Then I'm going to continue to ignore this train-wreck of a Guard Codex, where Scions get nothing, Kasrikin are a head taller than Guardsmen, Yarrick is gone, our main leader looks like he got lost on the way to an AoS cosplay event, and Cadians/Kriegers/Catachans are suddenly Aspect Warriors...
H.B.M.C. wrote: For posterity's sake, the Leman Russ is AUD$89, and the Baneblade is AUD$165.
Let's see what they are come Saturday.
[EDIT]: I never liked the Regimental Standard, and this latest entry trying to justify why they come in batteries of 2 really hits home as to why.
Yeah, we all know it comes down to how many they could fit in a box based on their various calculations of profit:plastic ratios and such. So many other things can be taken in 3's. Sentinels, heavy weapon teams, squadrons of leman russes... But this random thing? Nope. Because only 2 come in the box, and it would be silly to ask players to buy a second box to fit a 3rd in a unit and have another left over. We know this. GW knows this. You don't need to make a silly tongue-in-cheek 'wanna-meme' post about it.
I thought it was quite amusing l little dig at people moaning on the internet about it. We all know why they did put two in the box, they know we all know, so let’s have a little fun with those upset by it.
Andykp wrote: I thought it was quite amusing l little dig at people moaning on the internet about it. We all know why they did put two in the box, they know we all know, so let’s have a little fun with those upset by it.
It's not about why they put two in the box, it's about why they had to make the unit size a fixed two models, no more no less. No model no rules is a profoundly stupid and anti-customer design philosophy and GW's lame attempt at a meme defending it deserves every bit of mockery it gets.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I mean, I ended up with 12 of the things, so I'm going to do three of each type, and then convert the remaining 3 into light-AA batteries using leftover quad Autocannon parts from the old Aegis Defence Line boxes.
Then I'm going to continue to ignore this train-wreck of a Guard Codex, where Scions get nothing, Kasrikin are a head taller than Guardsmen, Yarrick is gone, our main leader looks like he got lost on the way to an AoS cosplay event, and Cadians/Kriegers/Catachans are suddenly Aspect Warriors...
I know the feeling.
I'm more smarting over the loss of Special Weapon teams, Vets and Conscripts. How many models does that put on the shelf?
And weird rules about taking dupes of special weapons.
AND the new weird basing rules...
GW seems to think I like nothing more than rebasing and swapping weapons to accommodate rules that will be changed in under a year.
When my instinct frankly is to draw a line and say I'm done.
I never got around to gluing my 2nd Ed heavy weapons teams to 60mm bases.
I based and painted up multiple mdf bases to put them on for games but never glued them down, mainly because it was easier and took less space when storing them in cases.
Sounds like they're adding the vehicle upgrade sprue back into the boxes. It's kinda funny how new players thinks this is great, but they don't know that all Guard vehicles came with them originally. GW just removed them and sold them separately.
Jarms48 wrote: Sounds like they're adding the vehicle upgrade sprue back into the boxes. It's kinda funny how new players thinks this is great, but they don't know that all Guard vehicles came with them originally. GW just removed them and sold them separately.
The Vehicle Accessory sprue was in the old 3rd edition kits, while the 5th? 6th? Edition remake of the Chimaera and Russ didn't include it, but were technically new kits. The Basilisk continued however, since it used the new Chimaera hull and old basilisk gun platform, and would not have had a hull weapon without the upgrade kit's heavy flamer.
Jarms48 wrote: Sounds like they're adding the vehicle upgrade sprue back into the boxes. It's kinda funny how new players thinks this is great, but they don't know that all Guard vehicles came with them originally. GW just removed them and sold them separately.
The Vehicle Accessory sprue was in the old 3rd edition kits, while the 5th? 6th? Edition remake of the Chimaera and Russ didn't include it, but were technically new kits. The Basilisk continued however, since it used the new Chimaera hull and old basilisk gun platform, and would not have had a hull weapon without the upgrade kit's heavy flamer.
It also provides a single soldier, which could be used to put a crewman on the Basilisk platform. Prior to the Basilisk hybrid, the previous box was packaged with a Cadian heavy-weapons team crew for the crew. Both look a bit weird to be honest.
The accessory sprue doesn't fit the new vehicles so well, the hull profiles are slightly different. Serviceable but not ideal.
Depends on the change, and how many finished models it effects.
I still don't get what this is referring to.
Presumably it's about modern GW eschewing standardized base sizes in favor of using unregulated base sizes that fit a sculpt at least in the mind of whoever gets to decide on that at GW. Where in the past every infantryman would have been on a 25mm base, every cavalryman on a 25mm x 50mm base, and so forth, it's now not that simple anymore. Normal soldiers are on 25mm bases while physically identical command squad soldiers are on 28mm bases. In the Stormtrooper/Grenadier department, Scions are on 25mm bases and Kasrkin have bigger ones. Roughriders go on one size of oval base, Lord Horseyman needs a bigger one for his scenic base and/or ego.
It's not a rule per se, more like a guideline with how it's commonly taken that your models should have the base they came with or whatever the current equivalent comes with, but it can be annoying that range redos set new, varying and irregular standards when you have an army from a time when bases were far more regulated. It can make adding to your army annoying if you like your army to look uniform. Imperial Guard isn't the first army to suffer from this, but it bites every time it happens.
Presumably it's about modern GW eschewing standardized base sizes in favor of using unregulated base sizes that fit a sculpt at least in the mind of whoever gets to decide on that at GW. Where in the past every infantryman would have been on a 25mm base, every cavalryman on a 25mm x 50mm base, and so forth, it's now not that simple anymore. Normal soldiers are on 25mm bases while physically identical command squad soldiers are on 28mm bases. In the Stormtrooper/Grenadier department, Scions are on 25mm bases and Kasrkin have bigger ones. Roughriders go on one size of oval base, Lord Horseyman needs a bigger one for his scenic base and/or ego.
It's not a rule per se, more like a guideline with how it's commonly taken that your models should have the base they came with or whatever the current equivalent comes with, but it can be annoying that range redos set new, varying and irregular standards when you have an army from a time when bases were far more regulated. It can make adding to your army annoying if you like your army to look uniform. Imperial Guard isn't the first army to suffer from this, but it bites every time it happens.
It became as issue because tourneys started insisting on the current base sizes (previously it was what the model was sold with). You know, identical terrain, identical bases, etc...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dread Master wrote: That Creed model is hideous. Looks like a nanny impersonating an officer.
I do know several officers who would look like that in dress uniform with a big coat...
Yeah, we all know it comes down to how many they could fit in a box based on their various calculations of profit:plastic ratios and such. So many other things can be taken in 3's. Sentinels, heavy weapon teams, squadrons of leman russes... But this random thing? Nope. Because only 2 come in the box, and it would be silly to ask players to buy a second box to fit a 3rd in a unit and have another left over. We know this. GW knows this. You don't need to make a silly tongue-in-cheek 'wanna-meme' post about it.
Well even the 3 per squadron thing is an artifact of original vehicle boxes and is in stark contrast to actual militaries that like multiples of 4. (Which Epic amusingly went for because the suppression system doesn't work with squadrons of 3...)
Depends on the change, and how many finished models it effects.
I still don't get what this is referring to.
Presumably it's about modern GW eschewing standardized base sizes in favor of using unregulated base sizes that fit a sculpt at least in the mind of whoever gets to decide on that at GW. Where in the past every infantryman would have been on a 25mm base, every cavalryman on a 25mm x 50mm base, and so forth, it's now not that simple anymore. Normal soldiers are on 25mm bases while physically identical command squad soldiers are on 28mm bases. In the Stormtrooper/Grenadier department, Scions are on 25mm bases and Kasrkin have bigger ones. Roughriders go on one size of oval base, Lord Horseyman needs a bigger one for his scenic base and/or ego.
It's not a rule per se, more like a guideline with how it's commonly taken that your models should have the base they came with or whatever the current equivalent comes with, but it can be annoying that range redos set new, varying and irregular standards when you have an army from a time when bases were far more regulated. It can make adding to your army annoying if you like your army to look uniform. Imperial Guard isn't the first army to suffer from this, but it bites every time it happens.
I loathe the new base sizes.
Battle sisters are on 32mm
Except Repentia who are on 28mm
Ministorum models all ended up on 25mm whether they're old or new sculpts
Except the Blackstone Fortress not-Missionary/Preacher on 32mms
The Hospitaller has a 50mm
But Celestine only gets 40mm
Penitent Engines went down to 50mm, and match Paragons
Except for Vahl who has a 60mm
Andykp wrote: I thought it was quite amusing l little dig at people moaning on the internet about it. We all know why they did put two in the box, they know we all know, so let’s have a little fun with those upset by it.
It's not about why they put two in the box, it's about why they had to make the unit size a fixed two models, no more no less. No model no rules is a profoundly stupid and anti-customer design philosophy and GW's lame attempt at a meme defending it deserves every bit of mockery it gets.
Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? They never existed before so it's not a change to anyones list etc. I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?
Dread Master wrote: That Creed model is hideous. Looks like a nanny impersonating an officer.
GW could not provide a good paintjob for a face if their immortal souls depended on it.
All in all its great to see they did not jam a bionic eye on the face, an insane ponytail as bis as an actual horse tail, nor have a floating skull hovering about.
However, they should have an alternative left hand holding a cigar.
Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? They never existed before so it's not a change to anyones list etc. I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?
It's hardly the worst thing in the world, but it does kind of straight jacket fans. Maybe I scratch build 3 or them, maybe I have 1 of the old FWQ heavy mortars, maybe I only have the points for 1 in my army or maybe I have 4 and only 1 heavy support slot.
It would cost GW nothing to say Field Artillery 1-4 guns, but they didn't.
Dudeface wrote: Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?
Units of 3 and multiples of 3 has been a Guard thing for eons. Tanks come in squadrons of three. Heavy weapon squads come in threes. Sentinels come in threes. A Leman Russ company has 3 squadrons of 3 (+1 command tank). It's a thematic element that has remained fairly consistent for literal decades, and now these come in units of two. And they only come in units of two because they come two to a sprue. There is literally no other reason. You can't even bring units of 2-4 or some multiple. It's a fixed amount, specifically dictated by the sprue and the sprue alone.
And that's how it's an expression of "No model No Rule", because the rules are specifically limited by exactly what the kit is, with no room for expansion or even contraction (ie. units of 1 to 2).
And as the Kid said, GW would have lost nothing by allowing units of 1-4.
Dudeface wrote: Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?
Units of 3 and multiples of 3 has been a Guard thing for eons. Tanks come in squadrons of three. Heavy weapon squads come in threes. Sentinels come in threes. A Leman Russ company has 3 squadrons of 3 (+1 command tank). It's a thematic element that has remained fairly consistent for literal decades, and now these come in units of two. And they only come in units of two because they come two to a sprue. There is literally no other reason. You can't even bring units of 2-4 or some multiple. It's a fixed amount, specifically dictated by the sprue and the sprue alone.
