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.

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.

I ordered a Rogal Dorn and didn't know about the missing base plate until I just came onto this forum. It irritates me for sure.

The cut outs on the bottom Track pieces is the stupiest thing on the Model...

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.

M.

All the 3D-printers on Etsy will be happy making a bunch of sales of "Grim Guard Heavy Tank Bottom" bits as soon as an STL is out.

 Asmodai wrote:
All the 3D-printers on Etsy will be happy making a bunch of sales of "Grim Guard Heavy Tank Bottom" bits as soon as an STL is out.

They already do.

It's just part of the rest of the full tank they sell.

For the price of this damn tank I could probs get that full metal Zaku that's about as tall as a small child.

 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.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 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.

 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)_/¯


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.

Cripple X wrote:

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.

The missing floor is not going to stop me from buying the tank. It is a data point on my view of the quality of GW kits going forward.

 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.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 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.

If someone doesn't convert this tank with several pairs of Ork feet sticking out, like Fred Flintstone, I will be very sad.

Am I correct or does the new command squad not come with a bolter option?

 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...

 xttz wrote:

 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:



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 ..

There's worse things to worry about I guess.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

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.