ListenToMeWarriors wrote: 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.
I found the bottom hull pieces a bit stiff to fit together, had to use a bit more force than usual to get the side panels fitted properly. That's the only issue I can think MajorWesJanson is referring to.
It does give the impression you are missing a piece. If the model was made out of metal and you wanted to save weight then I'd get it - but that's not really the case with plastic.
Have to say the number of times I've lifted up a Rhino etc to look underneath is incredibly rare, so not really convinced it would bother me. But it does seem a bit silly.
I don't get why some posters display such an obtuse attitude. Many buyers will only use the Dorn as a game piece, and under normal circunstance will be unfaced by the lack of a bottom plate.
On the other hand there is a numerous group of people that will buy the tank as a display piece for their collection, among these collectors there will a few that won't care for the missing piece, but I bet all my dice that a larger number will be miffed that their super expensive "toy" has a hole underneath. Dismissing this criticism as trivial is asinine because GW prides itself as the maker of the best miniatures in the world.
BlackoCatto wrote: For the price of this damn tank I could probs get that full metal Zaku that's about as tall as a small child.
The Mega Size Zaku is coming around 94 USD (vs the Dorn's 90) but it is plastic and not metal. So your assessment is pretty accurate.
I wish there was proper Gunpla distribution in the UK. Here it’s like £100 minimum if you can even get it vs £55 for the Dorn assuming I’m looking at the right mega Zaku.
I figured out what's been bugging me about Dorn - the lack of the characteristic IG low profile turret.
Now that I know I'll be hacking the lower portion of the turret away, I suppose I can donate the remains to someone who wants to stick them to the bottom of their Dorn.
His Master's Voice wrote: I figured out what's been bugging me about Dorn - the lack of the characteristic IG low profile turret.
Now that I know I'll be hacking the lower portion of the turret away, I suppose I can donate the remains to someone who wants to stick them to the bottom of their Dorn.
Remove the turret entirely to convert the next tank named after a Primarch, the
Miguelsan wrote: I don't get why some posters display such an obtuse attitude.
I suspect that, to put it in polite terms, they feel the need to validate their decision to spend $$$$$$$$ on the new kit. If a gaping hole in the bottom is a genuine design flaw then they're fools for spending premium money on a sub-par product. So the only alternative is that the hole is not a problem, and anyone who threatens their nice neat rationalization must be a hater who is just looking for reasons to be mad at GW.
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.
Yeah....nobody sees the bottoms of models in my games
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.
They sold out in minutes way before the fact that they didn't have a bottom was common knowledge due to GW's product review embargo lasting until the day pre-orders go live. Given that the people who bought a kit were probably trying to place an order rather than scrolling through YouTube when the pre-order went live, it's safe to say that the vast majority of people who bought a kit had no idea that the model was incomplete when they placed the order.
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.
They sold out in minutes way before the fact that they didn't have a bottom was common knowledge due to GW's product review embargo lasting until the day pre-orders go live.
The embargo is lifted before the majority of preorders go live. It's really just the Pacific that gets affected by the preorders going live before embargo gets lifted, with NZ+AUS getting their preorders before the embargo gets lifted the day of preorders.
Amusingly enough, neither NZ or AUS are sold out--nor are the US and Canada(last regions to get preorders to go live). It's just the various European and UK webstores showing it as sold out online...all of which, again, would have been after the embargos were lifted.
Given that the people who bought a kit were probably trying to place an order rather than scrolling through YouTube when the pre-order went live, it's safe to say that the vast majority of people who bought a kit had no idea that the model was incomplete when they placed the order.
Or they don't care, because when you look at the thing it's going to require a specific set of circumstances to really know that it has no floor plate.
Kanluwen wrote: The embargo is lifted before the majority of preorders go live. It's really just the Pacific that gets affected by the preorders going live before embargo gets lifted, with NZ+AUS getting their preorders before the embargo gets lifted the day of preorders.
The fact that the first articles might go live at 3am is not very relevant for most customers. Most people have already made their decisions days in advance, that's the whole point of GW's "coming soon" preview articles. They aren't frantically reading through blog posts and watching videos to confirm their decision, they're going about their normal day until it's pre-order time and then buying everything they'd planned. So yes, the information technically might have been out there in time but it didn't become common knowledge until after the pre-orders went live.
Or they don't care, because when you look at the thing it's going to require a specific set of circumstances to really know that it has no floor plate.
Yeah, that real edge case scenario of "picking up the model to get a closer look".
Having not watched/read any coverage of the tank prior to the pre-order going up, there's also the question of how many of these influencers bothered to mention the gaping void in their review.
Dysartes wrote: Having not watched/read any coverage of the tank prior to the pre-order going up, there's also the question of how many of these influencers bothered to mention the gaping void in their review.
From what I've seen they mentioned it, but were very careful not to highlight it or criticize GW too much and risk losing their early access. For example, in Goonhammer's review they do say "something worth mentioning is that they didn’t do a full floor plate on this tank, which is an advantage for painting as it gives a good area to hold the tank by," but only at the very end after paragraphs of praise and tons of pictures. Since there's no picture of the hole it's very easy to skim past that part or believe the pro-GW spin and assume it's not a major thing.
I haven't looked at every piece of coverage since I'd already seen enough of the new stuff to know what I'd want to buy (none of it ATM) but from what I've seen of the conversation it seems like most/all of the coverage was like the Goonhammer review: if you talk about it at all bury it under tons of praise and certainly don't include any clear pictures.
Miguelsan wrote: I don't get why some posters display such an obtuse attitude.
I suspect that, to put it in polite terms, they feel the need to validate their decision to spend $$$$$$$$ on the new kit. If a gaping hole in the bottom is a genuine design flaw then they're fools for spending premium money on a sub-par product. So the only alternative is that the hole is not a problem, and anyone who threatens their nice neat rationalization must be a hater who is just looking for reasons to be mad at GW.
Or it's a marginal issue that doesn't affect our use and enjoyment of the kit, and see no need for such an absolutionist take on the subject. There is no reason it has to be a polarized issue to belittle others like some want it to be.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Or it's a marginal issue that doesn't affect our use and enjoyment of the kit, and see no need for such an absolutionist take on the subject. There is no reason it has to be a polarized issue to belittle others like some want it to be.
Good point.
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?
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...
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.
...
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?
Nazrak wrote: 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)_/¯
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: People are getting awfully upset over big load of nothing here. Literally.
Most people in the hobby, and... sit down for this one... do not come to online forums to read pages and pages of people's complaints.
Many may join a local discord or simply get their information direct from friends at their hobby shop.
GW wouldn't be making record profits year after year if the majority of their customers was closer in attitude to the average dakkaite.
There are quite a few other models that are missing details on the underside of them, and there's simple reasons for that.
A. few people look under a model
B. the model looks fine from the side/top
C. few people are flipping their models upside down for no reason
D. it saves a load of room on the sprue that can be used for other bits/options instead of adding a whole extra sprue for those bits/options.
People complain about the point of D, but look at these sprues:
Spoiler:
Go ahead and tell me what you'd get rid of to put in a 2"x4" piece of flat plastic that nobody will see.
drbored wrote: Most people in the hobby, and... sit down for this one... do not come to online forums to read pages and pages of people's complaints.
Many may join a local discord or simply get their information direct from friends at their hobby shop.
GW wouldn't be making record profits year after year if the majority of their customers was closer in attitude to the average dakkaite.
There are quite a few other models that are missing details on the underside of them, and there's simple reasons for that.
A. few people look under a model
B. the model looks fine from the side/top
C. few people are flipping their models upside down for no reason
D. it saves a load of room on the sprue that can be used for other bits/options instead of adding a whole extra sprue for those bits/options.
People complain about the point of D, but look at these sprues:
Spoiler:
Go ahead and tell me what you'd get rid of to put in a 2"x4" piece of flat plastic that nobody will see.
They wouldn't change them, they'd expect an extra sprue included for no change in price.
Dudeface wrote: They wouldn't change them, they'd expect an extra sprue included for no change in price.
And why not? The new 30k marine tank has five sprues vs. the RDBT's three and costs the same. GW could have easily included another sprue for the floor plate and used the rest of the space to add some other weapon options. A plasma variant would have been awesome and a nice alternative to the very generic turrets we got. But whatever the rest of the sprue could have been used for having a giant hole in the bottom of a kit is inexcusable.
Oh wait, I lied, the marine tank isn't the same price. It's cheaper.
I find myself torn. It's a good spectator sport watching people noisily soiling themselves for everyone to see over something absolutely minute but I saw a picture of it and it does look a bit daft.
Then again someone further up this thread said there's a panel missing on the Ad Mech Dunerider kit and I've had one for two years and never noticed so ..
Dudeface wrote: They wouldn't change them, they'd expect an extra sprue included for no change in price.
And why not? The new 30k marine tank has five sprues vs. the RDBT's three and costs the same. GW could have easily included another sprue for the floor plate and used the rest of the space to add some other weapon options. A plasma variant would have been awesome and a nice alternative to the very generic turrets we got. But whatever the rest of the sprue could have been used for having a giant hole in the bottom of a kit is inexcusable.
Oh wait, I lied, the marine tank isn't the same price. It's cheaper.
The HH tanks will operate at a smaller profit margin likely as HH is a less popular game and they need a draw to them, especially when they have to appear cheap compared to the resin version in order to appear more of a bargain.
The WarCom article made a big point about the extra gubbins being usable on other tanks, so my preference would be to move all of those onto a separate tank upgrade sprue. You can then put this into the repackaged Leman Russ and Baneblade boxes to justify some of the price increases there as well.
And to be clear, I absolutely think it should have come at the same price. GW is clearly happy to throw 5 sprues in a Proteus box for cheaper. The idea that squeezing a 4th sprue is too much for £55 just feels pathetic. Its already overpriced relative to its peers, to say nothing about it missing a large chunk of hull.
Mozzamanx wrote: The WarCom article made a big point about the extra gubbins being usable on other tanks, so my preference would be to move all of those onto a separate tank upgrade sprue. You can then put this into the repackaged Leman Russ and Baneblade boxes to justify some of the price increases there as well.
And to be clear, I absolutely think it should have come at the same price. GW is clearly happy to throw 5 sprues in a Proteus box for cheaper. The idea that squeezing a 4th sprue is too much for £55 just feels pathetic. Its already overpriced relative to its peers, to say nothing about it missing a large chunk of hull.
The baneblade and russ both had extra sprues included, hence the price rises...
Miguelsan wrote: I don't get why some posters display such an obtuse attitude.
I suspect that, to put it in polite terms, they feel the need to validate their decision to spend $$$$$$$$ on the new kit. If a gaping hole in the bottom is a genuine design flaw then they're fools for spending premium money on a sub-par product. So the only alternative is that the hole is not a problem, and anyone who threatens their nice neat rationalization must be a hater who is just looking for reasons to be mad at GW.
Well is it flaw? Does it make the model less sturdy? Because that's only reason it would be flaw unless you also insist it has full interior, full control gear, full ammunition, full spare part supply etc all in scale as well.
It's only flaw if it affects the gaming piece as a gaming piece. Aka durability. Unless there's proof it affects durability then it's not a flaw.
Hell the part shouldn't even be painted if you are smart guy. Waste of good paint on irrelevant part. Do you paint interior of model before gluing it up as well?
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.
They sold out in minutes way before the fact that they didn't have a bottom was common knowledge due to GW's product review embargo lasting until the day pre-orders go live. Given that the people who bought a kit were probably trying to place an order rather than scrolling through YouTube when the pre-order went live, it's safe to say that the vast majority of people who bought a kit had no idea that the model was incomplete when they placed the order.