And that's how it's an expression of "No model No Rule", because the rules are specifically limited by exactly what the kit is, with no room for expansion or even contraction (ie. units of 1 to 2).
And as the Kid said, GW would have lost nothing by allowing units of 1-4.
I don't disagree there's no reason they can't have done it but when the logic behind it is wanting things to be in 3's, would it have been better for those of you upset if they were sold in kits of 1 with as unit size of 1-3 with a slightly higher price per model (simply because that's how these things inevitably fall)?
Dudeface wrote: I don't disagree there's no reason they can't have done it but when the logic behind it is wanting things to be in 3's, would it have been better for those of you upset if they were sold in kits of 1 with as unit size of 1-3 with a slightly higher price per model (simply because that's how these things inevitably fall)?
That's, at best, a red herring. The fact remains that 2 as a fixed number is "No Model/No Rules", and sticks out like a sore thumb of total inconsistency with the Guard as a whole, and that's why people are annoyed about it.
Dudeface wrote: I don't disagree there's no reason they can't have done it but when the logic behind it is wanting things to be in 3's, would it have been better for those of you upset if they were sold in kits of 1 with as unit size of 1-3 with a slightly higher price per model (simply because that's how these things inevitably fall)?
That's, at best, a red herring. The fact remains that 2 as a fixed number is "No Model/No Rules", and sticks out like a sore thumb of total inconsistency with the Guard as a whole, and that's why people are annoyed about it.
You asked, we answered.
Well, it's "yes models, yes rules, arbitrary limitations applied", literally the only thing that made sense was that units of 1-4 are a weird absence. "I don't have enough points for the minimum unit" or "I don't have enough slots" is just a list building limitation you can apply to any unit. Likewise citing guard does things in 3's but asking for units of up to 4 isn't exactly super logical either.
But whatever, I've no horse in the race beyond being shot at by them occasionally, so feel free to carry on as you were. If you want a weirder limitation for the unit, the fact I can't take them as brood brothers is... interesting.
Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? They never existed before so it's not a change to anyones list etc. I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?
It's hardly the worst thing in the world, but it does kind of straight jacket fans. Maybe I scratch build 3 or them, maybe I have 1 of the old FWQ heavy mortars, maybe I only have the points for 1 in my army or maybe I have 4 and only 1 heavy support slot.
It would cost GW nothing to say Field Artillery 1-4 guns, but they didn't.
Can't all these arguments be used for everything that has a required number be taken? It could be argued that these big field guns are a lot less flexible than some other things that also also have their numbers fixed.
I would normally wouldn't be interested and therefore not comment on this type of stuff, but like Dudeface I was a bit confused and wondered why this is such a hardship...turns out it's Dakka things /Edit - but really I have no clue, forgive my sarcasm if this is a genuine issue.
Dudeface wrote: Likewise citing guard does things in 3's but asking for units of up to 4 isn't exactly super logical either.
You're missing the point.
1-4 is a concession or compromise made with the full knowledge that GW will only do things based around kits, so 1-4 would at least allow some level of flexibility within the confines of a kit that builds two platforms.
Dudeface wrote: Likewise citing guard does things in 3's but asking for units of up to 4 isn't exactly super logical either.
You're missing the point.
1-4 is a concession or compromise made with the full knowledge that GW will only do things based around kits, so 1-4 would at least allow some level of flexibility within the confines of a kit that builds two platforms.
I understand that entirely, I just thought you'd follow the issue through to the root which is the fact they're in 2s in the first place. 1-4 is a reasonable compromise given the current box, but if you want to be unhappy with what is currently, then go whole hog.
Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? They never existed before so it's not a change to anyones list etc. I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?
It's hardly the worst thing in the world, but it does kind of straight jacket fans. Maybe I scratch build 3 or them, maybe I have 1 of the old FWQ heavy mortars, maybe I only have the points for 1 in my army or maybe I have 4 and only 1 heavy support slot.
It would cost GW nothing to say Field Artillery 1-4 guns, but they didn't.
Can't all these arguments be used for everything that has a required number be taken? It could be argued that these big field guns are a lot less flexible than some other things that also also have their numbers fixed.
I would normally wouldn't be interested and therefore not comment on this type of stuff, but like Dudeface I was a bit confused and wondered why this is such a hardship...turns out it's Dakka things
Admittedly I'm spitballing here, but are there any other non-vehicle units in the game with a base size of 100mm and 3+ models? I wonder if the reason for the unit cap is because they wanted to prevent 'gamey' interactions like using these models to screen out objectives / terrain / deep strike with lots of large ~60pt bases.
At the end of the day it's in GW's interest to increase the unit size because then Guard players have a reason to buy more than six of these models.
Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? They never existed before so it's not a change to anyones list etc. I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?
It's hardly the worst thing in the world, but it does kind of straight jacket fans. Maybe I scratch build 3 or them, maybe I have 1 of the old FWQ heavy mortars, maybe I only have the points for 1 in my army or maybe I have 4 and only 1 heavy support slot.
It would cost GW nothing to say Field Artillery 1-4 guns, but they didn't.
If you scratch build 3 when thev are shown in 2's you took risk. Did we ever see pic with 3 of them?
It's little things, like taking jump packs away from chaos lords or limiting your options to what's exactly in the box, or now even limiting the number of models you can take to what's in the box (which we already saw with plague marines years ago) that are little expressions of GWs control over the game.
Ultimately, it doesn't really mean much when it comes to someone's collection. A person adamant enough to have field artillery in squads of 3 can do so, rules or GW's tongue-in-cheek 'lore' be damned.
On the tabletop, you cap out at 3 squads of 2 (as long as Rule of 3 is still a thing) and whether or not it meets some measure of balance or whatever is irrelevant, since balance changes every week.
But these little things are still frustrating to gamers and collectors because it takes away that little extra measure of freedom while GW continues to refuse to maintain consistency.
Obliterators are still 1-3, and GW only sells those in a combo-box with a Venomcrawler that was originally made for a mono-pose two-faction starter set.
But the modern new multi-part and multi-option plastic? Only 2. No more, no less.
Changing subject: Guard codex legal for tourney play after Jan 28th. This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it. $15+ for access to it per month. That's the punchline, our army was the joke. Sickening, I hope some of you avoid cucking yourself and buying it. This dismal release schedule should not be rewarded. Send the book back to the testers again and again because, I guess a guard bock is hard to design. Yet still they think it's worth something, don't support this crap please. Also the book is bare bones with really only 5-6 good unit choices. It is not going to be able to hold my attention for over a year with such an anemic collection of viable builds.
Gibblets wrote: Changing subject: Guard codex legal for tourney play after Jan 28th. This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it.
I'm assuming you're basing this on rumors of 10th edition. Is that at all confirmed for May 2023 or is this an assumption?
(That being said, yeah, I do not recommend buying the last book or two of an edition since they'll usually be the first book or two of the next edition, I still bought it, but he IG is MY army.)
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Is that at all confirmed for May 2023 or is this an assumption?
Nothing has been confirmed. And there has certainly been no confirmation that 10th (whenever it happens) will be an 8th edition style reset where all your codices are replaced on release day vs. the more conventional edition change where you keep your previous-edition codex until it gets its turn in the update cycle and the new guard codex will almost certainly be used for at least a year or two.
Gibblets wrote: Changing subject: Guard codex legal for tourney play after Jan 28th. This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it.
I'm assuming you're basing this on rumors of 10th edition. Is that at all confirmed for May 2023 or is this an assumption?
(That being said, yeah, I do not recommend buying the last book or two of an edition since they'll usually be the first book or two of the next edition, I still bought it, but he IG is MY army.)
There's no definite proof / leaks yet, but the word from several people associated with playtesting & accurate rules leaks is that 10th edition will come this summer, and be a continuation like 8th>9th was rather than a full reset.
New codexes will have significantly cut down rules similar to what we've seen about the upcoming World Eaters book, but current codexes will still be used in some fashion.
Edit: June is apparently the date for 10E. A recent WD article confirmed that there's a total of five Arks of Omen books .If those are released one per month in January - May that lines up.
There's nothing concrete anyone can point to about 10th, when, or if dexs will be carried across the threshold. However it has been my gut feeling with the way the game has been developing for over a year that we are fast approaching the re-start phase of WH40K. I'd love to be wrong, trust me I hope for good business practices. But all of the things I've heard GW say or seen them do since has only further convinced me this happening. As someone who got burned hard like most of us in the long wait of 5yrs from 5th. Only to get skunked at the surprise tail end of 6th where the book was largely neutered by the core rule changes of 7th the next month. Finally 8th came around and the field was level. It feels very 6th ed around here fellas. I'd love to be wrong, but I doubt it.
Gibblets wrote: Changing subject: Guard codex legal for tourney play after Jan 28th. This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it. $15+ for access to it per month. That's the punchline, our army was the joke. Sickening, I hope some of you avoid cucking yourself and buying it. This dismal release schedule should not be rewarded. Send the book back to the testers again and again because, I guess a guard bock is hard to design. Yet still they think it's worth something, don't support this crap please. Also the book is bare bones with really only 5-6 good unit choices. It is not going to be able to hold my attention for over a year with such an anemic collection of viable builds.
You planning to throw book to garbage bin when 10e comes?
Dunno. If I had IG army I would just keep using it. I know I'll be using my daemon/tson/sob codex Marine codex I have to replace as they are likely getting first codex anyway.
Sure not planning to bin army until new codex rolls out...Why wait when I can just keep playing it.
Gibblets wrote: Changing subject: Guard codex legal for tourney play after Jan 28th. This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it.
I'm assuming you're basing this on rumors of 10th edition. Is that at all confirmed for May 2023 or is this an assumption?
(That being said, yeah, I do not recommend buying the last book or two of an edition since they'll usually be the first book or two of the next edition, I still bought it, but he IG is MY army.)
Uuh no. First book or two in new edition are starter set armies and guess what? DG wasn't last army of 7th. Necrons wasn't last army of 8th. Chaos marines weren't last army of 5e...
This is rather niche but does anyone have any pics of how the new upgrades work with the Hostile Environment packs? All my guardsmen are in HE gear so wouldn't want to get the new ones if they're not compatible.
I certainly understand the feeling that we are approaching reboot time. Usually once GW switches focus from core armies to new armies (Legion of Voltron and World Eaters now, GS cults and Adepus Mech in 7th, heck Sisters and Assassins in 2nd) it means it's time for a refresh. Gotta sell everyone new books somehow right?
New ways to play like boarding actions are another sign that the edition is closing in on a full reboot.
But we can't say for certain the 9th edition IG book is worthless just yet...
