Shut yer Dorn Hole! (Rogal Dorn tank hull discussion)

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.

**Dudeface**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
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

You're right, they go back to "put a base plate in then" and straight back into Daeds example.

**AtoMaki**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
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.

I know, and it is historically a silly idea too.

**Dysartes**

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:

- 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.

Or...

- Move all the decorative gubbins into its own sprue. Use the remaining space to put the hull plate on the Dorn sprues, after re-running the algorithm that places parts. Potentially add a third main weapon option if sufficient space is then available. Include the new gubbins sprue in the Russ/Dorn/Baneblade boxes as part of this release, possibly/probably increasing their costs by £5. Watch as people are probably pleasantly surprised.

**necrontyrOG**

That was fast:

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/dorn-tank-power-bottom-filler

**Aecus Decimus**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Please, please stop claiming this is an “incomplete” model.

It's absolutely incomplete. A tank at this price point is not expected to have missing pieces. I don't care if it's a deliberate decision to sell an incomplete kit it's still incomplete.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skinnereal wrote:
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.

That's a false dilemma. The LR Proteus has more sprues than the Dorn at a cheaper cost. GW absolutely could have sold the kit at its current price with the missing floor plate and some extra weapon options to fill the rest of the sprue.

**Lord Damocles**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
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.

Doesn't mean that he has to be there.

Mount the pintle weapon on the cupola like every other tank. The gun shield and pointy vision port are in his way anyway.

**xttz**

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Skinnereal wrote:
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.

That's a false dilemma. The LR Proteus has more sprues than the Dorn at a cheaper cost. GW absolutely could have sold the kit at its current price with the missing floor plate and some extra weapon options to fill the rest of the sprue.

The real world calculations behind this were clearly laid out in the last thread and you definitely read the post, but still insist on repeating this deeply flawed argument?

Nice to see that I called it correctly when I predicted you wouldn't acknowledge or discuss in good faith though.

**EviscerationPlague**

Follow the rules.

**Canadian 5th**

GW ships incomplete rules, why should incomplete models come as a surprise?

**Aecus Decimus**

xttz wrote:
The real world calculations behind this were clearly laid out in the last thread and you definitely read the post, but still insist on repeating this deeply flawed argument?

Nice to see that I called it correctly when I predicted you wouldn't acknowledge or discuss in good faith though.

The reasons why your "real world calculations" are wrong were clearly laid out in the last thread and you definitely read the post, but still insist on repeating this deeply flawed argument?

Nice to see that I called it correctly when I predicted you wouldn't acknowledge or discuss in good faith though.

**Commissar von Toussaint**

Canadian 5th wrote:
GW ships incomplete rules, why should incomplete models come as a surprise?

LOL.

Well played.

I can't understand why people buy GW tank kits. Standard commercial models cost 1/3 as much with working running gear and rubber tracks. Yeah, takes some conversion skill, but that's part of the fun.

**Daedalus81**

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

Maybe? They could also toss in a sprue for free, but no business is going to do that and it'd be kind of wasteful.

Anyway, it is what it is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I can't understand why people buy GW tank kits. Standard commercial models cost 1/3 as much with working running gear and rubber tracks. Yeah, takes some conversion skill, but that's part of the fun.

I think by and large most GW customers aren't very skilled at that stuff - myself included. I saw a guy spend like $500 making a nurgle knight, which was a mash up of an AoS giant, a knight, a bloat drone, and some other stuff. Totally amazing and totally out of my reach.

**Aecus Decimus**

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I can't understand why people buy GW tank kits. Standard commercial models cost 1/3 as much with working running gear and rubber tracks. Yeah, takes some conversion skill, but that's part of the fun.

Probably because those kits don't fit the aesthetics of 40k, and by the time you've converted them to look like a 40k model you've spent so much time and effort that you've effectively built an entire new model from scratch. You might as well buy the 40k kit and convert it to fix the flaws, or buy one of the third-party alternative 40k models.

**Commissar von Toussaint**

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Probably because those kits don't fit the aesthetics of 40k, and by the time you've converted them to look like a 40k model you've spent so much time and effort that you've effectively built an entire new model from scratch. You might as well buy the 40k kit and convert it to fix the flaws, or buy one of the third-party alternative 40k models.

Right, but I enjoy the conversion. Once upon a time, kit-bashing was an essential part of the 40k hobby. For me, it still is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should add, that all the kits come complete. It's hard to argue GW has a qualitative edge when they're selling bottomless tank kits.