So. How does it affect durabilty? Since you make sweeping claims like incomplete model put your money where your mouth is and prove it affects durability of glued up model.
I know if I were to buy dorn I would prefer 5£ cheaper over part that isn't even seen, wouldn't even be painted by smart people and has no effect.
Miguelsan wrote: I don't get why some posters display such an obtuse attitude.
I suspect that, to put it in polite terms, they feel the need to validate their decision to spend $$$$$$$$ on the new kit. If a gaping hole in the bottom is a genuine design flaw then they're fools for spending premium money on a sub-par product. So the only alternative is that the hole is not a problem, and anyone who threatens their nice neat rationalization must be a hater who is just looking for reasons to be mad at GW.
Well is it flaw? Does it make the model less sturdy? Because that's only reason it would be flaw unless you also insist it has full interior, full control gear, full ammunition, full spare part supply etc all in scale as well.
It's only flaw if it affects the gaming piece as a gaming piece. Aka durability. Unless there's proof it affects durability then it's not a flaw.
Hell the part shouldn't even be painted if you are smart guy. Waste of good paint on irrelevant part. Do you paint interior of model before gluing it up as well?
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.
They sold out in minutes way before the fact that they didn't have a bottom was common knowledge due to GW's product review embargo lasting until the day pre-orders go live. Given that the people who bought a kit were probably trying to place an order rather than scrolling through YouTube when the pre-order went live, it's safe to say that the vast majority of people who bought a kit had no idea that the model was incomplete when they placed the order.
So. How does it affect durabilty? Since you make sweeping claims like incomplete model put your money where your mouth is and prove it affects durability of glued up model.
I know if I were to buy dorn I would prefer 5£ cheaper over part that isn't even seen, wouldn't even be painted by smart people and has no effect.
As pointed out by multiple posters, the Dorn is $5 more expensive than a Land Raider Proteus, but includes 2 less sprues and fails to make a complete tank. It isn't cheaper due to the lack of parts. You're literally paying more for less. If that makes you happy, then enjoy. But some of us don't find that as enjoyable as you.
Miguelsan wrote: I don't get why some posters display such an obtuse attitude.
I suspect that, to put it in polite terms, they feel the need to validate their decision to spend $$$$$$$$ on the new kit. If a gaping hole in the bottom is a genuine design flaw then they're fools for spending premium money on a sub-par product. So the only alternative is that the hole is not a problem, and anyone who threatens their nice neat rationalization must be a hater who is just looking for reasons to be mad at GW.
Well is it flaw? Does it make the model less sturdy? Because that's only reason it would be flaw unless you also insist it has full interior, full control gear, full ammunition, full spare part supply etc all in scale as well.
It's only flaw if it affects the gaming piece as a gaming piece. Aka durability. Unless there's proof it affects durability then it's not a flaw.
Hell the part shouldn't even be painted if you are smart guy. Waste of good paint on irrelevant part. Do you paint interior of model before gluing it up as well?
Yes it’s absolutely a flaw because it’s missing the bottom panel, if I was comparing it to any other tank in the guard range I’d mark it down as it’s missing a part every other tank in the range has, I don’t like limitations on kits like this. No one’s demanding tanks have full interiors, just that they’re held up to that standards that every other tank released by GW is.
tneva82 wrote: Well is it flaw? Does it make the model less sturdy? Because that's only reason it would be flaw unless you also insist it has full interior, full control gear, full ammunition, full spare part supply etc all in scale as well.
Yes, because not having a full interior that is literally invisible once the model is built is definitely comparable to having a giant hole in the bottom that is very visible unless you avoid looking at it from the wrong angle.
It's only flaw if it affects the gaming piece as a gaming piece. Aka durability.
You know that for many people 40k is primarily an artistic hobby and the use as a gaming piece is secondary at best, right?
Hell the part shouldn't even be painted if you are smart guy. Waste of good paint on irrelevant part. Do you paint interior of model before gluing it up as well?
Yes, clearly every smart person avoids spending $0.01 worth of paint to avoid having an ugly unpainted spot be visible if someone picks up the model to take a closer look at it. Seriously, your rationalizations for GW selling a poor quality product at a premium price are absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: As pointed out by multiple posters, the Dorn is $5 more expensive than a Land Raider Proteus, but includes 2 less sprues and fails to make a complete tank. It isn't cheaper due to the lack of parts. You're literally paying more for less. If that makes you happy, then enjoy. But some of us don't find that as enjoyable as you.
Exactly. "But cost" is not a valid defense for the happy meal Macharius when the Proteus has two full additional sprues for a lower price tag. GW didn't do this because it was the only way to make the kit, they did it because they expect the whales to keep paying premium prices and defending the company no matter how much they cut quality.
I wish there was proper Gunpla distribution in the UK. Here it’s like £100 minimum if you can even get it vs £55 for the Dorn assuming I’m looking at the right mega Zaku.
Not sure if someone has already pointed this out, even though I don't own a 3d printer I can already hear 3d printers going burrr over an easy win GW just gave the 3rd party market to capitalize on. The inside panel of the tracks even have an already complete inset shelf (just like many of the already existing GW kits) going across the whole bottom literally making a 3d print of a hull piece a literal drop in part. Considering on how GW has been sending take down requests to a lot of the 3d printer file sharing site it confuses me why they would give them an easy win. I find it unlikley that GW would do this to bait creators so that GW can do takedown requests on those files and phisical print sales and if not for the hull part, potentially to look through the catalogs of the makers to issue take down requests of a creators other files and prints that are not the hull part. Though could GW even do a take down request of a file that was named "Rogal Dorn bottom hull" because GW themselves don't even make said part and is not even available in the kit or GW's catalog in the first place.
GW literally gave an opportunity for all those 3rd party manufactures and 3d printer owners a free opportunity to make money. Don't own a 3d printer? Etsy, ebay, shapeways, and plenty more are great spots to get the parts made by someone else and sent to you.
I can already see titles such as "Banana man complete hull bottom piece"
Mozzamanx wrote: The WarCom article made a big point about the extra gubbins being usable on other tanks, so my preference would be to move all of those onto a separate tank upgrade sprue. You can then put this into the repackaged Leman Russ and Baneblade boxes to justify some of the price increases there as well.
And to be clear, I absolutely think it should have come at the same price. GW is clearly happy to throw 5 sprues in a Proteus box for cheaper. The idea that squeezing a 4th sprue is too much for £55 just feels pathetic. Its already overpriced relative to its peers, to say nothing about it missing a large chunk of hull.
The baneblade and russ both had extra sprues included, hence the price rises...
That's interesting, is it the old upgrade sprue, with track guards, autocannon etc? Not keen on the price increase though.
Mozzamanx wrote: The WarCom article made a big point about the extra gubbins being usable on other tanks, so my preference would be to move all of those onto a separate tank upgrade sprue. You can then put this into the repackaged Leman Russ and Baneblade boxes to justify some of the price increases there as well.
And to be clear, I absolutely think it should have come at the same price. GW is clearly happy to throw 5 sprues in a Proteus box for cheaper. The idea that squeezing a 4th sprue is too much for £55 just feels pathetic. Its already overpriced relative to its peers, to say nothing about it missing a large chunk of hull.
The baneblade and russ both had extra sprues included, hence the price rises...
That's interesting, is it the old upgrade sprue, with track guards, autocannon etc? Not keen on the price increase though.
It's been gone over far back in the thread before it got derailed. Leman russ has both turret sprues in it, and the Baneblade an additional sponson sprue.
Yes, clearly every smart person avoids spending $0.01 worth of paint to avoid having an ugly unpainted spot be visible if someone picks up the model to take a closer look at it. Seriously, your rationalizations for GW selling a poor quality product at a premium price are absurd.
Gadzilla666 wrote: As pointed out by multiple posters, the Dorn is $5 more expensive than a Land Raider Proteus, but includes 2 less sprues and fails to make a complete tank. It isn't cheaper due to the lack of parts. You're literally paying more for less. If that makes you happy, then enjoy. But some of us don't find that as enjoyable as you.
Exactly. "But cost" is not a valid defense for the happy meal Macharius when the Proteus has two full additional sprues for a lower price tag. GW didn't do this because it was the only way to make the kit, they did it because they expect the whales to keep paying premium prices and defending the company no matter how much they cut quality.
Cost is a pretty good explanation if you understand the manufacturing realities involved. I'm under no illusion that you are going to read or engage with any of this in good faith, but I think it's still worth explaining the process for other folks reading this thread who aren't aware of the complexities of real world design & development, and how that influences the products they get.
This decision has literally nothing to do with one penny worth of plastic and everything to do with how real world plastic injection molding works. Tooling for the three large sprues takes weeks to develop and will have a minimum five figure cost attached, possibly six figures. By adding a 4th sprue to a kit like this would take the cost from something like £90,000 to £120,000 (the real figure may actually be higher than that).
There's also a further incidental cost whenever you produce from a kit that requires four molds instead of three, it always requires use of an additional injection molding machine along with downtime to swap the molds over. All of this influences the final cost of the product.
The other big factor in selling price is forecasted sales. Let's say GW has very similar two kits that both cost them about the same amount for tooling & production:
One is a space marine squad included in a 40k starter set and also sold separately for use with multiple chapters.
One is just a unit for less popular faction, such as Necrons or Sisters.
GW's forecasted sales for the lifetime of that kit will be significantly higher for the former than the latter. So when the space marine unit is sold separately it costs £5 or £10 less than the other kit, as they're making up for the 'loss' of profit through sheer volume.
The HH Proteus comes with:
3 large sprues, same size as the Dorn's sprues
2 small sprues, one of which is shared across all new HH vehicle kits
Out of these, only one is unique to that kit and the other four are shared with the Spartan (not to mention the upcoming Typhon, and possibly other future kits). The Spartan is included in the HH starter set so will have a fairly high forecasted sales, before they factor in the way that a majority of Heresy players will all be buying exactly the same vehicle kits most of been designed to share sprues between them. Forecasted sales of HH vehicles will be an order of magnitude higher than the Rogal Dorn.
That's why you get slightly more plastic in the Proteus box.
Of course, the other alternative to a more expensive model was just to include fewer weapon, crew, and stowage bits in the three supplied sprues to make room for a boring flat piece of plastic.
fox-light713 wrote: GW literally gave an opportunity for all those 3rd party manufactures and 3d printer owners a free opportunity to make money.
I think you might be overestimating the prospective Dorn 3d printed butt plate market.
Even if you wanted to close the hole, why not just use a square of plasticard and maybe glue a hatch or sth. to it? How detailled are e.g. Chimera or Russ bottom plates? Is there a whole world of hyper-detailled tank bottoms, painted like the Sistine Chapel, that i've been missing out on for decades? At most you want some profile to match the ribbed front and back plates, but that's easily done with a thin layer of modelling clay or whatever.
drbored wrote: Most people in the hobby, and... sit down for this one... do not come to online forums to read pages and pages of people's complaints.
Many may join a local discord or simply get their information direct from friends at their hobby shop.
GW wouldn't be making record profits year after year if the majority of their customers was closer in attitude to the average dakkaite.
There are quite a few other models that are missing details on the underside of them, and there's simple reasons for that.
A. few people look under a model
B. the model looks fine from the side/top
C. few people are flipping their models upside down for no reason
D. it saves a load of room on the sprue that can be used for other bits/options instead of adding a whole extra sprue for those bits/options.