Haver any of you people considered trying, idk, having *fun* with the game? Or if it's really so bad that you're incapable of doing so, why not just take up a different hobby? It must be awful devoting so much time and mental energy to something completely unnecessary that you're incessantly upset about.
Nazrak wrote: Haver any of you people considered trying, idk, having *fun* with the game?
I have, and thus I have increased the number of players who vowed to never play against me to 2. Tho the "The Imperial Guard can do that now? / What Imperial Guard? It is the Astra Militarium!" jokes will seemingly never get old, and I think this new 'dex was worth it just for that.
"You planning to throw book to garbage bin when 10e comes?
Dunno. If I had IG army I would just keep using it. I know I'll be using my daemon/tson/sob codex Marine codex I have to replace as they are likely getting first codex anyway.
Sure not planning to bin army until new codex rolls out...Why wait when I can just keep playing it."
Personally, I'm glad for you that you have a group that doesn't immediately latch onto w/e is just released for tourney hammer.
Once an edition change (reset rumors) happens there won't be a way to re-use this. So for me, I'm not getting it, that means my next 4-6 games until June wont be with Guard. But probably against lots of Guard though, so it's a break even. Frankly if I need to I could print it off and do some hole punching and whammo, 4 month codex. Which can sit in my stack of old guard books as the LOL of the bunch.
BlackoCatto wrote: Honestly I just decided to just not play all. Play a different game that I actually like.
I've a lot of respect for that, did you find it was a happier experience for you not being constantly annoyed/having a want to decry things? Do you feel your hobby interactions are more positive because you focus on what you enjoy instead etc?
With the repacking of all the Leman Russ varieties in on box, does thatean the box has two turret? One from the regular Russ and one from the Demolisher sprue?
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Lots of markings for OOP regiments. Dare we hope for some Necromunda style remakes?
Expect more Regiments to come.
Codex has art of redesigns of several(Steel Legion isn't a big redesign, but it has some interesting tidbits that make them doable almost with the Cadian Shock Troop kit) in there.
"You planning to throw book to garbage bin when 10e comes?
Dunno. If I had IG army I would just keep using it. I know I'll be using my daemon/tson/sob codex Marine codex I have to replace as they are likely getting first codex anyway.
Sure not planning to bin army until new codex rolls out...Why wait when I can just keep playing it."
Personally, I'm glad for you that you have a group that doesn't immediately latch onto w/e is just released for tourney hammer.
Once an edition change (reset rumors) happens there won't be a way to re-use this. So for me, I'm not getting it, that means my next 4-6 games until June wont be with Guard. But probably against lots of Guard though, so it's a break even. Frankly if I need to I could print it off and do some hole punching and whammo, 4 month codex. Which can sit in my stack of old guard books as the LOL of the bunch.
You use this book same as you used 8e book with 9e.
Reset is your assumption not based on gw's release patterns. Gw release style says odds are heavily in favour of non reset.
So as said. I will use 9e codexes in 10e. Even in tournaments
Not using it is your personal choice. Not required by rules.
Why is everyone acting like new edition = obsolete rulebook? It doesn't. The new guard codex will remain valid until its replaced by a newer guard codex. That could be in June... more likely that will be sometime in the 2024-2026 timeframe.
chaos0xomega wrote: Why is everyone acting like new edition = obsolete rulebook? It doesn't. The new guard codex will remain valid until its replaced by a newer guard codex. That could be in June... more likely that will be sometime in the 2024-2026 timeframe.
Initial rumours were 10th would be a complete reset again.
BlackoCatto wrote: Honestly I just decided to just not play all. Play a different game that I actually like.
I've a lot of respect for that, did you find it was a happier experience for you not being constantly annoyed/having a want to decry things? Do you feel your hobby interactions are more positive because you focus on what you enjoy instead etc?
Yes. Though I find the pool of players a lot smaller, I honestly enjoying playing most non GW games. Games like Oathmark and Bolt Action have been big for me, but I've also done Black Powder and Frostgrave to great degrees, even ran a campaign for the later. It's amazing how cheap these games can be in comparison as well, and able to get invested in multiple without too much issue.
Often as such, I end up being the ambassador, running odd demo games and the like.
chaos0xomega wrote: Why is everyone acting like new edition = obsolete rulebook? It doesn't. The new guard codex will remain valid until its replaced by a newer guard codex. That could be in June... more likely that will be sometime in the 2024-2026 timeframe.
Initial rumours were 10th would be a complete reset again.
A new Edition will make the new book, regardless, typically obsolete. Case in point the 8th Edition Guard Codex into 9th, in which the Mordian Regimental trait that allowed for a 5+ Overwatch now was only useable through a using a Command Point, and only once in a turn. Such was never fixed and Mordian remained the worst Regiment choice in the game to pick.
There are Scorpion markings on that transfer sheet... hmm...
Dudeface wrote: I've a lot of respect for that, did you find it was a happier experience for you not being constantly annoyed/having a want to decry things? Do you feel your hobby interactions are more positive because you focus on what you enjoy instead etc?
Nothing is that black and white or all-consuming.
This awful new Guard Codex kills my interest in the Guard, not 40k.
H.B.M.C. wrote: There are Scorpion markings on that transfer sheet... hmm...
Dudeface wrote: I've a lot of respect for that, did you find it was a happier experience for you not being constantly annoyed/having a want to decry things? Do you feel your hobby interactions are more positive because you focus on what you enjoy instead etc?
Nothing is that black and white or all-consuming.
This awful new Guard Codex kills my interest in the Guard, not 40k.
I think those are meant to be Tallarn symbols, maybe?
Haighus wrote: I think those are meant to be Tallarn symbols, maybe?
Desert scorpions?
Either way, I'm interested because my Knights are all based on Mortal Kombat characters, and, well, no prizes for guessing who I'm basing the one with the giant harpoon on.
Sure, I could get custom decals made, but still, it's nice to know these things exist should they be required.
Haighus wrote: I think those are meant to be Tallarn symbols, maybe?
Desert scorpions?
Either way, I'm interested because my Knights are all based on Mortal Kombat characters, and, well, no prizes for guessing who I'm basing the one with the giant harpoon on.
Sure, I could get custom decals made, but still, it's nice to know these things exist should they be required.
That was my thought, but I'm not well versed in Tallarn lore. The probably-Valhallan symbol (bear with crossed axes) I think is new, but matches old artwork of Valhallan standards with bear symbology. It would make sense for the scorpion tail to be Tallarn, the positioning near the Tallarn text supports this.
Looking again, the regiments appear grouped. The white is difficult to make out, but I think we have Cadian, Catachan, Valhallan, Armageddon (basically invisible in that photo except the red lightning bolt), Vostroyan, Krieg, and Tallarn.
If you tend to play smaller games, a variety can pay off. But if more standard games are your jam, some level of specialising can be desirable.
Also depends what else you’re fielding in your force. If you’ve tanks armed for anti-armour, having Lascannons in your Heavy squads may quickly become redundant.
Kanluwen wrote: Those of us with the codex can confirm the scorpion for Tallarn. They show them in the book, alongside a great redesign.
The what now?
There's been some discussion about the scorpion stinger on the transfer sheet from eBay.
It's Tallarn. The Cadia Stands codex(which is, y'know, just the normal dex early) has artwork showcasing the new Tallarn design, accompanied by a scorpion tail.
A while back I lobbied for a Necromunda-style redesign of the IG.
1 sprue per regiment. The sprue has 2 builds: normal squad (sgt, riflemen, heavy and special weapon) and a custom vet unit for that regiment (ie Catachan Devils, Tallarn sappers, Valhallan snipers, Steel Legion trench raiders). + a generic special and heavy weapons sprue.
It wouldn't require more sprue space than Necromunda and I'm pretty sure a 1 sprue set of Tallarn Desert Raiders would sell more than Van Saar Sky Surfers or whatever.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: A while back I lobbied for a Necromunda-style redesign of the IG.
1 sprue per regiment. The sprue has 2 builds: normal squad (sgt, riflemen, heavy and special weapon) and a custom vet unit for that regiment (ie Catachan Devils, Tallarn sappers, Valhallan snipers, Steel Legion trench raiders). + a generic special and heavy weapons sprue.
It wouldn't require more sprue space than Necromunda and I'm pretty sure a 1 sprue set of Tallarn Desert Raiders would sell more than Van Saar Sky Surfers or whatever.
Maybe it's coming?
I hoped for this back in 5th edition with the regiment images in the BRB. So far, we only got Krieg over a decade later...
If you tend to play smaller games, a variety can pay off. But if more standard games are your jam, some level of specialising can be desirable.
Also depends what else you’re fielding in your force. If you’ve tanks armed for anti-armour, having Lascannons in your Heavy squads may quickly become redundant.
Thanks - just starting out with the box set so will be small games - will go for a mix - rule of cool
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The sprue has 2 builds: normal squad (sgt, riflemen, heavy and special weapon) and a custom vet unit for that regiment (ie Catachan Devils, Tallarn sappers, Valhallan snipers, Steel Legion trench raiders)
Well, as per the new 'dex these two are one because the custom "vet" unit IS the normal squad. So I guess they can just make one semi-extra box for each regiment like the Death Korps Veterans, slap in a datasheet for a Special Snowflake Not!Infantry Squad, and call it a day.
The AI that works all of that out is going to go Skynet on us...
EDIT: There must be another, unpictured sprue - there's stuff missing from that one.
If you add a Shock Troops box, I wonder what you can build - 3x missile launcher, mortar and one of the others?
6 sets of legs, 3 Mortars, 3 Autocannons, 3 Lascannons, 3 Heavy Bolters... I've stopped counting. Everything seems to be there in the 2 Spur Heavy Weapons Team. Way more complex than the old ones.
I'm probably starting to sound old or something but to the Aussies on here... Is anyone else shocked or surprised at the pricing today?
The Astra Militarum units just seem pretty high to me, compared to previous costs. I expected things to go up but looking at other armies etc I'm just a bit confused. That Leontus is $98, Creed is $77, Rogal Dorn battle tank is $150 when for $30 more you can get a Baneblade for $180. The field ordnance is $90.
For an army that traditionally used lots of figures it seems a pretty high $ cost. $84 for an infantry unit of 10 figures.
Given that I don't think we've seen a single image of that tank on a base - and that the Baneblade image doesn't say base - and I'm going to go with that usage (and the measurement itself) being a mistake.
Remember when GW claimed a 4 foot Squat translates to 1.4m in height? How a new Squat is totally in scale with a Primaris if you photoshop them so the bases aren't on the same level? Remember how GW hires for attitude, not skill?
Come on. They're just bad at this. That's all the explanation that's needed.
