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.

For sure there's a line between aesthetics and practicality, and opinions on exactly where that line should be drawn are going to vary from person to person.

I like my models to look nice, but I also don't sweat the details that I can't actually see, so something like a missing bottom hull on a tank seems like a non-issue.

I'm reminded of the original rhino kit, which was built from two identical hull pieces flipped 180 degrees from each other. A lot of people didn't bother to glue the hatches onto the bottom hull section, because they wouldn't be seen.

Of course, that was a choice... and many others did prefer to have the hulls of their tanks properly sealed...

I'm not saying that people are wrong to dislike this tank missing part of its hull... just explaining why I don't personally have a problem with it.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
GW could easily have put the underplate on the sprue if they'd left off the numerous stowage accessories and wotnot. When people complain about it being missing, they'll take the message that people don't like extras on their sprues.

Extras are, by definition, extra stuff you get AFTER the job is done. Finishing 75% of the hull and then moving on to extras is not how you do it.

A lot of the extras could be on a universal sprue for all IG tanks, which would allow them to finish the hull and have a new sprue they could include with other sets.

I agree with the poster who explained it's disappointment not rage. Disappointment that GW now considers themselves to be akin to cheap Russian kit makers in expectations.

It’s the mk4 collection the right price, I was adding it up and seems you can save buying seperate with the MK3 collection set.

That’s after assuming the dice are worth $58 on the Australian store.
Did I miss something, I feel a bit crazy seeing the price for so little over $1000

So I guess those people who complain aren't buying leman russ, rhino, impulsor etc. Those after all are missing stuff as exact replicate of springs, control things, ammunition etc. After all it's supposed to be COMPLETE scale replicate right?

There's also no correct scale cabling, spare parts etc...The horror! It's not SCALE MODEL! Ah the ignomity!

Smart people wouldn't even paint that underplate...

Some people won't paint their models at all. Some won't even assemble them.

GW doesn't control that.

But GW can at least provide a full kit.

 insaniak wrote:
A wargaming model is a physical representation of a set of gaming stats...

For you maybe. Not everyone plays the game. Many, many people just collect the minis to build and paint. If you paid that much for a tank and a bloody great chunk of it was missing, I don't think "But it's not a proper model kit!" is really going to cut it.

tneva82 wrote:
So I guess those people who complain aren't buying leman russ, rhino, impulsor etc. Those after all are missing stuff as exact replicate of springs, control things, ammunition etc. After all it's supposed to be COMPLETE scale replicate right?

If you don't understand the points people are making and can do nothing but reply with mean-spirited snarkiness because you don't actually have a point, please refrain from attempting to argue. You're just embarrassing yourself.

tneva82 wrote:
So I guess those people who complain aren't buying leman russ, rhino, impulsor etc. Those after all are missing stuff as exact replicate of springs, control things, ammunition etc. After all it's supposed to be COMPLETE scale replicate right?

Yes, because "this model doesn't have perfect representation of the suspension springs" is definitely the same as "this model has a giant obvious hole on the bottom that is only hidden if you keep the tank sitting flat on the ground and never look closely at the engine vents".

Smart people wouldn't even paint that underplate...

You have an odd definition of "smart" if not spending a token amount of effort to have a fully painted model is smart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honest question though, tneva82: I see you frequently criticizing competitive play and people who focus "too much" on balance/meta statistics/etc, and now you're mocking people who care "too much" about the aesthetics of the models. What exactly is it about this hobby that you enjoy and approve of? Is the hobby for you nothing more than Buying™ Citadel™ Models™? Or is it all some weird performative apathy, where the goal is to care the least about everything?

As long as it's proper enough for GW to ask 70 euros for it, I guess "not having gaping holes that the 'real one' is not supposed to have" will still be something I expect if I'm gonna buy it.

If I can get a better one by printing a proxy myself for a fraction of the price, well.... there's no real incentive, now is there.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:
GW could easily have put the underplate on the sprue if they'd left off the numerous stowage accessories and wotnot. When people complain about it being missing, they'll take the message that people don't like extras on their sprues.

Extras are, by definition, extra stuff you get AFTER the job is done. Finishing 75% of the hull and then moving on to extras is not how you do it.

A lot of the extras could be on a universal sprue for all IG tanks, which would allow them to finish the hull and have a new sprue they could include with other sets.