People complain about the point of D, but look at these sprues:
Spoiler:
Go ahead and tell me what you'd get rid of to put in a 2"x4" piece of flat plastic that nobody will see.
They wouldn't change them, they'd expect an extra sprue included for no change in price.
Here in Australia for just $50 more the full armor gundam RG has 23, in 3 different types of plastic. And 5 colours.
It’s not like GW isn’t charging a premium price for these.
Gonna add a new topic here, does anybody know the size of the new Aegis Defense Line? Specifically the height. It has the "dense cover" keyword and 9th Ed rules state if a piece of dense cover is over 3" anywhere on the terrain piece, any unit using it as long as every model is slightly obscured gets -1 to hit. If the raised platform is 3" from top to bottom then I would be more inclined to make a custom trench line for my Krieg to counts as because you get +2 to save on any gun with AP and -1 to hit
Edit: I will probably make it either way to use with my buddies but would be more than just thematic to take to an event. Plus would make it way more valuable for its points.
Miguelsan wrote: I don't get why some posters display such an obtuse attitude. Many buyers will only use the Dorn as a game piece, and under normal circunstance will be unfaced by the lack of a bottom plate.
On the other hand there is a numerous group of people that will buy the tank as a display piece for their collection, among these collectors there will a few that won't care for the missing piece, but I bet all my dice that a larger number will be miffed that their super expensive "toy" has a hole underneath. Dismissing this criticism as trivial is asinine because GW prides itself as the maker of the best miniatures in the world.
M.
Weirdly enough, it seems some posters have an unhealthy attachment to GW, and take as a personnal offense any critique that's made toward it
Robcio wrote: Gonna add a new topic here, does anybody know the size of the new Aegis Defense Line? Specifically the height. It has the "dense cover" keyword and 9th Ed rules state if a piece of dense cover is over 3" anywhere on the terrain piece, any unit using it as long as every model is slightly obscured gets -1 to hit. If the raised platform is 3" from top to bottom then I would be more inclined to make a custom trench line for my Krieg to counts as because you get +2 to save on any gun with AP and -1 to hit
Edit: I will probably make it either way to use with my buddies but would be more than just thematic to take to an event. Plus would make it way more valuable for its points.
Given it wasn't in this release wave, I don't think anyone is likely to have gotten hold of the new ADL yet and be able to say anything about it.
I'm kinda curious what it means for the old ADL, for that matter.
drbored wrote: Most people in the hobby, and... sit down for this one... do not come to online forums to read pages and pages of people's complaints.
Many may join a local discord or simply get their information direct from friends at their hobby shop.
GW wouldn't be making record profits year after year if the majority of their customers was closer in attitude to the average dakkaite.
There are quite a few other models that are missing details on the underside of them, and there's simple reasons for that.
A. few people look under a model
B. the model looks fine from the side/top
C. few people are flipping their models upside down for no reason
D. it saves a load of room on the sprue that can be used for other bits/options instead of adding a whole extra sprue for those bits/options.
People complain about the point of D, but look at these sprues:
Spoiler:
Go ahead and tell me what you'd get rid of to put in a 2"x4" piece of flat plastic that nobody will see.
They wouldn't change them, they'd expect an extra sprue included for no change in price.
Here in Australia for just $50 more the full armor gundam RG has 23, in 3 different types of plastic. And 5 colours.
It’s not like GW isn’t charging a premium price for these.
I was surprised when first building the Russ that if you model it with the top hatch open with the commander there is no blanking plate to prevent peering into the vehicle. Now this is obviously a small hole and it has the commander model to distract from it so it's never bothered me. However if this design trait continues on the Dorn then does that mean if you model the top hatch open you can see through the entire tank with the whooping great hole in the bottom?
Not gonna cry over a hole you can’t see unless you’re looking at the tank from underneath.
But hey, I found a use for the codexes that become useless a week after releases because of errata. Stuff the pages in the hole and seal with the hardback cover cut to shape!
Tallonian4th wrote: However if this design trait continues on the Dorn then does that mean if you model the top hatch open you can see through the entire tank with the whooping great hole in the bottom?
Looking at the sprues, the open crew hatches appear to be blinded.
drbored wrote: Most people in the hobby, and... sit down for this one... do not come to online forums to read pages and pages of people's complaints.
Many may join a local discord or simply get their information direct from friends at their hobby shop.
GW wouldn't be making record profits year after year if the majority of their customers was closer in attitude to the average dakkaite.
There are quite a few other models that are missing details on the underside of them, and there's simple reasons for that.
A. few people look under a model
B. the model looks fine from the side/top
C. few people are flipping their models upside down for no reason
D. it saves a load of room on the sprue that can be used for other bits/options instead of adding a whole extra sprue for those bits/options.
People complain about the point of D, but look at these sprues:
Spoiler:
Go ahead and tell me what you'd get rid of to put in a 2"x4" piece of flat plastic that nobody will see.
They wouldn't change them, they'd expect an extra sprue included for no change in price.
Here in Australia for just $50 more the full armor gundam RG has 23, in 3 different types of plastic. And 5 colours.
It’s not like GW isn’t charging a premium price for these.
Your point is?
For such expensive kits, it’s odd for a brand built on premium. How much more do you think the one extra sprue should cost and how much would we be saving having it cut.
For such expensive kits, it’s odd for a brand built on premium. How much more do you think the one extra sprue should cost and how much would we be saving having it cut.
Other vehicles in it's approximate size class/slot, some smaller, some larger - sprues and price:
It is very obvious that as I stated before HH tanks are comparatively loss leaders in the sprue-price-tank game. Also the number of sprues largely doesn't matter to the price. Given the absurdity of the situation i think a 4th sprue should put the price up to £105 to match the monolith as is only fair. In seriousness I think matching the and fortress if there was a bottom plate + 3rd gun would be fair. We can also see that the flyers following the logic in here should be 2 to a box unless those sprues are doubled and I was being blind.
For such expensive kits, it’s odd for a brand built on premium. How much more do you think the one extra sprue should cost and how much would we be saving having it cut.
Other vehicles in it's approximate size class/slot, some smaller, some larger - sprues and price:
It is very obvious that as I stated before HH tanks are comparatively loss leaders in the sprue-price-tank game. Also the number of sprues largely doesn't matter to the price. Given the absurdity of the situation i think a 4th sprue should put the price up to £105 to match the monolith as is only fair. In seriousness I think matching the and fortress if there was a bottom plate + 3rd gun would be fair. We can also see that the flyers following the logic in here should be 2 to a box unless those sprues are doubled and I was being blind.
You have to look at the size of the sprues too. The Sicaran for example has only two double size sprues while the accessories, sponons and track sprues are only half that size which means only 3.5 double size sprues in there. The Kratos in the same way has 4 double size and 2 full size ones so 5 double size sprues in total. The point still stands that they are cheaper on a price per sprue basis but not as much
For such expensive kits, it’s odd for a brand built on premium. How much more do you think the one extra sprue should cost and how much would we be saving having it cut.
Other vehicles in it's approximate size class/slot, some smaller, some larger - sprues and price:
It is very obvious that as I stated before HH tanks are comparatively loss leaders in the sprue-price-tank game. Also the number of sprues largely doesn't matter to the price. Given the absurdity of the situation i think a 4th sprue should put the price up to £105 to match the monolith as is only fair. In seriousness I think matching the and fortress if there was a bottom plate + 3rd gun would be fair. We can also see that the flyers following the logic in here should be 2 to a box unless those sprues are doubled and I was being blind.
You have to look at the size of the sprues too. The Sicaran for example has only two double size sprues while the accessories, sponons and track sprues are only half that size which means only 3.5 double size sprues in there. The Kratos in the same way has 4 double size and 2 full size ones so 5 double size sprues in total. The point still stands that they are cheaper on a price per sprue basis but not as much
Thank you for that, I had a hard time gauging the size from the pics.
So GW has a lot of overpriced stuff, and they still designed this one badly.
It was still there choice and design to end up here.
They got to step it up if they want to be selling for the price they asking here.
They got to step it up if they want to be selling for the price they asking here.
Given that they sold out of this one, we'll have to see if their next previewed tank gets them bombarded with "Does this have an underside?" comments until they realise what people want.
xttz wrote: Cost is a pretty good explanation if you understand the manufacturing realities involved. I'm under no illusion that you are going to read or engage with any of this in good faith, but I think it's still worth explaining the process for other folks reading this thread who aren't aware of the complexities of real world design & development, and how that influences the products they get.
Spoiler:
This decision has literally nothing to do with one penny worth of plastic and everything to do with how real world plastic injection molding works. Tooling for the three large sprues takes weeks to develop and will have a minimum five figure cost attached, possibly six figures. By adding a 4th sprue to a kit like this would take the cost from something like £90,000 to £120,000 (the real figure may actually be higher than that).
There's also a further incidental cost whenever you produce from a kit that requires four molds instead of three, it always requires use of an additional injection molding machine along with downtime to swap the molds over. All of this influences the final cost of the product.
The other big factor in selling price is forecasted sales. Let's say GW has very similar two kits that both cost them about the same amount for tooling & production:
One is a space marine squad included in a 40k starter set and also sold separately for use with multiple chapters.
One is just a unit for less popular faction, such as Necrons or Sisters.
GW's forecasted sales for the lifetime of that kit will be significantly higher for the former than the latter. So when the space marine unit is sold separately it costs £5 or £10 less than the other kit, as they're making up for the 'loss' of profit through sheer volume.
The HH Proteus comes with:
3 large sprues, same size as the Dorn's sprues
2 small sprues, one of which is shared across all new HH vehicle kits
Out of these, only one is unique to that kit and the other four are shared with the Spartan (not to mention the upcoming Typhon, and possibly other future kits). The Spartan is included in the HH starter set so will have a fairly high forecasted sales, before they factor in the way that a majority of Heresy players will all be buying exactly the same vehicle kits most of been designed to share sprues between them. Forecasted sales of HH vehicles will be an order of magnitude higher than the Rogal Dorn.
That's why you get slightly more plastic in the Proteus box.
Of course, the other alternative to a more expensive model was just to include fewer weapon, crew, and stowage bits in the three supplied sprues to make room for a boring flat piece of plastic.
This post was a breath of fresh air. Which of course means most people glossed right over it.
Thank you for that, I had a hard time gauging the size from the pics.
Since modern sprues all have injection points on them which are those round disks with a pin sticking out, you can use these to see what size a sprue is.
So heres is how I named the different sprue sizes:
Double size means four injection points which is the size the Rogal Dorn is using and is the same size as the biggest model boxes, so most vehicles and Combat Patrols
Full size is half a double size sprue so two injections points and the same size as most troop boxes (new cadians for example)
Half size is half a full size sprue so only one injection point and the size of characters that get boxes instead of clampacks (Ursula Creed)
And then there are clampack sprues which also have one injection point but are slightly smaller than half size sprues
And then you have to take note that these meant for normal boxes, for army sets, combat patrols, other big sets GW sometimes doesn't break apart smaller sprue sizes for example the cadians are produced as two full size sprues stuck together for the size of a double size sprue which then get broken apart for their solo box. But since the Cadia Stands army set was a bigger box they didn't break them apart for that. The below list has all sprues added together to double size.