I expected to start my Saturday morning with stahly review of new kits and I was not disappointed
The difficult question still remains, whether to invest into new Astra Militarum army or not. The modelling options are tempting and I haven't started any Wh40k armies this year
Dysartes wrote: Can you confirm the width of the Rogal Dorn, stahly?
Sorry, I haven't got it assembled yet. I can just confirm that the underside is open, so you can look all the way inside the model when you turn it upside-down
Weird is a polite way of putting it, but not really applicable here. It's quite logical. GW wants an embiggened tank but doesn't want to cut more molds for it. GW sprues these days are packed and a denser parts layout isn't practical. So how do you get a bigger model on the sprues without exceeding the accounting approved number of sprues for a kit of that size? You leave out parts. Usually that's weapon or customization options, but in the case of a tank the bottom hull plate is so large that dropping half the weapon options may still not make enough room. So something that is reasoned as not being visible anyway gets dropped instead.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That way they can pass the savings onto the customers.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment...
It's clearly because they hate Aussies so much: they want to provide nooks and crannies where venomous spiders can lurk and bite the unaware Guard players
Dysartes wrote: Can you confirm the width of the Rogal Dorn, stahly?
Sorry, I haven't got it assembled yet. I can just confirm that the underside is open, so you can look all the way inside the model when you turn it upside-down
Dysartes wrote: Can you confirm the width of the Rogal Dorn, stahly?
Sorry, I haven't got it assembled yet. I can just confirm that the underside is open, so you can look all the way inside the model when you turn it upside-down
No fookin' way .
I mean, why not if it saves another sprue? It would not be visible in normal circumstances, and even if it were, it would be a mostly featureless armour plate anyway. If that plate ultimately costs 15$, good for them to leave it out You can always glue a square of plastic card in there for a few cents without looking much worse than the 'proper' piece would have looked.
necrontyrOG wrote: How are there more Tanith transfers than Mordian? One planet still exists and actually used vehicles...
Novel series that makes them massively popular and actual models in the Guard range perhaps?
I would agree for an infantry transfer sheet, but this is a vehicle one. The Tanith 1st are famously light infantry (defined by its lack of any vehicles, including Chimeras) and have no need for vehicle transfers. Likewise, there are no current Mordian infantry models, but painting a tank in Mordian colours is easy.
Maybe they should have provided Narmenian transfers on the tank decal sheet.
necrontyrOG wrote: How are there more Tanith transfers than Mordian? One planet still exists and actually used vehicles...
Novel series that makes them massively popular and actual models in the Guard range perhaps?
I would agree for an infantry transfer sheet, but this is a vehicle one. The Tanith 1st are famously light infantry (defined by its lack of any vehicles, including Chimeras) and have no need for vehicle transfers. Likewise, there are no current Mordian infantry models, but painting a tank in Mordian colours is easy.
Maybe they should have provided Narmenian transfers on the tank decal sheet.
The design process for this transfer sheet probably amounted to ''Stick as many trademarked terms on there as possible if you have any space left over'', i would not lose sleep over it.
necrontyrOG wrote: How are there more Tanith transfers than Mordian? One planet still exists and actually used vehicles...
Novel series that makes them massively popular and actual models in the Guard range perhaps?
I would agree for an infantry transfer sheet, but this is a vehicle one. The Tanith 1st are famously light infantry (defined by its lack of any vehicles, including Chimeras) and have no need for vehicle transfers. Likewise, there are no current Mordian infantry models, but painting a tank in Mordian colours is easy.
Maybe they should have provided Narmenian transfers on the tank decal sheet.
The design process for this transfer sheet probably amounted to ''Stick as many trademarked terms on there as possible if you have any space left over'', i would not lose sleep over it.
Agree on that! I would be salty about having a single Armageddon transfer for the world known for building tanks, but I have so many old sheets it will never be an issue for me personally.
necrontyrOG wrote: How are there more Tanith transfers than Mordian? One planet still exists and actually used vehicles...
Novel series that makes them massively popular and actual models in the Guard range perhaps?
I would agree for an infantry transfer sheet, but this is a vehicle one. The Tanith 1st are famously light infantry (defined by its lack of any vehicles, including Chimeras) and have no need for vehicle transfers.
So are the Catachans and yet... right there on the sheet.
Maybe they should have provided Narmenian transfers on the tank decal sheet.
Or they put a single Tanith bit on there so players could do what they want, given the codex suggests that the Tanith have been absorbing regiments they've worked with?
I see no qualms with, say, Tanith Sentinels becoming a thing.
Likewise, there are no current Mordian infantry models, but painting a tank in Mordian colours is easy.
False equivalence. Mordian infantry would get their own transfer sheet, like DKoK and Cadians each have.
Just to point out that the Tanith 1st was formed as a Light Infantry Regiment but that was around about 765.M41. By 999.M41 it's entirely reasonable to say that with both Verghast and Belladon providing more troops to the Tanith Regiment that they no longer exclusively field recon and infiltration soldiers. The founders would be long dead but the Regiment would keep on going, especially as it had reached such a famous and respected position within the Sabbat Crusade.
Despite the wall of text below, I really don't care about the Tanith transfers much. It is mainly annoying from an opportunity cost perspective- something more likely to be used could have gone there instead (like some of the removed campaign/army badges).
necrontyrOG wrote: How are there more Tanith transfers than Mordian? One planet still exists and actually used vehicles...
Novel series that makes them massively popular and actual models in the Guard range perhaps?
I would agree for an infantry transfer sheet, but this is a vehicle one. The Tanith 1st are famously light infantry (defined by its lack of any vehicles, including Chimeras) and have no need for vehicle transfers.
So are the Catachans and yet... right there on the sheet.
You know that isn't the same- there are at least a thousand and fourteen Catachan regiments and many are full armoured regiments, they don't just produce light-infantry jungle fighters. The tank kits even include Catachan crew parts.
There is a single regiment of Tanith light infantry, and no more will ever be raised as the planet is destroyed and does not have the reputation or numbers of a world like Cadia.
Maybe they should have provided Narmenian transfers on the tank decal sheet.
Or they put a single Tanith bit on there so players could do what they want, given the codex suggests that the Tanith have been absorbing regiments they've worked with?
I see no qualms with, say, Tanith Sentinels becoming a thing.
Sentinels are a fair point, not sure if that transfer is small enough for them though.
Likewise, there are no current Mordian infantry models, but painting a tank in Mordian colours is easy.
False equivalence. Mordian infantry would get their own transfer sheet, like DKoK and Cadians each have.
It isn't a false equivalence- the argument was that Tanith have models and Mordian don't, therefore Tanith transfers are more justified than Mordian ones. Except Mordian armoured do have models in the existing tank range, and Tanith vehicles currently are not a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: Just to point out that the Tanith 1st was formed as a Light Infantry Regiment but that was around about 765.M41. By 999.M41 it's entirely reasonable to say that with both Verghast and Belladon providing more troops to the Tanith Regiment that they no longer exclusively field recon and infiltration soldiers. The founders would be long dead but the Regiment would keep on going, especially as it had reached such a famous and respected position within the Sabbat Crusade.
Light infantry in Imperial terms just means an absence of vehicles (I think excluding Sentinels). They don't necessarily have an infiltration specialisation. The Cadian 8th, for example, is standard infantry because it has a number of Chimeras that can be used to mechanise some of the infantry, but not enough for the whole regiment.
Valhalla has been known to raise massive light infantry regiments 130000 strong- I highly doubt these are all infiltration specialists.
So the Tanith could absorb new troops and easily remain light infantry if it is issued no vehicles.
Haighus wrote: Light infantry in Imperial terms just means an absence of vehicles (I think excluding Sentinels).
The new codex does have a whole paragraph-long description of Light Infantry Regiments and it actually mentions that these regiments can be mechanized and contain tanks, it just doesn't happen often.
Haighus wrote: Light infantry in Imperial terms just means an absence of vehicles (I think excluding Sentinels).
The new codex does have a whole paragraph-long description of Light Infantry Regiments and it actually mentions that these regiments can be mechanized and contain tanks, it just doesn't happen often.
Fair enough, new lore has changed.
In the past, those would have just been infantry regiments, although they could have been infantry regiments with light infantry companies (like the Tallarn regiments deployed to Taros- the infantry companies had no vehicles and were designated light, but the regiment as a whole had a small proportion of integral armour and artillery companies, so the whole regiment was just listed as infantry).
Haighus wrote: Light infantry in Imperial terms just means an absence of vehicles (I think excluding Sentinels).
The new codex does have a whole paragraph-long description of Light Infantry Regiments and it actually mentions that these regiments can be mechanized and contain tanks, it just doesn't happen often.
They'd need stuff like trucks, limbers, staff cars or jeeps, carriages and other such small, usually non-represented stuff anyway, some players like to have a couple of these as objective markers or terrain pieces.
Haighus wrote: Light infantry in Imperial terms just means an absence of vehicles (I think excluding Sentinels). They don't necessarily have an infiltration specialisation. The Cadian 8th, for example, is standard infantry because it has a number of Chimeras that can be used to mechanise some of the infantry, but not enough for the whole regiment.
Valhalla has been known to raise massive light infantry regiments 130000 strong- I highly doubt these are all infiltration specialists.
So the Tanith could absorb new troops and easily remain light infantry if it is issued no vehicles.
You're missing my point entirely here. Just because the Tanith 1st was founded as a Light Infantry Regiment, does not mean that the Tanith 2nd, 3rd, or even 40th are going to stick to the same tactics and equipment.
We don't have any info on what happened to the Tanith Regiment after the Sabbat Worlds Crusade beyond Gaunt being an Imperial hero in the same vein as Yarrick, Macharius, or Creed.
All I'm saying is that with 300 years of losses, replacements, and new Regiments raised from the two new worlds the Tanith gained reinforcements from, it's reasonable for there to be vehicle elements of the Regiment by Current-Year.M41.
Haighus wrote: Light infantry in Imperial terms just means an absence of vehicles (I think excluding Sentinels).
The new codex does have a whole paragraph-long description of Light Infantry Regiments and it actually mentions that these regiments can be mechanized and contain tanks, it just doesn't happen often.
They'd need stuff like trucks, limbers, staff cars or jeeps, carriages and other such small, usually non-represented stuff anyway, some players like to have a couple of these as objective markers or terrain pieces.
The codex mentions tank companies being included in Light Infantry Regiments. So slapping a Tanith sticker on a Leman Russ is legit.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Why on earth has it got no bottom? Has that been the case with any other vehicles in recent memory? Such an odd and as Kyoto says, cheap, decision.
One can only imagine the reasons. I'm sure the marketing team is working now to make it sound like a customer-friendly bonus.
$35 accessory sprue consisting of a hull plate and 2 jerry cans?
$50 resin hull plates with custom regiment insignia?
Regimenal Standard article explaining that true sons of the Emperor fear no attacks from below?
