Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Getting increasingly annoyed with GW right now;

- Dornkit is clearly not finished and this bugs me more than I thougth it would. Had I known that before I ordered I wouldn't have bothered and kept using my Macharius as a count-as-Dorn instead.
- Sneakily releases a new pts-update today without a word that nerfs Inceptors and nothing else. Yes Inceptors w/o AoC is clearly worth 40/60 pts...
- Does not care to buff for instance Tyranids or LoV with the new pts-update they released (they shall have their 38% winrate it seems).
- Completely ignores the fact that they've released 30k-kits for 40k that needs pts-adjustments now when AoC is gone (like the Kratos and Leviathan Dread.)

Get a effing grip GW!

Is this the 3rd time they've done this sort of thing, or are there more? I had no idea a few other kits were like it until seeing this, but both the Hammerfall bunker and Dunerider have no bottoms despite not being mounted on bases.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Getting increasingly annoyed with GW right now;

- Dornkit is clearly not finished and this bugs me more than I thougth it would. Had I known that before I ordered I wouldn't have bothered and kept using my Macharius as a count-as-Dorn instead.
- Sneakily releases a new pts-update today without a word that nerfs Inceptors and nothing else. Yes Inceptors w/o AoC is clearly worth 40/60 pts...
- Does not care to buff for instance Tyranids or LoV with the new pts-update they released (they shall have their 38% winrate it seems).
- Completely ignores the fact that they've released 30k-kits for 40k that needs pts-adjustments now when AoC is gone (like the Kratos and Leviathan Dread.)

Get a effing grip GW!

Plasma inceptors are definitely worth more than 40pts, tyranids need to work out where they are after the nerfs, given they've been dominant for 6+ months I think it's a little much to complain after 1 weekend, same for votann. I don't think the FW marine vehicles have ever had any adjustments for anything the entire edition, why start now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Is this the 3rd time they've done this sort of thing, or are there more? I had no idea a few other kits were like it until seeing this, but both the Hammerfall bunker and Dunerider have no bottoms despite not being mounted on bases.

Most terrain doesn't have a base or solid bottom so the hammerfall is fine. The dunerider literally nobody anywhere ever complained or pointed it out that I know of. I wasn't aware they didn't have a bottom having seen them in the flesh on a table multiple times until this week.

Dudeface wrote:

Plasma inceptors are definitely worth more than 40pts, But hardly 60, especially without AoC tyranids need to work out where they are after the nerfs, given they've been dominant for 6+ months I think it's a little much to complain after 1 weekend It's the principle, if they can bother to nerf something they should bother to buff something that needs it, same for votann Haha what? LoV where dominant for 6+ months? Or dominant at all? You're joking right?. I don't think the FW marine vehicles have ever had any adjustments for anything the entire edition, why start now?What "FW marine vehicles"? Neither the Kratos nor the Levithans are FW-kits, they're plastic sold directly by GW.

I'm glad they hit interceptors as it's going to prevent a bunch of false sales. They probably should have made them 35 base with +15 for plasma, but this is probably an 'oh gak' fix not a balance pass.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm glad they hit interceptors as it's going to prevent a bunch of false sales. They probably should have made them 35 base with +15 for plasma, but this is probably an 'oh gak' fix not a balance pass.

Yeah I'd be fine with that. Bolter-Inceptors are overpriced at 40 ppm and Plasma-Inceptors are underpriced, but they're way overpriced at 60 ppm. 35/50 would be a decent compromise.

The current "fix" means both Inceptor-variants are overpriced, seeing as they weren't amazing to begin with and then ended up being one of few (the only?) Primaris-unit that lost AoC without getting compensated for it one way or another.
It really screams panic-nerf, which GW sadly have started doing more and more often.

What the Inceptor point cost has to do with Rogal Dorn’s bottom?

 MinscS2 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Plasma inceptors are definitely worth more than 40pts, But hardly 60, especially without AoC tyranids need to work out where they are after the nerfs, given they've been dominant for 6+ months I think it's a little much to complain after 1 weekend It's the principle, if they can bother to nerf something they should bother to buff something that needs it, same for votann Haha what? LoV where dominant for 6+ months? Or dominant at all? You're joking right?. I don't think the FW marine vehicles have ever had any adjustments for anything the entire edition, why start now?What "FW marine vehicles"? Neither the Kratos nor the Levithans are FW-kits, they're plastic sold directly by GW.

Votann were above 60% at the end of the last season and its acknowledged they were still a bit too good.