For your list that would mean:
Rogal Dorn - 3 double size sprues - £55
Hekaton land fortress - 3 double size sprues - £65
Battlewagon - older so different injection points but should be 4 double size sprues and the old special upgrade sprue which seems to be slightly smaller than a full size so I'll say 4.4 double size sprues? - £65
Plagueburts Crawler - 2 double size sprues - £42.50
40k Land Raider - so old that it doesn't have the injection points so I can't really say which size the sprues are but if I had to guess I would say around 3 double size sprues? - £52.50
30k Land Raider Proteus - 3 double size sprues and 2 full size so 4 double size in total- £52.50
30k Spartan - 4 double size sprues and 2 full size so 5 double size in total- £67.50
Sicaran - 2 double size sprues and 3 full size so 3.5 double size in total - £47.50
Kratos - 4 double size sprues and 2 full size so 5 double size in total - £75
Void Raven - 2 double size sprues - £52.50
Crimson Hunter - older so different injection points but should be 2 double size sprues - £52.50
Monolith - 4 double size sprues and 1 full size and 1 half size so 4.75 double size in total - £105
Ghost ark - again older so different injection points but should be 3 double size sprues - £35
Kill Rig - 2 double size sprues and 1 full size so 2.5 double size in total - £80
But on a whole GW doesn't really care about sprue count, their pricing is mainly a result of finished model size and to a big part game/lore importance (which is why characters are so expensive)
One thing to consider is the tooling for the Heresy sets is often shared between different kits, so the start up cost would be less than a set of kits with all unique sprues.
Thank you for that, I had a hard time gauging the size from the pics.
Since modern sprues all have injection points on them which are those round disks with a pin sticking out, you can use these to see what size a sprue is.
So heres is how I named the different sprue sizes:
Double size means four injection points which is the size the Rogal Dorn is using and is the same size as the biggest model boxes, so most vehicles and Combat Patrols
Full size is half a double size sprue so two injections points and the same size as most troop boxes (new cadians for example)
Half size is half a full size sprue so only one injection point and the size of characters that get boxes instead of clampacks (Ursula Creed)
And then there are clampack sprues which also have one injection point but are slightly smaller than half size sprues
And then you have to take note that these meant for normal boxes, for army sets, combat patrols, other big sets GW sometimes doesn't break apart smaller sprue sizes for example the cadians are produced as two full size sprues stuck together for the size of a double size sprue which then get broken apart for their solo box. But since the Cadia Stands army set was a bigger box they didn't break them apart for that. The below list has all sprues added together to double size.
For your list that would mean:
Rogal Dorn - 3 double size sprues - £55
Hekaton land fortress - 3 double size sprues - £65
Battlewagon - older so different injection points but should be 4 double size sprues and the old special upgrade sprue which seems to be slightly smaller than a full size so I'll say 4.4 double size sprues? - £65
Plagueburts Crawler - 2 double size sprues - £42.50
40k Land Raider - so old that it doesn't have the injection points so I can't really say which size the sprues are but if I had to guess I would say around 3 double size sprues? - £52.50
30k Land Raider Proteus - 3 double size sprues and 2 full size so 4 double size in total- £52.50
30k Spartan - 4 double size sprues and 2 full size so 5 double size in total- £67.50
Sicaran - 2 double size sprues and 3 full size so 3.5 double size in total - £47.50
Kratos - 4 double size sprues and 2 full size so 5 double size in total - £75
Void Raven - 2 double size sprues - £52.50
Crimson Hunter - older so different injection points but should be 2 double size sprues - £52.50
Monolith - 4 double size sprues and 1 full size and 1 half size so 4.75 double size in total - £105
Ghost ark - again older so different injection points but should be 3 double size sprues - £35
Kill Rig - 2 double size sprues and 1 full size so 2.5 double size in total - £80
But on a whole GW doesn't really care about sprue count, their pricing is mainly a result of finished model size and to a big part game/lore importance (which is why characters are so expensive)
Thank you for the extra work, that's very helpful and will help inform people.
It sounds daft but it does look like options were either only 1 gun loadout + base plate and fewer gubbins, or make up an extra half sprues worth and crank it up £10-15.
They got to step it up if they want to be selling for the price they asking here.
Given that they sold out of this one, we'll have to see if their next previewed tank gets them bombarded with "Does this have an underside?" comments until they realise what people want.
Isn’t sold out here, which was my price comparison, and to a premium brand.
Selling out doesn’t even mean it’s a good kit, but it’s meme value probably worth it.
Miguelsan wrote: I don't get why some posters display such an obtuse attitude.
I suspect that, to put it in polite terms, they feel the need to validate their decision to spend $$$$$$$$ on the new kit. If a gaping hole in the bottom is a genuine design flaw then they're fools for spending premium money on a sub-par product. So the only alternative is that the hole is not a problem, and anyone who threatens their nice neat rationalization must be a hater who is just looking for reasons to be mad at GW.
Well is it flaw? Does it make the model less sturdy? Because that's only reason it would be flaw unless you also insist it has full interior, full control gear, full ammunition, full spare part supply etc all in scale as well.
It's only flaw if it affects the gaming piece as a gaming piece. Aka durability. Unless there's proof it affects durability then it's not a flaw.
Hell the part shouldn't even be painted if you are smart guy. Waste of good paint on irrelevant part. Do you paint interior of model before gluing it up as well?
The tabletop gaming side isn't the only thing that matters and excusing this by reducing the hobby to just that is absurd. GW even acknowledged their customer base is a variety of different people interested in the hobby for different things in their recent annual report:
Our customers can be found anywhere, and we seek them out all over the world.They’re a passionate bunch with an interest in science fiction and fantasy. They’re collectors, painters, model builders, gamers, book lovers and much more. And while no two customers engage with Warhammer in exactly the same way, they’re all deeply invested in the rich characters and settings of our IP.
It the end result of how something looked as a "gaming piece" was all that was important then kits would be as simple as possible with minimal to no unnecessary extras, but that's not the only consideration at all.
drbored wrote: M
Go ahead and tell me what you'd get rid of to put in a 2"x4" piece of flat plastic that nobody will see.
Dozer blade.
I don't think the Rogal Dorn has that on the sprue.
Depending on whether there are sufficient track links so they can be left off, I'd start with the two track guards on the third sprue, then rerun the algorithm that places parts.
Alternatively, remove all the random bits of stowage (and crew) to their own... half-sprue(?) as a new "detail your tank" sprue (that can then go with other vehicles as well, or just be sold as a Direct Only item), add the hull plate, and re-run the algorithm.
If the latter happens to leave room for a third main gun option - which looks to just be a barrel swap, from what I can see - even better.
drbored wrote: M
Go ahead and tell me what you'd get rid of to put in a 2"x4" piece of flat plastic that nobody will see.
Dozer blade.
I don't think the Rogal Dorn has that on the sprue.
Depending on whether there are sufficient track links so they can be left off, I'd start with the two track guards on the third sprue, then rerun the algorithm that places parts.
Alternatively, remove all the random bits of stowage (and crew) to their own... half-sprue(?) as a new "detail your tank" sprue (that can then go with other vehicles as well, or just be sold as a Direct Only item), add the hull plate, and re-run the algorithm.
If the latter happens to leave room for a third main gun option - which looks to just be a barrel swap, from what I can see - even better.
Couldn't agree more with this. There is no excuse for the tank not being complete. Fundamentals should be a complete tank with basic options before adding any additional pieces. I'd start with omitting the wasted space of the man and his tea tray to fire the stubber from the back of the turret into the commander and gunner. Mounting on the hatch rings as previous designs was perfectly reasonable and logical. Comparing it to the WWII tanks it apes do you think Tamiya or Airfix would get away with a similar 'solution' despite the fact that those models are similarly unlikely to be seen upside down. If GW wants to claim to make high quality models they need to be high quality.
xttz wrote: Forecasted sales of HH vehicles will be an order of magnitude higher than the Rogal Dorn.
{citation needed}
These aren't marine kits we're talking about, they're kits for a tertiary game that from anecdotal evidence is doing very poorly and they have no (realistic) use in 40k. Worse, the Proteus is an off-meta kit for a tertiary game that will only be bought by collectors who don't care about its on-table performance. I don't see any reason to assume an order of magnitude better sales when the "marines always sell" effect does not apply, especially compared to a shiny new tank aimed at the faction of obsessive tank hoarders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mentlegen324 wrote: It the end result of how something looked as a "gaming piece" was all that was important then kits would be as simple as possible with minimal to no unnecessary extras, but that's not the only consideration at all.
And, very importantly, they would be cheap. Nobody would care about a hole if the kit cost $10 like the lowest-tier historical models. It's a throwaway game piece that is suitable for playing the game and has a price to match. But GW wants to sell it at a premium price, which means being judged compared to premium products. And by that standard the Dorn falls inexcusably short.
For such expensive kits, it’s odd for a brand built on premium. How much more do you think the one extra sprue should cost and how much would we be saving having it cut.
Other vehicles in it's approximate size class/slot, some smaller, some larger - sprues and price:
It is very obvious that as I stated before HH tanks are comparatively loss leaders in the sprue-price-tank game. Also the number of sprues largely doesn't matter to the price. Given the absurdity of the situation i think a 4th sprue should put the price up to £105 to match the monolith as is only fair. In seriousness I think matching the and fortress if there was a bottom plate + 3rd gun would be fair. We can also see that the flyers following the logic in here should be 2 to a box unless those sprues are doubled and I was being blind.
You have to look at the size of the sprues too. The Sicaran for example has only two double size sprues while the accessories, sponons and track sprues are only half that size which means only 3.5 double size sprues in there. The Kratos in the same way has 4 double size and 2 full size ones so 5 double size sprues in total. The point still stands that they are cheaper on a price per sprue basis but not as much
Thank you for that, I had a hard time gauging the size from the pics.
Another item worth noting with the HH sprues is that several of them are shared among multiple kits; the sponson weapon sprue, for example. This means they will amortise much faster because everyone who buys a predator, Sicaran, or Kratos is buying one, so it should probably count only 1/3. Same for the hatch/accessories sprue.
xttz wrote: Forecasted sales of HH vehicles will be an order of magnitude higher than the Rogal Dorn.
{citation needed}
These aren't marine kits we're talking about, they're kits for a tertiary game that from anecdotal evidence is doing very poorly and they have no (realistic) use in 40k. Worse, the Proteus is an off-meta kit for a tertiary game that will only be bought by collectors who don't care about its on-table performance. I don't see any reason to assume an order of magnitude better sales when the "marines always sell" effect does not apply, especially compared to a shiny new tank aimed at the faction of obsessive tank hoarders.
The Proteus kit is a single new sprue, with all other sprues included in 3 or more other kits.
drbored wrote: M
Go ahead and tell me what you'd get rid of to put in a 2"x4" piece of flat plastic that nobody will see.
Dozer blade.
I don't think the Rogal Dorn has that on the sprue.
Depending on whether there are sufficient track links so they can be left off, I'd start with the two track guards on the third sprue, then rerun the algorithm that places parts.
Alternatively, remove all the random bits of stowage (and crew) to their own... half-sprue(?) as a new "detail your tank" sprue (that can then go with other vehicles as well, or just be sold as a Direct Only item), add the hull plate, and re-run the algorithm.
If the latter happens to leave room for a third main gun option - which looks to just be a barrel swap, from what I can see - even better.
Couldn't agree more with this. There is no excuse for the tank not being complete. Fundamentals should be a complete tank with basic options before adding any additional pieces. I'd start with omitting the wasted space of the man and his tea tray to fire the stubber from the back of the turret into the commander and gunner. Mounting on the hatch rings as previous designs was perfectly reasonable and logical. Comparing it to the WWII tanks it apes do you think Tamiya or Airfix would get away with a similar 'solution' despite the fact that those models are similarly unlikely to be seen upside down. If GW wants to claim to make high quality models they need to be high quality.