How often do you actually look at the bottom of a russ or predator or baneblade? Big flat panels take up a lot of sprue space. Some kits do need a bottom, especially with interiors, but for a big tank like this, I can live without a big piece of flat plastic I will never look at.
Back when we left wrecked tanks on the table I’d flip over rhinos that were destroyed. Now that everything is just removed, less of a need for bottom details. I can’t say I’m happy about this trend, but if it saves a sprue and bumping the kit up a few price brackets, I can see the point.
Heaven forbid that the multi-million pound corporate behemoth should spend a couple of extra pence on an extra sprue per £55 (!) kit to give the model an underside...
jullevi wrote: If I buy Rogal Dorn from GW Australia, is it missing top or bottom?
Either way it'll be a $100 extra
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Damocles wrote: Heaven forbid that the multi-million pound corporate behemoth should spend a couple of extra pence on an extra sprue per £55 (!) kit to give the model an underside...
In all my years these are literally the only kits I bought that left off the hull.
So basically GW is keeping company with Bronekorpus now.
Nevelon wrote: Back when we left wrecked tanks on the table I’d flip over rhinos that were destroyed. Now that everything is just removed, less of a need for bottom details. I can’t say I’m happy about this trend, but if it saves a sprue and bumping the kit up a few price brackets, I can see the point.
Maybe it’s a sign to make Burny smoky effects which sit in the inevitable void?
Not the inevitable void of my soul. That already has Burny smoky effects.
Lord Damocles wrote: Heaven forbid that the multi-million pound corporate behemoth should spend a couple of extra pence on an extra sprue per £55 (!) kit to give the model an underside...
The nominal cost of the raw material for the extra sprue might be pennies but designing, engineering and cutting an additional steel tool costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, plus the opportunity cost of the machine producing that sprue not producing something else (which might be a whole other kit), plus extra handling time during packing and so on. Games Workshop operates to a high gross margin; they're not going to throw an extra sprue in without increasing the cost, likely to £70 or £75. People seemed pleasantly surprised at the price of the Rogal Dorn; omitting the bottom of the tank because of lack of space on the allotted number of sprues is the flip side of that.
Lord Damocles wrote: Heaven forbid that the multi-million pound corporate behemoth should spend a couple of extra pence on an extra sprue per £55 (!) kit to give the model an underside...
The nominal cost of the raw material for the extra sprue might be pennies but designing, engineering and cutting an additional steel tool costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, plus the opportunity cost of the machine producing that sprue not producing something else (which might be a whole other kit), plus extra handling time during packing and so on. Games Workshop operates to a high gross margin; they're not going to throw an extra sprue in without increasing the cost, likely to £70 or £75. People seemed pleasantly surprised at the price of the Rogal Dorn; omitting the bottom of the tank because of lack of space on the allotted number of sprues is the flip side of that.
Hundreds of 1000s of pounds? I know inflation is up and all but even back in the day people didn't claim it cost that much to machine a sprue.
Lord Damocles wrote: Heaven forbid that the multi-million pound corporate behemoth should spend a couple of extra pence on an extra sprue per £55 (!) kit to give the model an underside...
The nominal cost of the raw material for the extra sprue might be pennies but designing, engineering and cutting an additional steel tool costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, plus the opportunity cost of the machine producing that sprue not producing something else (which might be a whole other kit), plus extra handling time during packing and so on. Games Workshop operates to a high gross margin; they're not going to throw an extra sprue in without increasing the cost, likely to £70 or £75. People seemed pleasantly surprised at the price of the Rogal Dorn; omitting the bottom of the tank because of lack of space on the allotted number of sprues is the flip side of that.
Hundreds of 1000s of pounds? I know inflation is up and all but even back in the day people didn't claim it cost that much to machine a sprue.
Yeah, that should have said tens – sorry, brainfart; I was mentally flitting between that and the following point about opportunity cost, which might well be hundreds of thousands of pounds over the lifetime of the kit. Fair point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Damocles wrote: GW machines dozens or hundreds of new steel moulds every year. It's really not the great hurdle people make it out to be.
But that sprue for the bottom of the tank is a whole other kit they didn't make, hence the opportunity cost.
Mr_Rose wrote: Have any reviewers shared photos of the underside of the completed kit? I kinda want to know what sort of size gap we’re talking about here.
Mr_Rose wrote: Have any reviewers shared photos of the underside of the completed kit? I kinda want to know what sort of size gap we’re talking about here.
Mr_Rose wrote: Have any reviewers shared photos of the underside of the completed kit? I kinda want to know what sort of size gap we’re talking about here.
I would say it's pretty bad.
Honest question: why? It looks like it's a square-ish hole, way beyond where it would be visible in normal gaming of even diorama use. If it bothers you, it's fixable by cutting a square of cardboard or plasticard and glueing it in. If that saved another 10$ or whatever from the box including one more sprue, that's a pretty good deal. I understand that it looks cheap and is something you can easily make fun of, but i totally fail to see any actual problem or issue. If you can assemble the model you also have the skill to cut a square out of any random material you have in your stash.
Great sprues for the Astra Militarum fans. I particularly like the foot soldiers and sentinel but still would rather get Kasrkin from Killteam whenever thats available? to fill my need of a few starship troopers or aliens colonial marines.
Regarding the bottom of the tank, I'm really not much of a vehicle fan but kind of OCD with that sort of thing, I would probably build one from plasticard since to me that feels like an incomplete and unfinished model kit.
Saves money? Well this is the Ferrari of model kits right? Best in the world correct?
NAVARRO wrote: Great sprues for the Astra Militarum fans. I particularly like the foot soldiers and sentinel but still would rather get Kasrkin from Killteam whenever thats available? to fill my need of a few starship troopers or aliens colonial marines.
Regarding the bottom of the tank, I'm really not much of a vehicle fan but kind of OCD with that sort of thing, I would probably build one from plasticard since to me that feels like an incomplete and unfinished model kit.
Saves money? Well this is the Ferrari of model kits right? Best in the world correct?
Back when the prices for this batch of stuff were announced, a couple of people mentioned that the Dorn was cheaper than they feared. If compromises like this are the price for this i think a majority of players would take that deal
Regarding the Ferrari: i remember having a Revell kit for some airplane where you had, per the instructions, have to cut of a piece of sprue, melt it with a lighter, and use the resulting molten plastic to weld on some sort of gubbin' - it's only fun if it's highly carcinogenic
NAVARRO wrote: Great sprues for the Astra Militarum fans. I particularly like the foot soldiers and sentinel but still would rather get Kasrkin from Killteam whenever thats available? to fill my need of a few starship troopers or aliens colonial marines.
Regarding the bottom of the tank, I'm really not much of a vehicle fan but kind of OCD with that sort of thing, I would probably build one from plasticard since to me that feels like an incomplete and unfinished model kit.
Saves money? Well this is the Ferrari of model kits right? Best in the world correct?
Back when the prices for this batch of stuff were announced, a couple of people mentioned that the Dorn was cheaper than they feared. If compromises like this are the price for this i think a majority of players would take that deal
Regarding the Ferrari: i remember having a Revell kit for some airplane where you had, per the instructions, have to cut of a piece of sprue, melt it with a lighter, and use the resulting molten plastic to weld on some sort of gubbin' - it's only fun if it's highly carcinogenic
I have nightmares of the airplanes I destroyed back then when I was a noob and did not wait for the glue to dry. But instructions to melt the sprues now thats something! I have had some tamiya kits and man, those are some clever and top class vehicle sprues. GW is a hit and miss regarding vehicles IMO. A shame they missed that square in the bottom but easy enough fix if it bothers you. Would drive me nuts not to have it
caladancid wrote: It is strange to see people defending the cheap decision to leave the bottom open.
GW charges premium prices...you should expect premium product.
Gonna depend entirely upon how solid the kit is.
I’m not defending it as a new status quo, but if the kit remains solid and durable without a part no one is ever going to see, I can’t say it would bother me.
This also extends to the building of the kit. A baseplate/bottom can help an otherwise wobbly kit really come together during assembly. But with the right design, I can see why it’s not a necessity.
caladancid wrote: It is strange to see people defending the cheap decision to leave the bottom open.
GW charges premium prices...you should expect premium product.
Ummm...so you would prefer no hole but higher price?
That sure is the only possible alternative.
You should be GRATEFUL you even get most of a kit for your money! GW are charitable enough not to sell you 1/4 of one in a lucky-dip box, you entitled swine!
I think most of the replies are offering context rather than defending GW, aren't they? I think the prices are often too high and frequently higher than I'm personally willing to pay. We can all think GW should be more generous but that's just wishlisting. Take your pick between that and 'defending' GW.
It makes sense actually, you can imagine someone looking at the sprue layouts and saying, “what’s that big flat but there taking up quarter of a sprue?”
“It’s the bottom of the tank”
“Can you even see that?”
“Nah”
“Then why bother?”
“Donno, just always had it”
“We could for more guns on the sprue with out it!”
That bottom is the most ghetto garage kit behavior. I don't enjoy paying a premium price for that type of kit. This is not the late 80's early 90's get your fecal matter together GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Side note. Using a hot screw driver to melt plastic was the norm for connecting the tracks on Tamiya tank kits and making functional hatches back in the day
Mr_Rose wrote: Have any reviewers shared photos of the underside of the completed kit? I kinda want to know what sort of size gap we’re talking about here.
Spoiler:
I would say it's pretty bad.
lol, you people losing your nonsense over this when there's been a bunch of kits over the past decade doing similar things but no complaints to be heard.
Mr_Rose wrote: Have any reviewers shared photos of the underside of the completed kit? I kinda want to know what sort of size gap we’re talking about here.
Spoiler:
I would say it's pretty bad.
lol, you people losing your nonsense over this when there's been a bunch of kits over the past decade doing similar things but no complaints to be heard.
Which other vehicles don't have bottoms?
Asking so that I can be disdainful of them as well.
caladancid wrote: It is strange to see people defending the cheap decision to leave the bottom open.
GW charges premium prices...you should expect premium product.
Ummm...so you would prefer no hole but higher price?
That sure is the only possible alternative.
Yes. GW is going to require a certain profit margin on any kit they sell. Adding a sprue, even a half sprue to get that bottom plate is going to cost more money. There is the mold, the production, the transportation, and the packaging that would all cost extra money. GW isn't going to give you all that for free.
Andykp wrote: It makes sense actually, you can imagine someone looking at the sprue layouts and saying, “what’s that big flat but there taking up quarter of a sprue?”
“It’s the bottom of the tank”
“Can you even see that?”
“Nah”
“Then why bother?”
“Donno, just always had it”
“We could for more guns on the sprue with out it!”
Tea and biscuits all round.
Again all about the build and final model.
If it’s solid without during build and after completion? I agree no harm done. But, if the end result is structurally weak as a result of its absence? Quite the opposite.