I agree with the poster who explained it's disappointment not rage. Disappointment that GW now considers themselves to be akin to cheap Russian kit makers in expectations.

Below cheap Russian kit makers I’d argue, I’ve bought Zvezda kits in the past and most of them had better details and never missing anything like the bottom of the hull….

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
So lemme get this straight.... this is an incomplete tank kit.

for premium £$CHF€

What’s incomplete about it?

Does it have a bottom plate for the tank? No.

Is the kit meant to and it’s just some kind of oversight? Also no.

Does it in anyway impact the usage of the model? Also no.

The base plate missing remains an odd design choice. But it by no means renders the kit incomplete.

Considering it is a model for use in a TTG, get's pushed around? Yes it is incomplete because a complete baseplate adds stability to a plastic model. Accidents happen all the time, i'd rather not reglue a tanks if it drops and a base plate may well lower the strain certain other parts will feel if something bad happens.

It's just amazing to me that GW is charging premium prices for such sub-premium products and it's instantly selling out online. It's the happy meal version of a Macharius FFS!

Aecus Decimus wrote:


It's just amazing to me that GW is charging premium prices for such sub-premium products and it's instantly selling out online. It's the happy meal version of a Macharius FFS!

It reminds me more off a malcador with a terrible building accident.

but considering how much i suffered building mine atleast this one ugly wanna be malcador is out of plastic.

As I've already stated and as Insaniak said, I have voluntarily left gaping holes in the bottom of my gaming pieces. It doesn't bother me.

I have other models from other manufacturers that have hollow bits in walker foot soles or flat, non-detailed track pieces on the underside.

I'm sure word will spread as both sides state their views in other media.

Final point. That Dorn vs Baneblade graphic above will never be unfunny. It will have me chuckling for the rest of the day.

 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.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?

Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.

 insaniak wrote:
GW don't make scale models. They make toys for wargaming.

According to GW, Games Workshop Group PLC makes "[t]he best fantasy miniatures in the world. Forever."

If the glass bottom tank had interior detail, I wouldn't say anything. If the hull was closed up, I wouldn't say anything.

Sure, that's dumb marketing speak (read: a straight up lie), but GW models usually are highly detailed, of good quality and cast in a good medium. Often enough to the point where the silly high prices don't put me off. The Rogal Dorn kit is an outlier and in my opinion does not compare in quality to other, comparable GW tank kits.

For me it's not a question of intended purpose, even if I agreed with your categorization. GW has set expectations not with intended purpose but through years and decades of model kits that you can compare with each other. The Rogal Dorn falls short in comparison with its peers, whether they are all toys, a miniatures or a scale kits.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?

Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I assume the answer would be "every time they pick it up, for whatever reason".

I assume it happens, maybe even more than once, when you play.

But why should it matter? In what situation do people expect to observe the internal skeleton armature of a Master Grade and above Gunpla? And still, its there. And unless you go for the really big kits, for cheaper too.

Or, in what situation do you expect to see the bottom of basically any other vehicle in the whole 40k range? Should they "fix" those and remove the bottom for them all?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?

Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.

Seems like a really weird thing to do, and something of a niche scenario, to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are some suggestions for everyone mad about the bit missing from the toy tank that you won't be able to see under any normal circumstances:

1. Don't buy the toy tank.

2. Maybe drop GW a line and tell them that's why you didn't buy the toy tank you would have otherwise bought from them, rather than just yelling into the void about it.

 Nazrak wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?

Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.

Seems like a really weird thing to do, and something of a niche scenario, to me.

where do you keep your army?

Even mines are partially in display cabinets.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?

Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.

Seems like a really weird thing to do, and something of a niche scenario, to me.

where do you keep your army?

Even mines are partially in display cabinets.

In a little Ikea cabinet thing, but I can't say anything in there's placed in a way that it's primarily intended to be viewed from below.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, someone's put their models on a clear shelf, above eye-level, for whatever reason. This being the case, why is looking at the underside of all your models' bases fine (something which would be the case with just about every non-vehicle model Citadel have ever made) but seeing a gap in the bottom of a tank is completely unacceptable?

Templarted wrote:


Below cheap Russian kit makers I’d argue, I’ve bought Zvezda kits in the past and most of them had better details and never missing anything like the bottom of the hull….