Exactly this. It's a very poor decision by GW that reflects badly on the brand and make it look cheap. If for whatver reason, they couldn't make a tank that large at a reasonable price,without it being incomplete, they should have made a smaller one. This is the miniature equivalent of a maid putting all the trash in the closet and claiming she cleaned the room
xttz wrote: Forecasted sales of HH vehicles will be an order of magnitude higher than the Rogal Dorn.
{citation needed}
These aren't marine kits we're talking about, they're kits for a tertiary game that from anecdotal evidence is doing very poorly and they have no (realistic) use in 40k. Worse, the Proteus is an off-meta kit for a tertiary game that will only be bought by collectors who don't care about its on-table performance. I don't see any reason to assume an order of magnitude better sales when the "marines always sell" effect does not apply, especially compared to a shiny new tank aimed at the faction of obsessive tank hoarders.
In addition to the points made in the two posts above, you've clearly misunderstood the difference between past and future. A forecast is an attempt to predict the future using data from the past. I'm talking about forecasts made for new kits most likely in 2020-21. Well before GW knew for certain how well it would sell, well before the game was officially announced, possibly before they'd even finished writing the rules for it.
What would "off-meta" units have to do with the costing & pricing calculations for a game system that the customers don't even yet know about? Rules are going to constantly change for all game systems and models will fall in and out of favour with players.
The lifetime of most plastic kits is expected to be 10-20 years. It's pretty reasonable for anyone to assume prior to release that one 40k Imperial Guard vehicle is going to be heavily outsold by multiple combined Horus Heresy vehicle kits over the next couple of decades.
For such expensive kits, it’s odd for a brand built on premium. How much more do you think the one extra sprue should cost and how much would we be saving having it cut.
Other vehicles in it's approximate size class/slot, some smaller, some larger - sprues and price:
It is very obvious that as I stated before HH tanks are comparatively loss leaders in the sprue-price-tank game. Also the number of sprues largely doesn't matter to the price. Given the absurdity of the situation i think a 4th sprue should put the price up to £105 to match the monolith as is only fair. In seriousness I think matching the and fortress if there was a bottom plate + 3rd gun would be fair. We can also see that the flyers following the logic in here should be 2 to a box unless those sprues are doubled and I was being blind.
You have to look at the size of the sprues too. The Sicaran for example has only two double size sprues while the accessories, sponons and track sprues are only half that size which means only 3.5 double size sprues in there. The Kratos in the same way has 4 double size and 2 full size ones so 5 double size sprues in total. The point still stands that they are cheaper on a price per sprue basis but not as much
Thank you for that, I had a hard time gauging the size from the pics.
Another item worth noting with the HH sprues is that several of them are shared among multiple kits; the sponson weapon sprue, for example. This means they will amortise much faster because everyone who buys a predator, Sicaran, or Kratos is buying one, so it should probably count only 1/3. Same for the hatch/accessories sprue.
I am glad to see people are noticing the various shared sprues in the Horus Hersey vehicles and understand that makes them comparatively cheaper to produce. It is not a defense of GWs decision to leave the hole in the bottom of the Rogal Dorn, but it does explain why these more sprue kits are cheaper when multiple sprues are shared by multiple kits.
Also, re: Proteus, I'd call it distinctly not "off-meta"; it and the rhino are about the only two vehicles that you can take without regret. Plus, as others have said, most of the 30k playerbase (the existing/legacy playerbase, at least), isn't as concerned about top table competitive viability. I think most of Decimus's comment was off base.
xttz wrote: In addition to the points made in the two posts above, you've clearly misunderstood the difference between past and future. A forecast is an attempt to predict the future using data from the past. I'm talking about forecasts made for new kits most likely in 2020-21. Well before GW knew for certain how well it would sell, well before the game was officially announced, possibly before they'd even finished writing the rules for it.
If the forecast is so uncertain then how can you or GW be so sure that it would sell an order of magnitude more than the Dorn? Why is that a reasonable sales prediction?
What would "off-meta" units have to do with the costing & pricing calculations for a game system that the customers don't even yet know about? Rules are going to constantly change for all game systems and models will fall in and out of favour with players.
Rules don't change all that much. 30k 2.0 is a lot like 30k 1.0, where if you were taking a Land Raider of any kind it was a Spartan for your terminator death star. The only real change with vehicles in 2.0 was Contemptors getting buffed to an absurd level and making all non-Spartan vehicles obsolete. So it would have been pretty reasonable to expect the Proteus to be roughly as popular relative to other 30k units as it was in 1.0, which means it's an off-meta unit with poor expected sales that can only be made at all because it shares sprues with the auto-take Spartan. And because 30k as a whole has been far less popular than 40k even a kit that is popular relative to other 30k units should have low forecasted sales.
Contrast that with the Dorn, which is a shiny new tank for the primary game instead of the tertiary game and is made for a faction of obsessive tank hoarders that will buy far more copies of it than they can ever use in a game because tanks are cool and you can always have more tanks.
So uh, nobody seemed to know, but it appears as if the Cadian command squad can still take bolters, but the new kit does not have one. Is this correct?
Sorry for being very off topic, but would love to know the anecdotal evidence HH is struggling, because I have sufficient anecdotal evidence it is absolutely thriving - in addition I know plenty of marine players that have bought numerous of the new HH tanks for 40k - and they plan to start a 30k army or already have.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Sorry for being very off topic, but would love to know the anecdotal evidence HH is struggling, because I have sufficient anecdotal evidence it is absolutely thriving - in addition I know plenty of marine players that have bought numerous of the new HH tanks for 40k - and they plan to start a 30k army or already have.
New releases (outside of minimum-effort shoulder pads) are slow and way behind schedule, GW has shown no apparent interest in fixing the major rule problems, hype from GW has dropped significantly, and online activity seems to be minimal relative to 40k activity. Look at active threads in Dakka's 30k section (for all of 30k combined) vs. just 40k general discussion and it's a huge disparity. 30k got some initial hype but once people realized what a dumpster fire the rules are it very quickly cooled. It looks very much like GW is putting 30k on the back burner and releasing the stuff they had already put into production before launch day but not prioritizing any further content. And that's not very impressive given the fact that 1.0 was a dead game and GW is trying to build it up from zero.
And I'd be really surprised if "plenty" of marine players are buying 30k tanks for 40k given how GW deliberately sabotaged their rules as part of their attempt to phase out FW stuff. They should have tried to exploit the "40k marines always sell" factor and their failure to provide proper 40k rules support is baffling, but I can't imagine anyone who has read IA:C deliberately buying the relic stuff for 40k games.
Has it? I mean, it's one of the games being previewed in two days.
Aecus Decimus wrote: ... and online activity seems to be minimal relative to 40k activity.
All activity is minimal compared to 40k. That's really not all that earth-shattering.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Look at active threads in Dakka's 30k section (for all of 30k combined) vs. just 40k general discussion and it's a huge disparity. 30k got some initial hype but once people realized what a dumpster fire the rules are it very quickly cooled.
I've heard nothing but praise for the rules, and several people here just chucking 40k in the bin altogether (especially after the recent Chaos Codex) to make 30k their main.
I just feel everything you just posted has a giant flashing [CITATION NEEDED] after it.
Main thing I see about 30k is just people waiting for kits in plastic.
Hard to finish your army or get games in with half-lists, and the starter box is only going to get you so much entertainment.
We also had several months of them pumping out tanks, upgrades, and other models, with more on the horizon and more to be revealed in a couple days.
But this is for Astra Militarum rumors, and the only thing we need to be concerned about is when the second wave is coming... which is likely going to be right after the Gitz and BoC come out.
Sledgehammer wrote: So uh, nobody seemed to know, but it appears as if the Cadian command squad can still take bolters, but the new kit does not have one. Is this correct?
I've checked the Codex, Sledgehammer, and and Cadian Command Squad doesn't have any boltgun options, but the Commander and one other model could have a bolt pistol (thanks to silly equipment rules).
Looking at the Command Squad sprues, I see two arms with bolt pistols, and no sign of any boltguns at all.
Aecus Decimus wrote: GW has shown no apparent interest in fixing the major rule problems
Have they?
Sure looks like Warhammer: Age of Contemptors is still in full effect and the only thing slowing them down at all is groups collectively deciding that holy that list is broken let's agree to never bring it. Nor has GW shown any apparent interest in fixing the F-tier joke of the pdf units or how way too much of the game consists of trying to game the reaction system and force your opponent to spend their one reaction for the phase. It's not like dread spam is a subtle thing, all GW has to do is pay even the slightest attention to the game and issue a balance fix.
All activity is minimal compared to 40k. That's really not all that earth-shattering.
But it does mean it's absurd to suggest that a reasonable sales forecast is for the Proteus to sell an order of magnitude more kits than the Dorn. 30k is a tertiary game being treated like a tertiary game after a brief hype period around the launch release, and even a successful 30k release is only successful relative to the other tertiary games. And this was even more true when GW committed to the sprue designs, as 30k was a dead game with nothing more than hope that the re-launch would be successful. So the original claim that "it's a space marine kit, of course GW can afford to give it more sprues and pay it off by selling orders of magnitude more copies" does not explain the situation with the relative sprue counts.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Sorry for being very off topic, but would love to know the anecdotal evidence HH is struggling, because I have sufficient anecdotal evidence it is absolutely thriving - in addition I know plenty of marine players that have bought numerous of the new HH tanks for 40k - and they plan to start a 30k army or already have.
New releases (outside of minimum-effort shoulder pads) are slow and way behind schedule, GW has shown no apparent interest in fixing the major rule problems, hype from GW has dropped significantly, and online activity seems to be minimal relative to 40k activity. Look at active threads in Dakka's 30k section (for all of 30k combined) vs. just 40k general discussion and it's a huge disparity. 30k got some initial hype but once people realized what a dumpster fire the rules are it very quickly cooled. It looks very much like GW is putting 30k on the back burner and releasing the stuff they had already put into production before launch day but not prioritizing any further content. And that's not very impressive given the fact that 1.0 was a dead game and GW is trying to build it up from zero.
And I'd be really surprised if "plenty" of marine players are buying 30k tanks for 40k given how GW deliberately sabotaged their rules as part of their attempt to phase out FW stuff. They should have tried to exploit the "40k marines always sell" factor and their failure to provide proper 40k rules support is baffling, but I can't imagine anyone who has read IA:C deliberately buying the relic stuff for 40k games.
Respectfully I think you're dead wrong about this. One part of it is that in general the 30k community is alot more positive about painting, modelling, and encouraging each other than moaning about lack of plastic kits on forums. If you go on Instagram or Facebook you'll see massive amounts of 30k. It's got.way more popular since v2 came out and it's.continuing to grow. Heresy was around before plastic support so although yeah people do want the plastic kits for assault infantry and jump.troops they'll do what we've done for the last decade. Convert, use existing plastics, 3d print, use recasts if needed or just buy the resins.
As for "dumpster fire of rules" it really isn't. It's far from perfect but at this point it's a much easier game to play than 40k. Again there's a vocal minority whining about special rules not being easy to find but honestly it takes 5 minutes one time and then you know where they are. After that its just become a bit of a meme that everyone jokes about. A big company like GW shouldn't have released the rules in such a poor state but it's far from a dumpster fire.
Bobug wrote: It's got.way more popular since v2 came out and it's.continuing to grow.