Inceptors maybe don't need to be 60 but let's see what happens, same for nids because there's still next to no data for anything for you to actually be this angry about.

Also, the imperial armour rules for the leviathan were published in October 2020, they were made by forgeworld at the time as the plastic kit was released 20th August 2022. The jratos is not a forgeworld kit admittedly but it's also not a 40k kit if you hadn't noticed, it has token rules as a buy in incentive from its release and features in no 40k publication.

Dudeface wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Getting increasingly annoyed with GW right now;

- Dornkit is clearly not finished and this bugs me more than I thougth it would. Had I known that before I ordered I wouldn't have bothered and kept using my Macharius as a count-as-Dorn instead.
- Sneakily releases a new pts-update today without a word that nerfs Inceptors and nothing else. Yes Inceptors w/o AoC is clearly worth 40/60 pts...
- Does not care to buff for instance Tyranids or LoV with the new pts-update they released (they shall have their 38% winrate it seems).
- Completely ignores the fact that they've released 30k-kits for 40k that needs pts-adjustments now when AoC is gone (like the Kratos and Leviathan Dread.)

Get a effing grip GW!

Plasma inceptors are definitely worth more than 40pts, tyranids need to work out where they are after the nerfs, given they've been dominant for 6+ months I think it's a little much to complain after 1 weekend, same for votann. I don't think the FW marine vehicles have ever had any adjustments for anything the entire edition, why start now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Is this the 3rd time they've done this sort of thing, or are there more? I had no idea a few other kits were like it until seeing this, but both the Hammerfall bunker and Dunerider have no bottoms despite not being mounted on bases.

Most terrain doesn't have a base or solid bottom so the hammerfall is fine. The dunerider literally nobody anywhere ever complained or pointed it out that I know of. I wasn't aware they didn't have a bottom having seen them in the flesh on a table multiple times until this week.

Isn’t the dune rider a hovercraft so the skirt itself should life it up? Or the lack of a bottom like the dorn? Since I find it anoying and glad I didn’t pick one up yet.
But it is less of a issue since the tank itself sits flat, with the dorn being raised.

My extremely lukewarm take on the missing hull plate is that while it's weird and clearly bothers a lot of people, I'm not sure it bothers me, and if I had to pick between hull plate, all the extra guns and toys, or paying an extra $20 or so... I'll take the current solution.

I'll be honest, I do chuckle a bit every time somebody brings up fine scale models comparing them to GW. GW products are not intrinsically worth what they charge, and nobody with half a brain thinks so. Instead of buying a Rogal Dorn, I could buy a lot of things for 90 bucks that would also be enjoyable. maybe a nice bottle of scotch. But that's the beauty of hobby spending: you buy what makes us happy.

That giant gap in the Dorn is unforgiveable. Imagine buying a scale model kit with a giant hole in it. Terrible.

lol

lmao

people that do LEDs are celebrating at all the space they have to work in there

Since Squats are back, we can't use the term 'Squatted' when we speak of something missing or gone from rotation.

Now we must say "Dornholed'.

 Insectum7 wrote:
That giant gap in the Dorn is unforgiveable. Imagine buying a scale model kit with a giant hole in it. Terrible.

Threads like this just remind me of the good old days.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That giant gap in the Dorn is unforgiveable. Imagine buying a scale model kit with a giant hole in it. Terrible.

Threads like this just remind me of the good old days.

Spoiler:

Are you saying GW shouldn't have shipped a complete model? Or are you just saying people just shouldn't criticize GW?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

drbored wrote:
lol

lmao

people that do LEDs are celebrating at all the space they have to work in there

The same would be true if the model also came with a piece to cover it.

 Crimson wrote:
What the Inceptor point cost has to do with Rogal Dorn’s bottom?

maybe thats where the point costs come from?

If you’re that bothered about it missing a baseplate, a cheap solution would be to use some kind of soft material to stuff the void with.

Perhaps tissue of some kind. I presume we all have bogs in our abodes, so you should have some you can lay your hands on.

Yes.

TP.

TP for the great DORNHOLIO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also? Please, please stop claiming this is an “incomplete” model.

It’s not. It’s not a design flaw or a missing sprue which GW intended to include, only to destroy the mould it’s produced from.

It’s a deliberate design choice. By no means one you have to happy with. But it’s not incomplete. At all. Any more than most large models being hollow makes them incomplete because they’re not solid plastic. Or that not every tank/vehicle kit having a fully detailed interior makes those kits in anyway incomplete.