I was specifically thinking of Bronekorpus, by the fine makers of Robogear. Though come to think of it even the Robogear models had hulls. It was only Bronekorpus that didn't.

 Crimson wrote:
In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?

The only plausible situation I can think of is when someone tearfully carries the half-built model into a store yelling about a refund and demanding to speak to James Workshop's manager.

 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)_/¯

I mean, people are saying "the thing that I can't see when using this product for its intended purpose doesn't bother me" but sure, try and turn this into an argument about corporate ethics like an absolute weirdo, I guess.

I swear, if some people had even half the energy for criticising corporations that cause actual harm that they do for moaning that a toy, which there is absolutely no compulsion or necessity for them to buy, hasn't been made exactly the way they would have liked, then the world would be significantly less messed-up than it is.

If you're not turning trivial complaints into multiple pages of online drama, then are you really getting the most out of the Warhammer hobby experience?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.

All my models are in a cabinet with glass shelves and I still don't bother painting the underside of tanks, because in order to see that I'd have to wedge my head upside down inside the cabinet.

A rule of thumb that has served me well for a long time is that if someone on 4chan is making memes that agree with you, then you're probably on the wrong side of an argument.

 Nazrak wrote:


2. Maybe drop GW a line and tell them that's why you didn't buy the toy tank you would have otherwise bought from them, rather than just yelling into the void about it.

I'd strongly recommend that everyone build theirs and then email customer service a picture asking them to send you the missing piece.

Hey y'know, I remember the Imperial Knight when it first came out had an odd hole on the top (with a hatch to cover it) leading many to conclude an add on sprue with a third weapon was coming. So maybe the gaping hole was deliberate and there's a sprue with a hull mounted cannon on the way?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:


2. Maybe drop GW a line and tell them that's why you didn't buy the toy tank you would have otherwise bought from them, rather than just yelling into the void about it.

I'd strongly recommend that everyone build theirs and then email customer service a picture asking them to send you the missing piece.

Hey y'know, I remember the Imperial Knight when it first came out had an odd hole on the top (with a hatch to cover it) leading many to conclude an add on sprue with a third weapon was coming. So maybe the gaping hole was deliberate and there's a sprue with a hull mounted cannon on the way?

That actually wouldn't solve any of these complaints, there'd need to be an additional sprue on the way with a floor plate to resolve this.

On a positive note, it should be a lot easier to build than the bottom panel on the deimos pattern rhino kits.

What is this purported difficulty with the Deimos Rhino kit? I have now built 4 of the new plastics (2 rhinos and 2 predators) and they have all gone together like a dream.

With the Dorn, I am not entirely happy with the decision to have the base plate absent but it is not a deal breaker to me either. That said I completely understand why a lot of people seem miffed by it.

The biggest shock to me is the number of "social media personalities" that totally failed to mention the matter in their Saturday morning promotional post. If you are lucky enough to be given free product then at least give your fellow hobbyists full disclosure. Plenty had ordered the Dorn before the lack of base plate came to light.

Demios doesn't have a hull?

What's that big flat thing in the middle then?

 xttz wrote:
The only plausible situation I can think of is when someone tearfully carries the half-built model into a store yelling about a refund and demanding to speak to James Workshop's manager.

Yep. That feels like the only plausible one ^^.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?

Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don’t know how reasonable, but way back in the old days, when I attended GW Grand Tournaments, I got dinged on my painting score for not attaching the bottom rhino plate on one of my Rhinos. Couldn’t see it from game distance, everything else was painted well. +shrug+

Who knew I was just 30 years ahead of the times.

For me, I would “know” that there was a giant gap/hole in the bottom of the model, and it would bother me. That alone would prevent me from buying the kit. But, everyone’s mileage may vary.

ListenToMeWarriors wrote:


The biggest shock to me is the number of "social media personalities" that totally failed to mention the matter in their Saturday morning promotional post. If you are lucky enough to be given free product then at least give your fellow hobbyists full disclosure. Plenty had ordered the Dorn before the lack of base plate came to light.

Not mentioning/showing that it does not have a bottom plate is definitely shady, that's a thing i can absolutely agree on even if the lack of said plate is no big thing in my opionion. Still something the customer should be made aware of in no uncertain terms.