Way more than zero is still not very much.
And remember the context here. The claim was that the Proteus can have more sprues than the Dorn at a lower price tag because when GW designed the kits back before Heresy 2.0 was launched a reasonable sales forecast was that the Proteus would sell an order of magnitude more copies than the Dorn so the cost per box of making the molds would be less despite a larger total cost. This is an absurd suggestion given the fact that Heresy 1.0 was a dead game with negligible sales and effectively zero interest, no sane analyst would have projected that level of revival and endorsed a sales plan that relied on it. The far more likely answer is that GW is perfectly capable of giving the Dorn an extra sprue to include the floor plate (along with another turret option or whatever) and decided that the whales will buy it anyway so just ship it with a giant hole in the bottom and pocket the extra profit.
As for "dumpster fire of rules" it really isn't.
The Contemptor Dreadnought wishes to dispute this claim. Even 40k doesn't have anything that egregiously bad.
Bobug wrote: It's got.way more popular since v2 came out and it's.continuing to grow.
Way more than zero is still not very much.
As for "dumpster fire of rules" it really isn't.
The Contemptor Dreadnought wishes to dispute this claim. Even 40k doesn't have anything that egregiously bad.
1. The first iteration of 30k didn't have zero players, what are you smoking?
2. To claim 40k has nothing equal to, or worse, than the Contemptor shows you really don't know what you're talking about. You really forget we just had a brand new army get nerfed BEFORE the release because of how overpowered the rules were?
EviscerationPlague wrote: 1. The first iteration of 30k didn't have zero players, what are you smoking?
Literally zero? No. So few that when the one person at GW who cared about 30k died GW collectively shrugged and didn't bother to replace him? Yep.
2. To claim 40k has nothing equal to, or worse, than the Contemptor shows you really don't know what you're talking about. You really forget we just had a brand new army get nerfed BEFORE the release because of how overpowered the rules were?
Highlighted the important part for you. Pre-nerf squats were broken but GW fixed their mistake before the book was even released. People played some theoryhammer games with the leaked rules but they never even made it to the official game. Contemptors have been broken since day one, arguably to a greater degree than squats, and GW hasn't made even the slightest attempt to fix the problem.
Bobug wrote: You're either trolling or incredibly misinformed.
On which part? That 30k 1.0 had dismal sales? That should be obvious from how GW completely abandoned the game when one person died. Or that Contemptors are a problem worse than anything in 40k? I can't think of any 40k balance problem that is so bad that the community has a near-universal house rule that you aren't allowed to use it.
Clearly GW has (relatively) massive profit margins on their kits. If they wanted to include a 4th sprue at the same cost, I am sure they could have done it profitably. I am equally sure they would have chosen to make the kit more expensive to maintain a higher profit margin.
It is a disappointing decision, but hey ho. I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it.
Sledgehammer wrote: So uh, nobody seemed to know, but it appears as if the Cadian command squad can still take bolters, but the new kit does not have one. Is this correct?
I've checked the Codex, Sledgehammer, and and Cadian Command Squad doesn't have any boltgun options, but the Commander and one other model could have a bolt pistol (thanks to silly equipment rules).
Looking at the Command Squad sprues, I see two arms with bolt pistols, and no sign of any boltguns at all.
Darn, I loved giving my sergeants and commanders bolters.
Either way I'll see if it possible to make a cadian castellan using some of the new arms, cutting them off at the hand and then sticking a sisters bolter on them.
It would be really easy to make it a double conversion by using two holstered las pistols on the sides of the legs and sticking a sword on the back to stand in for ursula creed.
Sledgehammer wrote: So uh, nobody seemed to know, but it appears as if the Cadian command squad can still take bolters, but the new kit does not have one. Is this correct?
I've checked the Codex, Sledgehammer, and and Cadian Command Squad doesn't have any boltgun options, but the Commander and one other model could have a bolt pistol (thanks to silly equipment rules).
Looking at the Command Squad sprues, I see two arms with bolt pistols, and no sign of any boltguns at all.
Darn, I loved giving my sergeants and commanders bolters.
Either way I'll see if it possible to make a cadian castellan using some of the new arms, cutting them off at the hand and then sticking a sisters bolter on them.
It would be really easy to make it a double conversion by using two holstered las pistols on the sides of the legs and sticking a sword on the back to stand in for ursula creed.
Yeah, the Castellan and the Krieg sergeant look to be the only ones still with bolters.
alphaecho wrote: I can only think that someone at the Studio wants sergeants to appear different from the Guardsmen they lead.
It is actually a traditional aesthetic thing that started back in Rogue Trader and roots in pre-00s historical war movies like CBS' All Quiet In The Western Front and Zulu where squad leaders are often depicted wielding pistols - this was a kind of a thing IRL but it is mostly a narrative decision in the movies (rifles are too "grunt-ish").
alphaecho wrote: I can only think that someone at the Studio wants sergeants to appear different from the Guardsmen they lead.
It is actually a traditional aesthetic thing that started back in Rogue Trader and roots in pre-00s historical war movies like CBS' All Quiet In The Western Front and Zulu where squad leaders are often depicted wielding pistols - this was a kind of a thing IRL but it is mostly a narrative decision in the movies (rifles are too "grunt-ish").
Iirc it mostly derived from swords being a mandatory part of officer's uniforms in many european armies -and armies modeled after them- up until WW1 or even WW2 in many cases, so a pistol to use alongside a sword followed quite naturally.
I wish there was proper Gunpla distribution in the UK. Here it’s like £100 minimum if you can even get it vs £55 for the Dorn assuming I’m looking at the right mega Zaku.
I know you can get Gunpla here but as far as I’m aware there isn’t actually Bandai distribution in the UK so gunpla stores have to import stuff. So it ends up more expensive than the US who have proper distribution.
I think model-wise, this is a good release. The field guns are very nice and the Cadians still seem to be very good as a basis to convert into other Regiments. Pricing on the characters is naff but the main stuff still seems ok.
Can't speak to all the changes, but noticed new datasheets at the end, plus this:
Page 60, 61 – Armageddon-pattern Basilisks, Armageddon-pattern Medusas, Malcador Delete datasheet and replace with the corresponding datasheet at the end of this document.
Except the datasheets look like a terrible copypasta job. Armageddon-Patterns now have Regimental and Squadron keywords, but missing Artillery, and still has <Regiment>. Also no improvement to either T or Sv, with only stat difference to Codex Basilisk being M12" at top profile. Also can't take armoured tracks, so automatically it's a worse option.
Malcador is similar. No increase in Sv like LR got, battlecannon doesn't have Turret Weapon rule, etc etc.
Haven't seen a hot-take on Goonhammer yet, and the "2020/12" folder structure in the direct link is making my head hurt.
Another zero-effort FW update by people who don't really understand how the rules work? I'm shocked, who could have seen this coming? I have no idea how these people are still employed.
Haven't seen a hot-take on Goonhammer yet, and the "2020/12" folder structure in the direct link is making my head hurt.
My archivist training tells me someone did a stupid thing and saved over the old version of the pdf rather than making a new file in a new folder marked 2023/01
And MACHINE SPIRIT keyword finally added to the pertinent Chaos vehicles, and also.....Sicarans? But Loyalist Scum Sicarans don't get it?
Gods, having the 40k rules team take over the rules for fw units has been a disaster.
Well, my vendettas were once in the codex. Now they are 80 points higher in price and have a worse ballistic skill than the standard valkyrie..... sigh.....
I was looking forward to this release to get back to playing 40k, but the flyer rules continue to drive me away. I'll continue waiting for 10th.
It's funny, in the olden days, we knew FW rules were pretty bad, and they'd never be updated with any regularity. Now they are updated all the time and constantly still bad.
ph34r wrote: It's funny, in the olden days, we knew FW rules were pretty bad, and they'd never be updated with any regularity. Now they are updated all the time and constantly still bad.
Specifically they are updated bare minimum to work with new codex functionality.
But they are left out of power creep, point costs are left as is etc. GW doesn't want tournament try hards to buy resin when plastic is more profitable.
ph34r wrote: It's funny, in the olden days, we knew FW rules were pretty bad, and they'd never be updated with any regularity. Now they are updated all the time and constantly still bad.
Specifically they are updated bare minimum to work with new codex functionality.
But they are left out of power creep, point costs are left as is etc. GW doesn't want tournament try hards to buy resin when plastic is more profitable.
this ^
Forgeworld already has a tough time keeping stuff in stock. Imagine if they also had to deal with the competitive scene buying up all the resin of something they haven't brought the mold out for in 3 years.
We saw it happen with Leviathans and there were huge stretches of time where they were simply out of stock, and all anyone did was complain about the leviathan dreadnought meta.
Except rules for FW models been handled by GW for a long time by now...Which is precisely why they are left to linger. When you have guys to whom advantage is them not selling beyond collectors who wouldn't buy nth kit of same plastic they have incentive to make sure rules aren't interesting enough to sell.
If you have problem with FW unit rules complain to GW designers. They are the ones handling it. FW isn't.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Does FW still make anything for 40k but marine upgrade kits?
Honest question, I can't remember the last time I saw anything new from them.
I think the last things they made which were not either dual use or event specific were either the Tau battlesuit upgrade things / Super-Suit or the Necron flyer upgrade / large construct, and these are years old. Other than that, maybe some terrain and basing stuff i missed, but that kind of falls under dual use too.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Does FW still make anything for 40k but marine upgrade kits?
Honest question, I can't remember the last time I saw anything new from them.
I think the last things they made which were not either dual use or event specific were either the Tau battlesuit upgrade things / Super-Suit or the Necron flyer upgrade / large construct, and these are years old. Other than that, maybe some terrain and basing stuff i missed, but that kind of falls under dual use too.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Does FW still make anything for 40k but marine upgrade kits?
Honest question, I can't remember the last time I saw anything new from them.
I think the last things they made which were not either dual use or event specific were either the Tau battlesuit upgrade things / Super-Suit or the Necron flyer upgrade / large construct, and these are years old. Other than that, maybe some terrain and basing stuff i missed, but that kind of falls under dual use too.
ph34r wrote: It's funny, in the olden days, we knew FW rules were pretty bad, and they'd never be updated with any regularity. Now they are updated all the time and constantly still bad.
Specifically they are updated bare minimum to work with new codex functionality.
But they are left out of power creep, point costs are left as is etc. GW doesn't want tournament try hards to buy resin when plastic is more profitable.
See, I don't think they're even updated to the bare minimum. I'm fine with them being left out of power creep, but even as a strictly narrative player, this stuff becomes completely unusable without house-rules. God forbid I want to use my MoO on an Armageddon-Pattern Basilisk, or have the same updated movement speed, and literally anything that differentiates its closed-top nature (since it used to have +1T, but now they're the same as the codex version was upgraded).
alextroy wrote: You’ll get your fully updated rules when they write up the next version of the Forgeworld… Who am I kidding? That is never going to happen
I fear for the 10th Ed FW book because it will remove even more units than the 9th Ed one did.
It would be bonkers, but I was a little disappointed the Macharius Vanquisher didn't get the new Vanquisher cannon version. I know it's twin linked so would have required the data sheet being tweaked... Oh well, I'll still use mine anyway, just would have been nice to quite literally be able to one shot a knight
I think the last time KT exclusive kits were released it was in one big batch pretty much of multiple KT.
As the Breachers (and the rest) are still not released separately, there's a chance Karskin do not come in the next wave - unless KT does get their kits released as well. Though I'm unsure they will until the whole of the Gallowdark ark is finished as that is a sufficiently GW thing to do.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I think the last time KT exclusive kits were released it was in one big batch pretty much of multiple KT.