But those calling a tank model with a bottom plate you never see an ‘incomplete piece of plastic’ need to belt up. If it’s the former of the above.
These entitled 'gamers' (yuck!) expecting a full product should be ashamed. The hard working staff at GW took all the time, effort and expense(um hello they're a BUSINESS) to cut corners so we can buy their product at less cost to them and STILL people are whining!
I hope GW only sell us half the tracks, less weapon options and zero crew next time so that my favorite company make even more money. You can just cover it with Stirland Battlemire(tm) anyway if that's not good enough for you (none of that icky Vallejo garbage though, keep anything not from GW away from my table thank you very much!). Imagine how much plastic and money they'll save from only having flat, detailess tracks. The possibilities for this new, exciting, eco friendlier technique are endless, why I hope they sell us only half of an entire kit so I get double the dopamine hits buying two boxes!
Thank you GW! I hope you keep finding new, innovative ways to show the greedy gamers who is boss.
And the point is that at such a high price Games Workshop charges for their models, you'd expect them to put in the extra effort to actually make their model tank look like a miniaturized version of a full-sized tank from every possible angle.
This would be commonly considered literally unacceptable from something like Italeri or Tamiya.
It's a game piece, but it is also a very explictly premium model kit sold by a very explictly premium model company that usually produces stuff with a quality matching the price.
One can imagine why obvious corner cutting in such a scenario would be irritating to certain people.
This doesn't ruin the model for me, but I would still like the model better if it wasn't the case and as such I'm not going to buy it.
But otherwise has all the guns and gubbins it should have in the game.
Please. Explain how that’s not a complete kit?
Of what?
Of the fictional Roman Dorn Battle Tank, which, presumably, does not possess a gaping hole in the middle of its underside through which the crew comically falls out of.
@ Grotsnik It's not a complete kit because it's physically not complete. There's a big hole in the tank. It doesn't matter that you can't see the big hole during average game situations. It still has a big hole in it.
And some of us like to regard our toys as more than just gaming pieces - in which case having a big hole in the tank is more obvious.
Hmm yes this is very clearly a respectful discussion being conducted in good faith and backed with arguments instead of simply exaggerately mocking everyone that disagrees with you.
I understand that some of you might not be bothered by the lack of a bottom plate, but in my case at the same price level of that kit I can find (and have) garage kits with fully built interiors that you can only see through natches, or window slits.
To be honest if this came from a lesser known brand it wouldn't bother me as much, but as some already said GW prides itself as the Porche of miniatures so this seems doubly cheap.
RomanHockeyAlligator wrote: Hmm yes this is very clearly a respectful discussion being conducted in good faith and backed with arguments instead of simply exaggerately mocking everyone that disagrees with you.
I see you're new to Dakka Dakka, welcome!
Spoiler:
there very few good faith discussions here, primarily it's folks desperate for something, anything to be outraged at
Miguelsan wrote: I understand that some of you might not be bothered by the lack of a bottom plate, but in my case at the same price level of that kit I can find (and have) garage kits with fully built interiors that you can only see through natches, or window slits.
To be honest if this came from a lesser known brand it wouldn't bother me as much, but as some already said GW prides itself as the Porche of miniatures so this seems doubly cheap.
I think that's the disconnect here though. GW have never marketed themselves as competing with scale model kits that focus on perfect accuracy. Warhammer is essentially comic book minatures - display pieces with most aspects exaggerated and dialled up to eleven. When they release a tank from the "drive closer so I can hit them with my sword" faction, it's not surprising that they focused on adding extra customisation that people can see over details that 99% won't.
xttz wrote: When they release a tank from the "drive closer so I can hit them with my sword" faction, it's not surprising that they focused on adding extra customisation that people can see over details that 99% won't.
Yet this is the first time that they've done it...
Sorry to say but arguments are a bit skewed, I mean you may not mind it and thats fine, some do and thats fine too.
But claims like
"this is a gaming piece"
Its also a display modelling piece for many... but even if it was just a gaming piece a big hole on the bottom will make the integrity of the body box less sturdy than a closed one, so again you want your gaming tokens to be battle strong and less fragile.
"GW does not compete with model scale kits and its comic book style"
Why not? High quality plastic injection is abundant there and share sprues technologies etc...competing with mom and pop resin shed vehicles is not competition... Besides comic book vs accurate designs is an aesthetic design choice not what we are talking about here, which is complete sprues and plastic kits.
"You like to make drama! Its just a large hole on the bottom of the vehicle but you got all the weapons" Well a £50 kit should have all the weapons and IMO should also have the bottom. Just because GW is legendary dodgy when supplying all the weapons on other kits does not mean its acceptable... but neither is a hole
"you need to increase the kit price by a lot to add that sprue, GW is not going to give it for free"
Well I dont know the exact profit margins here but I know its a £50 kit... Could they still have a big margin and adding the bottom wall? Probably? Its luxury brand so expect luxury silly prices... but also expect quality product which is hole proof.
GW finances are in good health no? No need for this then. Its just diluting the Ferrari reputation man
Going back yes it's an easy fix, not a problem anyone can do that, I would 100% do it... thing is IMO no one should need to be fixing large holes on a £50 Kit in GW 2023.
bad move for the brand.
It's depressing that the same people as always are once again mocking anyone who has the temerity to criticise this decision, even mocking some of our calmest and most logical people (like Miguelsan), who pretty clearly spell out the reasons why cutting corners when asking such a high price could perhaps just maybe leave a sour taste in someone's mouth.
"Turns out my Titan doesn't really have a reactor in it! LOLZ!"
I mean I don't really care - one of my earliest 40k memories is looking on the underside of a tank in a GW store and seeing that someone had painted "Why are you even looking here?" onto it. It made me laugh, so I don't care if the new tank doesn't have a bottom or not. Many years later I would paint "Why look here?" on the underside of my first Russ.
But I sympathise with those that see it as incomplete given the utterly absurd price GW are asking (not as absurd as Creed and Lord Horseyman), and I'm not about to mock them for saying so just because it doesn't matter to me personally.
The only big gripe I have when it comes to the model is that is now makes things like trench rails etc even more difficult to fit, Which was already a problem with the exhaust placement on the tank.
Otherwise, I have no gripes with the model having a gap.
GW's justification for this would be interesting to know. If it is because it wouldn't fit on 3x sprues, they perceived it wasn't needed on the model as it was sturdy enough without... Or, GW are cutting costs, which I wouldn't be surprised by, but also how much cost would they be saving?
big hole in bottom of tank? Looks like a job for plasticard!
But yeah, it's very clearly to save room on the sprue for more important details, like 15 more heavy stubbers.
From the days of yore, when you would flip vehicles over to show they had been wrecked, I can see this being a big no-no, but with how many sticky-outy bits there are on this tank, I wouldn't dare flip it upside down.
I prefer showing wrecks by using cotton puffs sprayed with a bit of black primer.
I find it amusing that the company which invalidated several squads in my IG army, because they don't currently make a kit with that weapon option, expects us to use plasticard to complete one of their models.
Not since they told Eldar players to use spoons to make their transports...
Really I think everyone should email customer service with a picture and say their tank is missing a part, can you please send it.
Or maybe this is what that extra plate in the Chimera is for?
It's not a deal breaker for me though it's an odd decision.
Then again, I never used to add the panels and hatches on the underside of the original Rhino model but kept them in a bits box for scratch build models.
zend wrote: Nobody tell these guys that GW’s fliers and Great Unclean One have been completely hollow with gaping holes in the bottom of the kit for years, their fragile psyche might not be able to handle such news.
Which fliers have "gaping holes in the bottom of the kit"?
Given the GUO is designed to be attached to a base, a gap on the underside is less of a concern.
Something I plan to do once my gaming club has a Rogal Dorn tank is to aggressively place the tank above terrain features that are small enough to "get swallowed" by the hole and then call out my opponent on his tanks not being able to do that because they have bottoms.
From GW's perspective, this is a feature, not a bug. It allows Forgeworld to sell a resin add-on kit to fill in the hole later on for just an additional €50.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: I imagine he's talking about the cross the flying base slots into.
Well, that would be that poster's cross to bear, Kid - but I know I wouldn't count that as a "gaping hole int he bottom", especiall compared to the Dorn.
tneva82 - At no point did the quoted definition require a scale model to be a scale model of something in the real world. For example, there are (unfortunately) many scale models of Gundams, or scale models of assorted spaceships from various franchises. You'd be annoyed if you bought a scale model of, I don't know, the USS Enterprise-D or a Corellian Blockade Runner from Star Wars, and the kit had a gaping hole that wasn't in how you'd seen them on screen, wouldn't you? Same deal here.
The good folk on /tg/ are doing a similar job of ripping on the Rogal Dorn and have noticed that the treads on the underside are not detailed, they are not flat, but they are actively hollowed out.
It's a similar argument in that they will almost never be observable, but I thought it was funny at least. I'm not sure what the reason for doing this could possibly be other than the relatively miniscule amount of plastic saved by not filling them in?
Mozzamanx wrote: The good folk on /tg/ are doing a similar job of ripping on the Rogal Dorn and have noticed that the treads on the underside are not detailed, they are not flat, but they are actively hollowed out.
It's a similar argument in that they will almost never be observable, but I thought it was funny at least. I'm not sure what the reason for doing this could possibly be other than the relatively miniscule amount of plastic saved by not filling them in?
Thinner parts may be beneficial in the injection-moulding process, they cool faster and don't take in as much heat, which allows for faster turnaround in production. Saved time on the tool is probably more important than the saved raw material.
Ok.show me picture of irl dorn tank(real. Not fake) with complete bottom.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "real" Dorn tank in the 40k universe has a hollow bottom? Do you really need photo proof that water is wet?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Could itbe so they don't scratch mats or tables?
Doubt it. The LRBT and Baneblade have normal solid bottom sections and tracks, and the omitted lower hull on the Dorn wouldn't be touching the table.
Maybe the crew removed the bottom panel to check if anyone installed a bomb that goes off if they slow their advance on the enemy?
Tsagualsa wrote: Back when the prices for this batch of stuff were announced, a couple of people mentioned that the Dorn was cheaper than they feared. If compromises like this are the price for this i think a majority of players would take that deal
It's not a compromise and GW does not pass savings on to the customer.
Someone pointed out that the new Proteus has 5 full sprues and comes in at £52.50. I think it's completely reasonable to ask for a 4th sprue at the current price that includes a base plate alongside some more bits to pad out the sprue.
As it stands it feels like an unnecessary level of optimisation at the expense of the player. GW are clearly comfortable releasing larger, more complete tanks at a similar price point so I don't understand the corner-cutting.
