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.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/24 08:00:01
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/24 08:34:11
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"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/24 09:11:22
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.
I've been playing a while, my first model was a lead marine and my first White Dwarf was bound with staples
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/24 15:54:58
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/24 14:55:32
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
lost and damned log
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/519978.page#6525039
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.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
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!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/24 15:12:19
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/24 15:46:27
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/24 15:53:54
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)
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2023/01/24 16:32:48