As the Breachers (and the rest) are still not released separately, there's a chance Karskin do not come in the next wave - unless KT does get their kits released as well. Though I'm unsure they will until the whole of the Gallowdark ark is finished as that is a sufficiently GW thing to do.
Or they may drop the 4 teams from Into the Dark and Shadowvaults when Soulshackle comes out.
Is it just me or is the Earthshaker Carriage Battery a decently priced basilisk now? It is 120pts comes with 5 dudes and has "platoon" keyword for Regimental orders.
Edit: I forgot how "crew" works but either way, 20pts less for the same gun. Yes it cant move and has 4 less wounds but I just hide them out of los and screen them anyways.
Robcio wrote: Is it just me or is the Earthshaker Carriage Battery a decently priced basilisk now? It is 120pts comes with 5 dudes and has "platoon" keyword for Regimental orders.
Edit: I forgot how "crew" works but either way, 20pts less for the same gun. Yes it cant move and has 4 less wounds but I just hide them out of los and screen them anyways.
They used to be essentially ablative wounds, but as of 9th they're just cosmetic.
Robcio wrote: Is it just me or is the Earthshaker Carriage Battery a decently priced basilisk now? It is 120pts comes with 5 dudes and has "platoon" keyword for Regimental orders.
Edit: I forgot how "crew" works but either way, 20pts less for the same gun. Yes it cant move and has 4 less wounds but I just hide them out of los and screen them anyways.
They used to be essentially ablative wounds, but as of 9th they're just cosmetic.
Not quite. They are still models, but can't be affected. If you spread them out the enemy can't just pass over them, they must go around. Cheesy, but RAW.
In case anyone else is wondering, the DKoK KT21 kit is somewhat compatible with the nuCad Hvy Weapons Team kit
Man, I need to get me some regular nuCadian squad bitz, to kitbash with my 2 Vet Guardsman kits. If the hands are this well interchangeable (shoulderpads can even be transplanted on if one is fussy about exact shoulderpad trims), all those lovely lasgun/lascarbine variants just became more variety for my ragtag "Kaukopartio"
Might want to magnetize any DKoK gunners though, since you only get 2 crouching torsos per 10 models...
Gert wrote: I think model-wise, this is a good release. The field guns are very nice and the Cadians still seem to be very good as a basis to convert into other Regiments. Pricing on the characters is naff but the main stuff still seems ok.
Bought Cadia Stands but don't want Cadians as an army?
Really hope they have a few of the Kasrkin kits available - think demand is going to be pretty high and its been a nightmare getting hold of the last few releases!
tauist wrote: In case anyone else is wondering, the DKoK KT21 kit is somewhat compatible with the nuCad Hvy Weapons Team kit
Man, I need to get me some regular nuCadian squad bitz, to kitbash with my 2 Vet Guardsman kits. If the hands are this well interchangeable (shoulderpads can even be transplanted on if one is fussy about exact shoulderpad trims), all those lovely lasgun/lascarbine variants just became more variety for my ragtag "Kaukopartio"
Might want to magnetize any DKoK gunners though, since you only get 2 crouching torsos per 10 models...
I think the Taro version of the Dorn cover plate is my favorite. Having those two raised edges to cover the join makes it look like it's supposed to be there.
And I love that we now have three Dorn hole filling options. Guess the market can answer demand sometimes.
I count at least five at this point, ScarletRose:
- Hellstorm Wargaming put a 3D print file up pretty much straightaway
- Taro have one
- Dragon Forge have one
- Watcorp have two designs
ScarletRose wrote: I think the Taro version of the Dorn cover plate is my favorite. Having those two raised edges to cover the join makes it look like it's supposed to be there.
And I love that we now have three Dorn hole filling options. Guess the market can answer demand sometimes.
I'm curious after a while to see how many actually end up sold.
Dysartes wrote: I count at least five at this point, ScarletRose:
- Hellstorm Wargaming put a 3D print file up pretty much straightaway
- Taro have one
- Dragon Forge have one
- Watcorp have two designs
I stand corrected, wasn't thinking about the 3d print designs since I'm not into printing.
I'm curious after a while to see how many actually end up sold.
I don't think anyone's going to be losing money on them. Having an stl file for sale on a site you're already selling files on isn't much of a cost. The silicone molds for the resin probably did take some work, but it's not a huge casting. Keep the mold on a shelf and sell a hull piece every now and then.
Maybe this is already known, but I watched an unboxing video of the reboxed Leman Russ, and it does indeed contain the whole demolisher and battle tank sprues, so there’s a spare hull top, a spare set of sponsons, and you get two full turrets. Really great deal in my opinion.
ph34r wrote: Maybe this is already known, but I watched an unboxing video of the reboxed Leman Russ, and it does indeed contain the whole demolisher and battle tank sprues, so there’s a spare hull top, a spare set of sponsons, and you get two full turrets. Really great deal in my opinion.
Whoa, really? That's nuts!
Has anyone heard when the rough riders are supposed to be released?
ph34r wrote: Maybe this is already known, but I watched an unboxing video of the reboxed Leman Russ, and it does indeed contain the whole demolisher and battle tank sprues, so there’s a spare hull top, a spare set of sponsons, and you get two full turrets. Really great deal in my opinion.
Whoa, really? That's nuts!
Has anyone heard when the rough riders are supposed to be released?
Seeing the way sprues are done that was only way they would do it short of dropping some options entirely if they don't keep 2 different boxes. In one box it's either this way or one set of turret weapons go poof.
Rough Riders, Castellan, Cadian upgrade Sprue, Commissar and Combat Patrol all still to come, which will be a second wave of sorts, maybe late Feb if we are lucky.
Kasrkin are a kill team release so works a little different in terms of being part of the general guard release.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Rough Riders, Castellan, Cadian upgrade Sprue, Commissar and Combat Patrol all still to come, which will be a second wave of sorts, maybe late Feb if we are lucky.
Nah, I just like the Brutal Efficency of the old walls better myself. Though I do wonder if they're going to drop an FAQ or something, since the new one lacks the cannons the old one has. (Then again, the rules for the Aegis Defense Line are in Octarius 1 and by extension, non-valid.)
For a bit of wall that you can pretty much do better on your own if you feel so inclined.
Sure, if you have the needed skills, materials and time.
Don't make it sound easy when it's not, pal. Especially when you're talking about "doing better on your own". I can build a wall, sure, but no way can I "do it better" looking than this GW's product that easily.
For a bit of wall that you can pretty much do better on your own if you feel so inclined.
Sure, if you have the needed skills, materials and time.
Don't make it sound easy when it's not, pal.
Considering the price, you can literally make more wall with the following:
Styrofoam, plaster longuette, Sand if you want, bit of paint. in quantities for literally everyone to be able to produce vast quantities of general concrete / trench earthworks.
Considering the price, you can literally make more wall with the following:
Styrofoam, plaster longuette, Sand if you want, bit of paint. in quantities for literally everyone to be able to produce vast quantities of general concrete / trench earthworks.
Even i can do it and i am not skilled
Feel free to show your work, then, so that we can see it's that better.
Price isn't the only variable to take into account. Time is definitely one. How it looks as well. I mean, sure, if it's just to build a functionnable wall that's more or less the same shape and size than the original and you have a lot of free time for yourself, you can technically make a lot from cheaper material. But I doubt it will have the same level of details than the plastic kit, in that case. It definitely wouldn't look "better" in my opinion...at least if you don't invest a lot of efforts and more time into it.
DaveC wrote: Looks like the price rises have been included - Combat patrol up £5
Assuming no weirdness, USD prices should be:
$160 for the Combat Patrol
$65 for the Rough Riders
$75 for the Aegis
$35 for the upgrades and characters.
Apart from the Black Templars, are there any other larger upgrade sprues like the Astra Militarum one? Bit miffed that there is not a unique transfer sheet like the Templar one, though I guess there are more bits.
Considering the price, you can literally make more wall with the following:
Styrofoam, plaster longuette, Sand if you want, bit of paint. in quantities for literally everyone to be able to produce vast quantities of general concrete / trench earthworks.
Even i can do it and i am not skilled
Feel free to show your work, then, so that we can see it's that better.
Price isn't the only variable to take into account. Time is definitely one. How it looks as well. I mean, sure, if it's just to build a functionnable wall that's more or less the same shape and size than the original and you have a lot of free time for yourself, you can technically make a lot from cheaper material. But I doubt it will have the same level of details than the plastic kit, in that case. It definitely wouldn't look "better" in my opinion...at least if you don't invest a lot of efforts and more time into it.
Amazingly DakkaDakka has people's galleries stored for them if they want. He actually has his saved here with pictures in progress of construction of multiple items, including a very nice bunker .
Before calling people out, go ahead and check them out.
Me personally I'd rather play on a home made table than on a GW battlefield.
I'm really glad we're getting plastic Rough Riders, but I'll confess to being a tiny bit disappointed that we didn't end up with Mogul Kamir making a Nork Deddog-style appearance within the kit.
I wonder if the bionic arm with the sword is meant to be a callback to him?
And I do mean only a tiny bit, as those sprues do seem pretty full already.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Apart from the Black Templars, are there any other larger upgrade sprues like the Astra Militarum one? Bit miffed that there is not a unique transfer sheet like the Templar one, though I guess there are more bits.
Ravenwing accessory sprue is still in use. It’s basically a DA upgrade sprue for a bunch of old kits.
Overall pricing seems to be as expected. Bit of a shame the CP is at the new price, thought that there might be a couple of weeks at the current price for those who were quick. But it does mean it looks good for the rest of the range having he price rise baked in. However £21 for that upgrade sprue is ridiculous, it's a nice set but too much for parts which provide only aesthetics.
The original Rough Riders were released in the first ever Codex: Imperial Guard – way back in the second edition of Warhammer 40,000, when they came on oblong bases.
For a bit of wall that you can pretty much do better on your own if you feel so inclined.
Sure, if you have the needed skills, materials and time.
Don't make it sound easy when it's not, pal. Especially when you're talking about "doing better on your own". I can build a wall, sure, but no way can I "do it better" looking than this GW's product that easily.
I'm sure that I can find someone to make me some walls for 60 euros, though, no matter how unskilled I am myself
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Apart from the Black Templars, are there any other larger upgrade sprues like the Astra Militarum one?
Not that spring to mind immediately.
Bit miffed that there is not a unique transfer sheet like the Templar one, though I guess there are more bits.
They don't need a unique transfer sheet in there, as the Cadian infantry sets come with one.
Spoiler:
Same with the Death Korps set.
Spoiler:
There's not a good, easy to find image of the DKoK transfers though. It has warnings for minefields!
Cheers Kan, aye I already have both those sheets and the new AM Vehicle sheet. It is just that the Templar infantry came with a different sheet to the one with the upgrade sprue, but that is just me being greedy .
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Apart from the Black Templars, are there any other larger upgrade sprues like the Astra Militarum one? Bit miffed that there is not a unique transfer sheet like the Templar one, though I guess there are more bits.
Considering the price, you can literally make more wall with the following:
Styrofoam, plaster longuette, Sand if you want, bit of paint. in quantities for literally everyone to be able to produce vast quantities of general concrete / trench earthworks.
Even i can do it and i am not skilled
Feel free to show your work, then, so that we can see it's that better.