I absolutely could not care less. I have no idea where they would have put a large extra rectangle of plastic on the sprues.

I don't know where all this lukewarm 'outrage' was when the Dunerider came out without an under-panel. Or the ork buggies.

To everyone complaining about the Dorn, just literally buy a Baneblade. Better model in every way. Unless you are trying to play the game with it. Then it sucks. But for model's sake, just buy Baneblades.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Are you saying GW shouldn't have shipped a complete model? Or are you just saying people just shouldn't criticize GW?

Neither! I see a lot of what seems to be considerably angry people ( given the language ) who will likely still buy models from them.

I feel like it would be one thing if it just didn't have a detailed bottom but it is just an open hole...

I remember putting together the Guard/Tempestus Taurox and wondering why GW would have all this interior modeling for a vehicle that doesn't have ports that you can open and very tiny vision slits. And yet we have a tank which has an open void under it because they didn't want to make a piece of plastic to cover it up. And frankly you see the underside of an armored vehicle model far more when playing the game than you do the interior of one unless it's open topped.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


TP for the great DORNHOLIO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also? Please, please stop claiming this is an “incomplete” model.

It’s not.

I've never bought a model tank missing the bottom, so yes it's incomplete LMAO

You what tank had an incomplete bottom? A cheap green and gray armymen set I had as a kid. Difference there is for that $10 I got 60+ dudes, the tank, and artillery. At that price point it's forgiven though.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


TP for the great DORNHOLIO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also? Please, please stop claiming this is an “incomplete” model.

It’s not.

I've never bought a model tank missing the bottom, so yes it's incomplete LMAO

You what tank had an incomplete bottom? A cheap green and gray armymen set I had as a kid. Difference there is for that $10 I got 60+ dudes, the tank, and artillery. At that price point it's forgiven though.

If you want to split hairs, it's a complete model of an incomplete design.

If they included the bottom plate, the sales would have been the same, people would have complained about something else. Seemingly it would be "but muh field guns unit size" again.

Does adding the plate push other parts off the sprue?
Do you want the hole filling, or fewer parts?
I haven't seen the sprue, nor the number of bitz options on it, but I'd take having a Dornhole over fewer bitz. Or the £5 more they'd charge for the extra half-sprue of Dornhole plate.

I'm never going to turn over the model when using it at the table, so the hole is not going ever to be seen. And I don't have to waste paint painting it.

The only possible option would be that GW gouge us for an extra sprue; so actually, our benevolent corporate overlords are doing us a favour by leaving a big hole in our £55 plastic tank.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The only possible option would be that GW gouge us for an extra sprue; so actually, our benevolent corporate overlords are doing us a favour by leaving a big hole in our £55 plastic tank.

Let's pretend we're running the business for the moment.

Clearly the plate would not fit on the provided sprues so our options are as follows:

- An extra sprue. It certainly would not fill the sprue so either you have a fourth mold for a single piece or you find a way to get designers to add more stuff. You now have more cost to pass on.
- An extra sprue with 4 or 5 of them, clip them, and put one in each box. In that scenario you have a high risk for losing quality control. You now have more cost to pass on.
- A resin piece that makes assembly more difficult and has the same quality control issue as above. You now have more cost to pass on and a higher number of complaints from customers totally confused as to why their plastic glue doesn't work.

Or

- Leave a hole in the bottom. Let the internet spaz out and wait for them to move on to the next outrage.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Clearly the plate would not fit on the provided sprues

It kinda would if the double battle cannons didn't have their own gun shield for some reason and the silly standing-behind-the-turret gunner didn't exist. Then the front and the rear plate could be longer just enough to touch in the middle, with the sponsons from that sprue going to the place of the gun shield and the gunner on the other sprue.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The only possible option would be that GW gouge us for an extra sprue; so actually, our benevolent corporate overlords are doing us a favour by leaving a big hole in our £55 plastic tank.

Let's pretend we're running the business for the moment.

Clearly the plate would not fit on the provided sprues so our options are as follows:

You forgot the correct option, which is: not approve the design that had a big hole in the bottom

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Clearly the plate would not fit on the provided sprues

It kinda would if the double battle cannons didn't have their own gun shield for some reason and the silly standing-behind-the-turret gunner didn't exist. Then the front and the rear plate could be longer just enough to touch in the middle, with the sponsons from that sprue going to the place of the gun shield and the gunner on the other sprue.

the gunner is actually historically a thing.