**Aecus Decimus**

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Right, but I enjoy the conversion. Once upon a time, kit-bashing was an essential part of the 40k hobby. For me, it still is.

Ok, sure, but what you said was:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I can't understand why people buy GW tank kits.

The answer is that most people want to buy something that can be used straight out of the box and are not interested in scratchbuilding an entire new thing. You personally may enjoy that scratchbuilding but that doesn't change the reasons other people have for wanting to buy a complete kit, and for being unhappy with GW for selling an incomplete one.

**ccs**

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:

- 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.

Well, seeing as I'm running the same company that makes extra unnecessary spue for things like Cadian heads for a kit they know damned well is going to get replaced & then charges you more for the "upgraded" kit, I don't think I'd give a 2nd thought to making a 2nd small sprue for a kit thatll be made for decades to come & just passing the cost on to the customer.

**Sim-Life**

Remember back in the day when they were able to manufacture the transparent green bits for necrons and no one thought it was a big deal. Remember the three bits they made unique to the monolith? The doorway, the crystal and the little circle at the back that was just there as a fun detail. Literally no other kit used them. And people are saying it would be too much of effort for them to make a flat, square bit of plastic? GW fanboys be crazy.

**Dudeface**

Sim-Life wrote:
Remember back in the day when they were able to manufacture the transparent green bits for necrons and no one thought it was a big deal. Remember the three bits they made unique to the monolith? The doorway, the crystal and the little circle at the back that was just there as a fun detail. Literally no other kit used them. And people are saying it would be too much of effort for them to make a flat, square bit of plastic? GW fanboys be crazy.

They're not saying it'd be too much effort, they're saying it's not worth the monetary investment another sprue would require to produce for the sakes of a gap on a model you'll nearly never see.

**leopard**

you can't have a tank with a hole because if you had a hole the deodorant would have leaked from the bottle the tank is made out of

right?

**Tsagualsa**

leopard wrote:
you can't have a tank with a hole because if you had a hole the deodorant would have leaked from the bottle the tank is made out of

right?

The hole is obviously there so that you can link the dorn to your other awesome Zoids™ toys to make an even bigger robot!

**Kid_Kyoto**

Has anyone tried fitting the new Sentinel into their Dorn Hole?

Maybe it's all part of the plan?

**AtoMaki**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Has anyone tried fitting the new Sentinel into their Dorn Hole?

This was literally the first idea my clubmates had, but the Sentinel doesn't fit inside the hole.

**Tsagualsa**

AtoMaki wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Has anyone tried fitting the new Sentinel into their Dorn Hole?

This was literally the first idea my clubmates had, but the Sentinel doesn't fit inside the hole.

Obviously you need Citadel® Finelube™ - 50ml for 6.99$, in a convenient applicator bottle. Ignore any bubbles and holes that may appear on your... models.

**Kid_Kyoto**

AtoMaki wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Has anyone tried fitting the new Sentinel into their Dorn Hole?

This was literally the first idea my clubmates had, but the Sentinel doesn't fit inside the hole.

So you're saying the Dorn Hole is too small?

**AtoMaki**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
AtoMaki wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Has anyone tried fitting the new Sentinel into their Dorn Hole?

This was literally the first idea my clubmates had, but the Sentinel doesn't fit inside the hole.

So you're saying the Dorn Hole is too small?

Dunno about that one, I haven't been there, but from what I've heard you can't shove the new Sentinel up into the Dorn Hole.

Before you ask, yes, they could put an old Sentinel inside the Dorn.

**A Town Called Malus**

So the Dorn only goes for mature sentinels?

**lord_blackfang**

Is the surface you need to paint smaller or do you now have to paint all of the inside

**ccs**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Is the surface you need to paint smaller or do you now have to paint all of the inside

If you make a cover for it to avoid painting the inside are you modeling for advantage?

**Racerguy180**

The transition to JUST a gaming piece is now complete.

**Dudeface**

Racerguy180 wrote:
The transition to JUST a gaming piece is now complete.

It still looks good, it can still be painted and displayed, not sure that's a valid statement. I'd argue if you're using it primarily as a game piece it's as complete as it needs to be, if it's a display piece, it depends if you display it with the bottom visible. Either way it takes some real manipulation for it to be an issue.