Price isn't the only variable to take into account. Time is definitely one. How it looks as well. I mean, sure, if it's just to build a functionnable wall that's more or less the same shape and size than the original and you have a lot of free time for yourself, you can technically make a lot from cheaper material. But I doubt it will have the same level of details than the plastic kit, in that case. It definitely wouldn't look "better" in my opinion...at least if you don't invest a lot of efforts and more time into it.
Amazingly DakkaDakka has people's galleries stored for them if they want. He actually has his saved here with pictures in progress of construction of multiple items, including a very nice bunker .
Before calling people out, go ahead and check them out.
Me personally I'd rather play on a home made table than on a GW battlefield.
Too nice. I'll re-pick up the terrain building after removing my pile of shame.
And yeah i suggested it because i did it and can easily see ways to create far more substantial terrain for far cheaper. Without even taking into account that 3d printers and 3d Printing services exist which a quick search atleast locally gave me cheaper results for as nice a wall as i am able to design or download the file for it.
Anyways, the rough riders look really nice. I'd have prefered for an option to have a shooting one or two but yeah.
Illumini wrote: Wish they would do a MTO with attilan rough riders
I don't know.
Even though a I had a box at the time, the models didn't really do that much for me. I preferred the ones modded to Tallarns that came out after the Big Toof River display.
For gaming, I remained with my original Rogue Trader era Rough Riders as I jumped into 40K at the dawn of 2nd Ed.
RaptorusRex wrote: Frankly, I’ve always been of the opinion that Rough Riders look best when they fit the Regiment of the main army.
Agreed. These are easy fixes though, especially with so many spare heads roaming about in the range. Its even possible to swap torsos around, and with a bit of knife work, move the lances and hands to other arms.
Wildly disagree. It makes the whole range feel too samey.
The Guard isn't supposed to be all from one single world. Each has a part to play, and a particular strength. While it would have been nice to see Attilans have a "generic" build, it is nice to see that GW is doing more to showcase the amalgated nature of a Guard army.
Kanluwen wrote: Wildly disagree. It makes the whole range feel too samey.
The Guard isn't supposed to be all from one single world. Each has a part to play, and a particular strength. While it would have been nice to see Attilans have a "generic" build, it is nice to see that GW is doing more to showcase the amalgated nature of a Guard army.
It's individual preference and choice.
My Imperial Guard initially consisted of a Command, Infantry and Heavy Weaoon Squad of each of the 2nd Ed metal regiments until I concentrated more on the Mordians. As they grew I gradually replaced the Cadians, Tallarns et al.
I always felt that for the size of the tabletop battlefield, three or four different Infantry Regiments seemed a little out of place.
From a background point of view, Cadian Basilisks with Tallarn Leman Russ tanks and Valhallan Infantry is more authentic than my current Praetorian All Stars combined Infantry, armour and artillery force.
ADL coming as a set of two is… interesting. Certainly makes the model more usable on the table, but GW could have released the kit with half the sprues for half the price, because who is actually going to take two? Good for display though.
The Cadian Castellan with the helmet may be my favorite head of the lot and I'm surprised they didn't show it off sooner. Like the canonness, I love that there are a ton of options. The scenic base being one of the "key features" is funny too.
Just realized that the super exclusive catchan colonel would have been a great proxy for a Cadian Castallen. Not that you can't use the new castellan in a Catachan army, but he wouldn't have stood out as much. Though you would be stuck with a power fist/plasma gun combo
GaroRobe wrote: Just realized that the super exclusive catchan colonel would have been a great proxy for a Cadian Castallen. Not that you can't use the new castellan in a Catachan army, but he wouldn't have stood out as much. Though you would be stuck with a power fist/plasma gun combo
It's safe to say that we can expect a plastic, generic Commandant tagged model for the various regiments. We've already seen Krieg get their Commandant(albeit in resin)in the update of the Marshal in the FAQ for Imperial Armour.
GaroRobe wrote: The Cadian Castellan with the helmet may be my favorite head of the lot and I'm surprised they didn't show it off sooner. Like the canonness, I love that there are a ton of options. The scenic base being one of the "key features" is funny too.
"Includes a sculpted base for narrative posing"
The helmeted officer is my favorite as well. Another example of GW hiding model options for some weird reason, as if they don't want to incentivize as many people as possible to buy the model.
BlackoCatto wrote: The idea of Cadian Castellan as a generic character that's only available if you play Cadian bothers me. Very TM.
Wait until you hear about the Death Korps Marshal or special characters like Straken and Harker!
Not saying you're wrong, but the former was for an entire range of DKK models. They had quarter masters, their own artillery and command crews, etc. The latter are named characters.
But I thought Cadian Castellans were for any army.
"It can be used with any Astra Militarum army, Cadian or otherwise – even the Death Korps of Krieg and the Catachan Jungle Fighters need battlefield command."
BlackoCatto wrote: The idea of Cadian Castellan as a generic character that's only available if you play Cadian bothers me. Very TM.
Wait until you hear about the Death Korps Marshal or special characters like Straken and Harker!
Not saying you're wrong, but the former was for an entire range of DKK models. They had quarter masters, their own artillery and command crews, etc. The latter are named characters.
And? The Cadian Castellan is "for an entire range of Cadian models" in that same vein.
The point, in any regards, is that it's a goofy thing to complain about. The regiment keywords literally don't matter anymore outside of some extremely specific cases.
But I thought Cadian Castellans were for any army.
"It can be used with any Astra Militarum army, Cadian or otherwise – even the Death Korps of Krieg and the Catachan Jungle Fighters need battlefield command."
Yes, and the Commandant keyworded models (DKK Marshal, Straken, Ursula Creed, and the Castellan) all have "Senior Officer(Aura)" which affects Astra Militarum Core units.
Yeah, special characters being special is one thing, but making the only Captain-or-higher generic Officer unit entry in the Codex specifically Cadian is weird.
Like, if they want to call that command rank "Castellan" going forwards? I'm going to grumble a little but it isn't the worst thing in the world.
But either take "Cadian" out of it, or give a generic "Castellan" entry as well, like they did with the Cadian/Platoon Command Squad.
Dysartes wrote: Yeah, special characters being special is one thing, but making the only Captain-or-higher generic Officer unit entry in the Codex specifically Cadian is weird.
Is it really though?
They relaunched the Cadian range here. It should not be a surprise that the book has more Cadian flavor in it than not.
Like, if they want to call that command rank "Castellan" going forwards? I'm going to grumble a little but it isn't the worst thing in the world.
But either take "Cadian" out of it, or give a generic "Castellan" entry as well, like they did with the Cadian/Platoon Command Squad.
Take a DKK Marshal if you don't want a Cadian one then. In all likelihood? We won't see a "generic" Commandant until we see a "generic" Infantry Squad with all the trimmings or a "generic" Imperial Guard kit.
This is the book that made planet-specific regiments into Aspect Warriors, so really we shouldn't be surprised.
And we all know that if the Castellan was a Krieg model you'd be complaining about it. The only reason you're defending it (other than it's something GW did) is because you play Cadians, so it inherently benefits you.
Personally I think the biggest controversy about the Guard codex and model release is the separate ears on the horses of the Atillan Rough Riders. That and the obscene amount of mould lines on the kit.
Nothing is stopping you from using a different model with the same loadout and base as a counts as cadian castellan, that is what im doing with the catachan col.
There is also nothing stopping you from taking the cadians, painting them different and just saying thet are a different regiment.
Yeah. Having access to 2 Stratagems a non-CadianCommandant wouldn't have is too much to bear. You must have your own unit that lacks this to make the world right
alextroy wrote: Yeah. Having access to 2 Stratagems a non-CadianCommandant wouldn't have is too much to bear. You must have your own unit that lacks this to make the world right
I reiterate: 'Counts As' is never the answer.
I don't give a damn about Stratagems. What I do care about is being told that the main level commander in the new Guard 'Dex is Cadian only. What if I don't play Cadians? What if I've never played Cadians? What I've had other regiments my entire life, or my own homebrew, and don't like that suddenly there are specific "Cadian" units in the book?
Did you ever think of that? For even a second? No. Of course you didn't. You just came in for a cheap jab.
Forget Guard. Pretend it's Marines, and the new Space Marine Codex comes with a new Primaris Lieutenant Commander, and a nice new kit with lots of options, but his keyword, for some reason is, "White Scars". I mean... having access to 2 Stratagems a non-White ScarsLieitenant-Commander wouldn't have is too much to bear, right?
Or an Eldar Craftworld. Of Chaos Legion. Or Hive Fleet. Or Ork Klan. Or whatever bull gak Tau have. Or... Or... Or...
'Counts As' is a terrible excuse for when things get taken away and I am sick and tired of being told to 'just counts as' whenever something is taken away or changed.
I very much doubt you didn't know that's what I was saying.
alextroy wrote: Yeah. Having access to 2 Stratagems a non-CadianCommandant wouldn't have is too much to bear. You must have your own unit that lacks this to make the world right
I reiterate: 'Counts As' is never the answer.
I don't give a damn about Stratagems. What I do care about is being told that the main level commander in the new Guard 'Dex is Cadian only. What if I don't play Cadians? What if I've never played Cadians? What I've had other regiments my entire life, or my own homebrew, and don't like that suddenly there are specific "Cadian" units in the book?
Did you ever think of that? For even a second? No. Of course you didn't. You just came in for a cheap jab.
Forget Guard. Pretend it's Marines, and the new Space Marine Codex comes with a new Primaris Lieutenant Commander, and a nice new kit with lots of options, but his keyword, for some reason is, "White Scars". I mean... having access to 2 Stratagems a non-White ScarsLieitenant-Commander wouldn't have is too much to bear, right?
Or an Eldar Craftworld.
Of Chaos Legion.
Or Hive Fleet.
Or Ork Klan.
Or whatever bull gak Tau have.
Or...
Or...
Or...
'Counts As' is a terrible excuse for when things get taken away and I am sick and tired of being told to 'just counts as' whenever something is taken away or changed.
I very much doubt you didn't know that's what I was saying.
If you never taken Cadians or dont have them, you just take what used to be your company commander and just say "This is a cadian castellan"
It really is a non-issue in this codex considering he has no aura or rules that just affect cadians and can effect every other regiment with orders.
alextroy wrote: Yeah. Having access to 2 Stratagems a non-CadianCommandant wouldn't have is too much to bear. You must have your own unit that lacks this to make the world right
I reiterate: 'Counts As' is never the answer.
I don't give a damn about Stratagems. What I do care about is being told that the main level commander in the new Guard 'Dex is Cadian only. What if I don't play Cadians? What if I've never played Cadians? What I've had other regiments my entire life, or my own homebrew, and don't like that suddenly there are specific "Cadian" units in the book?
Did you ever think of that? For even a second? No. Of course you didn't. You just came in for a cheap jab.
Forget Guard. Pretend it's Marines, and the new Space Marine Codex comes with a new Primaris Lieutenant Commander, and a nice new kit with lots of options, but his keyword, for some reason is, "White Scars". I mean... having access to 2 Stratagems a non-White ScarsLieitenant-Commander wouldn't have is too much to bear, right?
Or an Eldar Craftworld.
Of Chaos Legion.
Or Hive Fleet.
Or Ork Klan.
Or whatever bull gak Tau have.
Or...
Or...
Or...
'Counts As' is a terrible excuse for when things get taken away and I am sick and tired of being told to 'just counts as' whenever something is taken away or changed.
I very much doubt you didn't know that's what I was saying.
Checks sig...
Yeah, can sadly not agree more than this.
that list is broken let's agree to never bring it. Nor has 
.