BL released a preview of the upcoming novel "Rogal Dorn 356"
With a crash the mighty Rogal Dorn 356 medium battle tank smashed through the rebels' barbed wire and broke through their lines. Heavy stubber fire drove the cowards before them like rats.
"Emperor's Gondads!" Sgt Smitty ejaculated loudly "It's a good thing the Imperial Guard has, and has always had, the mighty Rogal Dorn medium battle tank!" he correctly said, for in fact the Imperial Guard had always had the Rogal Dorn medium battle tank, even if no one ever mentioned it before it was still there just out of the frame.
Smitty clanged on the side of the turret with the hilt of his sword.
"Hendrick, take out that bunker!"
The Rogal Dorn medium battle tank's oppressor cannon roared and the bunker vanished in tremendous explosion. Sgt Smitty laughed, at this rate there'd be no one left for his to hit with his sword once they reached the enemy's main force.
"Reload Hendrick and target that artillery bank!"
"Sorry sarge, I cann't!"
"What?" Smitty ejaculated loudly.
"The shells sir, they done fell out the gaping hole at the bottom of the tank!"
Smitty looked down at the gaping hole in the hull of the tank the Emperor had placed there to save millions of Space Dollars and sighed.
"Turn her around Hendrick, guess we have to go back to base."
And with that the mighty Rogal Dorn Medium Battle Tank, available in a store near you just $95 ($278 Australian), turned back to base for the third time that day.
I for one can't wait.
I hear there's an awesome scene where cultists infiltrate the tank through the gaping hole and the crew has to fight them off in hand-to-hand.
Get yourself some toothpicks and glue them on the inside, pointing down - reverse punji trap against Raveners and Trygons once they become the new meta. Made for 10th edition™!
I'm sure GW will be rushing to produce a "Regal Dorn hull accessory" sprue with the requisite large flat piece of plastic. Y'all want to pay its weight in gold and blood, right?
I actually think the lack of bottom hull plate was an intentional feature.
Guard players always go on about wanting more regiments, and they have been lacking since they retired the mordians, steel legion, vostroyans, tallarn, and vostroyan, and praetorian, and elysians, old cadians, last chancers, and other model ranges.
One idea might be upgrade sprues. Now some people would say, make upgrades for cadians and krieg to turn them into steel legion and valhallans and whatever else they could.
GW could easily have put the underplate on the sprue if they'd left off the numerous stowage accessories and wotnot. When people complain about it being missing, they'll take the message that people don't like extras on their sprues.
Not Online!!! wrote: So lemme get this straight.... this is an incomplete tank kit.
for premium £$CHF€
What’s incomplete about it?
Does it have a bottom plate for the tank? No.
Is the kit meant to and it’s just some kind of oversight? Also no.
Does it in anyway impact the usage of the model? Also no.
The base plate missing remains an odd design choice. But it by no means renders the kit incomplete.
It's incomplete because it doesn't have the parts to build a complete model of a tank. Unless you know of any tanks without bottom hulls?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
When I'd be painting it. And every time I picked it up to look at it thereafter.
Do you... want to paint the bottom plate overly? Do you pick you tanks up and turn them upside down to look at them? Do you hold them like a sandwich or something? It'd never arise during gameplay in any meaningful way that I can think of.
Bottom plate or not, it sold out very quickly, so either people are complaining but still buying it, or there’s plenty of folk who don’t care that their “not at all a scale model” has an invisible hole in the bottom.
Andykp wrote: Bottom plate or not, it sold out very quickly, so either people are complaining but still buying it, or there’s plenty of folk who don’t care that their “not at all a scale model” has an invisible hole in the bottom.
Not Online!!! wrote: So lemme get this straight.... this is an incomplete tank kit.
for premium £$CHF€
What’s incomplete about it?
Does it have a bottom plate for the tank? No.
Is the kit meant to and it’s just some kind of oversight? Also no.
Does it in anyway impact the usage of the model? Also no.
The base plate missing remains an odd design choice. But it by no means renders the kit incomplete.
It's incomplete because it doesn't have the parts to build a complete model of a tank. Unless you know of any tanks without bottom hulls?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
When I'd be painting it. And every time I picked it up to look at it thereafter.
But…it’s not a historical scale model?
People are getting awfully upset over big load of nothing here. Literally.
No, it isn't a "historical scale model", but it is a model, and a $90 model at that. And $90 isn't a "big load of nothing". For that price, you should get the full model. Especially considering that gw has produced similarly sized tank models recently, for a lower price, that are the full model.
And I'm not upset, I'm disappointed. One thing that I do expect from gw is quality models. They may be expensive, but you get good models from them. A tank that's missing a major structural part isn't "quality", IMHO. If it's good enough for you, buy it. Enjoy. But I wouldn't pay $90 for one, myself, even if they do add it to the R&H or Cults and Militia lists.
Not Online!!! wrote: So lemme get this straight.... this is an incomplete tank kit.
for premium £$CHF€
What’s incomplete about it?
Does it have a bottom plate for the tank? No.
Is the kit meant to and it’s just some kind of oversight? Also no.
Does it in anyway impact the usage of the model? Also no.
The base plate missing remains an odd design choice. But it by no means renders the kit incomplete.
It's incomplete because it doesn't have the parts to build a complete model of a tank. Unless you know of any tanks without bottom hulls?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
When I'd be painting it. And every time I picked it up to look at it thereafter.
Do you... want to paint the bottom plate overly? Do you pick you tanks up and turn them upside down to look at them? Do you hold them like a sandwich or something? It'd never arise during gameplay in any meaningful way that I can think of.
Yes, I paint the bottom plate of my tanks. With weathering, and some blood around the treads to show where my guys have been grinding their enemies beneath them (Night Lords ). Yes, I look at my models. No, I don't "hold them like a sandwich, or something".
It's a small disappointment. It breaks the illusion whenever anyone picks it up to examine it. It stops you being able to flip it over when it's wrecked. It's a flaw you know is there even when you're not looking at it.
I was already not planning to get one, although I was very tempted when we saw the first previews. The reason I'm not getting it is because I don't quite have shelf space and I'm not quite sure it matches with the boxiness of my baneblade and leman russes. If I'd been a bit closer to the fence though... this might have been enough to put me back off.
Andykp wrote: Bottom plate or not, it sold out very quickly, so either people are complaining but still buying it, or there’s plenty of folk who don’t care that their “not at all a scale model” has an invisible hole in the bottom.
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
There are many hobbists that are into 40K just to paint the models, and do so because GW models are incrediblely detailed. The kind of people that paint the dials on the interior of a plasma gun that you can only see when you turn that miniature upside down. You can imagine that that type of hobbist is not going to appreciate the lack of the bottom plate.
I would say I am surprised at people defending a greedy corporation but I am not. The tank looks like a cheap bargain bin child's toy, I guess GW wanted to make it feel like one too when held
The hyperbole doesn't really help foster sensible discussion.
Ultimately, regardless of their price tag, the primary function of GW kits is as gaming tokens, not scale models. While I can certainly see why people would be somewhat taken aback at a scale model missing a large chunk of the hull, in this specific case it's a piece of the underside that is not going to be seen when the model is used for its intended purpose. It's not really any different to crates cast as a single piece with no underside.
Looking at the sprues, I don't see any viable way of including that bottom plate without either cutting an awful lot of other components or adding an additional sprue... which would have pumped up the cost of the kit and potentially created packaging issues. So my guess would be that this was a trade-off made during tooling to stay within budget as they really wanted to include all of the available gear options.
It's obviously not everyone's preference, but is not really that surprising. And wouldn't be difficult to fill in.
I think the lack of the bottom hull changes the feel of the kit overall. It might seem like a relatively inconsequential part to some that you aren't going to look at much, but to me it's like that piece missing changes it from something that wants to be a proper model kit of a sci-fi tank to something faker that doesn't actually care that much. It feels just lazy and the connotation of it is offputting.
Mentlegen324 wrote: ... but to me it's like that piece missing changes it from something that wants to be a proper model kit of a sci-fi tank to something faker that doesn't actually care that much.
That's just it, though... It's not a 'proper model kit'. GW don't make scale models. They make toys for wargaming.
If anything, this is a better design choice than all of the swirly gak they've been using to suspend models in the air over the last few years, which really does impact the model's utility as a gaming piece.
Yeah, 'proper' is a loaded term. For me, the distinction is around intended purpose.
A scale model is supposed to be an exact (allowing for scale) replica of the thing it is representing. Having pieces missing to save sprue space on this sort of model would be a little weird.
A wargaming model is a physical representation of a set of gaming stats, and often by necessity has missing or distorted details as a result of manufacturing limitations and usage considerations. Having pieces missing that have no impact on the function of the model in-game make it less polished as a thing to look at, but ultimately don't detract from the actual, intended purpose of the model.
insaniak wrote: A wargaming model is a physical representation of a set of gaming stats, and often by necessity has missing or distorted details as a result of manufacturing limitations and usage considerations. Having pieces missing that have no impact on the function of the model in-game make it less polished as a thing to look at, but ultimately don't detract from the actual, intended purpose of the model.
But then how far do you take that? Removing the detail on the tracks and having a flat surface instead of individual links would make it less nice to look at but have zero impact on its function as a game piece. 40k's models are intended for use as game components but they are also intended to be purely aesthetic pieces and that aesthetic use is at least as important as their gaming functions.
For sure there's a line between aesthetics and practicality, and opinions on exactly where that line should be drawn are going to vary from person to person.
I like my models to look nice, but I also don't sweat the details that I can't actually see, so something like a missing bottom hull on a tank seems like a non-issue.
I'm reminded of the original rhino kit, which was built from two identical hull pieces flipped 180 degrees from each other. A lot of people didn't bother to glue the hatches onto the bottom hull section, because they wouldn't be seen.
Of course, that was a choice... and many others did prefer to have the hulls of their tanks properly sealed...
I'm not saying that people are wrong to dislike this tank missing part of its hull... just explaining why I don't personally have a problem with it.
Shakalooloo wrote: GW could easily have put the underplate on the sprue if they'd left off the numerous stowage accessories and wotnot. When people complain about it being missing, they'll take the message that people don't like extras on their sprues.
Extras are, by definition, extra stuff you get AFTER the job is done. Finishing 75% of the hull and then moving on to extras is not how you do it.
A lot of the extras could be on a universal sprue for all IG tanks, which would allow them to finish the hull and have a new sprue they could include with other sets.
I agree with the poster who explained it's disappointment not rage. Disappointment that GW now considers themselves to be akin to cheap Russian kit makers in expectations.
It’s the mk4 collection the right price, I was adding it up and seems you can save buying seperate with the MK3 collection set.
That’s after assuming the dice are worth $58 on the Australian store.
Did I miss something, I feel a bit crazy seeing the price for so little over $1000
So I guess those people who complain aren't buying leman russ, rhino, impulsor etc. Those after all are missing stuff as exact replicate of springs, control things, ammunition etc. After all it's supposed to be COMPLETE scale replicate right?
There's also no correct scale cabling, spare parts etc...The horror! It's not SCALE MODEL! Ah the ignomity!
Smart people wouldn't even paint that underplate...
insaniak wrote: A wargaming model is a physical representation of a set of gaming stats...
For you maybe. Not everyone plays the game. Many, many people just collect the minis to build and paint. If you paid that much for a tank and a bloody great chunk of it was missing, I don't think "But it's not a proper model kit!" is really going to cut it.
tneva82 wrote: So I guess those people who complain aren't buying leman russ, rhino, impulsor etc. Those after all are missing stuff as exact replicate of springs, control things, ammunition etc. After all it's supposed to be COMPLETE scale replicate right?
If you don't understand the points people are making and can do nothing but reply with mean-spirited snarkiness because you don't actually have a point, please refrain from attempting to argue. You're just embarrassing yourself.
tneva82 wrote: So I guess those people who complain aren't buying leman russ, rhino, impulsor etc. Those after all are missing stuff as exact replicate of springs, control things, ammunition etc. After all it's supposed to be COMPLETE scale replicate right?
Yes, because "this model doesn't have perfect representation of the suspension springs" is definitely the same as "this model has a giant obvious hole on the bottom that is only hidden if you keep the tank sitting flat on the ground and never look closely at the engine vents".
Smart people wouldn't even paint that underplate...
You have an odd definition of "smart" if not spending a token amount of effort to have a fully painted model is smart.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honest question though, tneva82: I see you frequently criticizing competitive play and people who focus "too much" on balance/meta statistics/etc, and now you're mocking people who care "too much" about the aesthetics of the models. What exactly is it about this hobby that you enjoy and approve of? Is the hobby for you nothing more than Buying™ Citadel™ Models™? Or is it all some weird performative apathy, where the goal is to care the least about everything?
As long as it's proper enough for GW to ask 70 euros for it, I guess "not having gaping holes that the 'real one' is not supposed to have" will still be something I expect if I'm gonna buy it.
If I can get a better one by printing a proxy myself for a fraction of the price, well.... there's no real incentive, now is there.
Shakalooloo wrote: GW could easily have put the underplate on the sprue if they'd left off the numerous stowage accessories and wotnot. When people complain about it being missing, they'll take the message that people don't like extras on their sprues.
Extras are, by definition, extra stuff you get AFTER the job is done. Finishing 75% of the hull and then moving on to extras is not how you do it.
A lot of the extras could be on a universal sprue for all IG tanks, which would allow them to finish the hull and have a new sprue they could include with other sets.
I agree with the poster who explained it's disappointment not rage. Disappointment that GW now considers themselves to be akin to cheap Russian kit makers in expectations.
Below cheap Russian kit makers I’d argue, I’ve bought Zvezda kits in the past and most of them had better details and never missing anything like the bottom of the hull….
Not Online!!! wrote: So lemme get this straight.... this is an incomplete tank kit.
for premium £$CHF€
What’s incomplete about it?
Does it have a bottom plate for the tank? No.
Is the kit meant to and it’s just some kind of oversight? Also no.
Does it in anyway impact the usage of the model? Also no.
The base plate missing remains an odd design choice. But it by no means renders the kit incomplete.
Considering it is a model for use in a TTG, get's pushed around? Yes it is incomplete because a complete baseplate adds stability to a plastic model. Accidents happen all the time, i'd rather not reglue a tanks if it drops and a base plate may well lower the strain certain other parts will feel if something bad happens.
It's just amazing to me that GW is charging premium prices for such sub-premium products and it's instantly selling out online. It's the happy meal version of a Macharius FFS!
It's just amazing to me that GW is charging premium prices for such sub-premium products and it's instantly selling out online. It's the happy meal version of a Macharius FFS!
It reminds me more off a malcador with a terrible building accident.
but considering how much i suffered building mine atleast this one ugly wanna be malcador is out of plastic.
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pleasestopit wrote: I would say I am surprised at people defending a greedy corporation but I am not.
I mean, people are saying "the thing that I can't see when using this product for its intended purpose doesn't bother me" but sure, try and turn this into an argument about corporate ethics like an absolute weirdo, I guess.
I swear, if some people had even half the energy for criticising corporations that cause actual harm that they do for moaning that a toy, which there is absolutely no compulsion or necessity for them to buy, hasn't been made exactly the way they would have liked, then the world would be significantly less messed-up than it is.
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.
insaniak wrote: GW don't make scale models. They make toys for wargaming.
According to GW, Games Workshop Group PLC makes "[t]he best fantasy miniatures in the world. Forever."
If the glass bottom tank had interior detail, I wouldn't say anything. If the hull was closed up, I wouldn't say anything.
Sure, that's dumb marketing speak (read: a straight up lie), but GW models usually are highly detailed, of good quality and cast in a good medium. Often enough to the point where the silly high prices don't put me off. The Rogal Dorn kit is an outlier and in my opinion does not compare in quality to other, comparable GW tank kits.
For me it's not a question of intended purpose, even if I agreed with your categorization. GW has set expectations not with intended purpose but through years and decades of model kits that you can compare with each other. The Rogal Dorn falls short in comparison with its peers, whether they are all toys, a miniatures or a scale kits.
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I assume the answer would be "every time they pick it up, for whatever reason".
I assume it happens, maybe even more than once, when you play.
But why should it matter? In what situation do people expect to observe the internal skeleton armature of a Master Grade and above Gunpla? And still, its there. And unless you go for the really big kits, for cheaper too.
Or, in what situation do you expect to see the bottom of basically any other vehicle in the whole 40k range? Should they "fix" those and remove the bottom for them all?
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.
Seems like a really weird thing to do, and something of a niche scenario, to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here are some suggestions for everyone mad about the bit missing from the toy tank that you won't be able to see under any normal circumstances:
1. Don't buy the toy tank.
2. Maybe drop GW a line and tell them that's why you didn't buy the toy tank you would have otherwise bought from them, rather than just yelling into the void about it.
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.
Seems like a really weird thing to do, and something of a niche scenario, to me.
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.
Seems like a really weird thing to do, and something of a niche scenario, to me.
where do you keep your army?
Even mines are partially in display cabinets.
In a little Ikea cabinet thing, but I can't say anything in there's placed in a way that it's primarily intended to be viewed from below.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, someone's put their models on a clear shelf, above eye-level, for whatever reason. This being the case, why is looking at the underside of all your models' bases fine (something which would be the case with just about every non-vehicle model Citadel have ever made) but seeing a gap in the bottom of a tank is completely unacceptable?
Below cheap Russian kit makers I’d argue, I’ve bought Zvezda kits in the past and most of them had better details and never missing anything like the bottom of the hull….
I was specifically thinking of Bronekorpus, by the fine makers of Robogear. Though come to think of it even the Robogear models had hulls. It was only Bronekorpus that didn't.
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
The only plausible situation I can think of is when someone tearfully carries the half-built model into a store yelling about a refund and demanding to speak to James Workshop's manager.
Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean, people are saying "the thing that I can't see when using this product for its intended purpose doesn't bother me" but sure, try and turn this into an argument about corporate ethics like an absolute weirdo, I guess.
I swear, if some people had even half the energy for criticising corporations that cause actual harm that they do for moaning that a toy, which there is absolutely no compulsion or necessity for them to buy, hasn't been made exactly the way they would have liked, then the world would be significantly less messed-up than it is.
If you're not turning trivial complaints into multiple pages of online drama, then are you really getting the most out of the Warhammer hobby experience?
Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.
All my models are in a cabinet with glass shelves and I still don't bother painting the underside of tanks, because in order to see that I'd have to wedge my head upside down inside the cabinet.
A rule of thumb that has served me well for a long time is that if someone on 4chan is making memes that agree with you, then you're probably on the wrong side of an argument.
2. Maybe drop GW a line and tell them that's why you didn't buy the toy tank you would have otherwise bought from them, rather than just yelling into the void about it.
I'd strongly recommend that everyone build theirs and then email customer service a picture asking them to send you the missing piece.
Hey y'know, I remember the Imperial Knight when it first came out had an odd hole on the top (with a hatch to cover it) leading many to conclude an add on sprue with a third weapon was coming. So maybe the gaping hole was deliberate and there's a sprue with a hull mounted cannon on the way?
2. Maybe drop GW a line and tell them that's why you didn't buy the toy tank you would have otherwise bought from them, rather than just yelling into the void about it.
I'd strongly recommend that everyone build theirs and then email customer service a picture asking them to send you the missing piece.
Hey y'know, I remember the Imperial Knight when it first came out had an odd hole on the top (with a hatch to cover it) leading many to conclude an add on sprue with a third weapon was coming. So maybe the gaping hole was deliberate and there's a sprue with a hull mounted cannon on the way?
That actually wouldn't solve any of these complaints, there'd need to be an additional sprue on the way with a floor plate to resolve this.
What is this purported difficulty with the Deimos Rhino kit? I have now built 4 of the new plastics (2 rhinos and 2 predators) and they have all gone together like a dream.
With the Dorn, I am not entirely happy with the decision to have the base plate absent but it is not a deal breaker to me either. That said I completely understand why a lot of people seem miffed by it.
The biggest shock to me is the number of "social media personalities" that totally failed to mention the matter in their Saturday morning promotional post. If you are lucky enough to be given free product then at least give your fellow hobbyists full disclosure. Plenty had ordered the Dorn before the lack of base plate came to light.
xttz wrote: The only plausible situation I can think of is when someone tearfully carries the half-built model into a store yelling about a refund and demanding to speak to James Workshop's manager.
Crimson wrote: In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?
Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don’t know how reasonable, but way back in the old days, when I attended GW Grand Tournaments, I got dinged on my painting score for not attaching the bottom rhino plate on one of my Rhinos. Couldn’t see it from game distance, everything else was painted well. +shrug+
Who knew I was just 30 years ahead of the times.
For me, I would “know” that there was a giant gap/hole in the bottom of the model, and it would bother me. That alone would prevent me from buying the kit. But, everyone’s mileage may vary.
The biggest shock to me is the number of "social media personalities" that totally failed to mention the matter in their Saturday morning promotional post. If you are lucky enough to be given free product then at least give your fellow hobbyists full disclosure. Plenty had ordered the Dorn before the lack of base plate came to light.
Not mentioning/showing that it does not have a bottom plate is definitely shady, that's a thing i can absolutely agree on even if the lack of said plate is no big thing in my opionion. Still something the customer should be made aware of in no uncertain terms.
:strip_icc()/pic6303247.jpg)
.
/Edit - but really I have no clue, forgive my sarcasm if this is a genuine issue.
up" stage of coming up with reasons to hate on 
