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.

**Racerguy180**

If the exterior does not resemble a tank(all have a bottom), it ceases to be a miniature representing a "real world" vehicle & is wholly just a gaming token.

**Dudeface**

Racerguy180 wrote:
If the exterior does not resemble a tank(all have a bottom), it ceases to be a miniature representing a "real world" vehicle & is wholly just a gaming token.

I see, are you therefore suggesting that all your "complete" miniatures are representing real world things like daemons and hover tanks? Which in turn are actually not purely game pieces?

**Aecus Decimus**

Dudeface wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
If the exterior does not resemble a tank(all have a bottom), it ceases to be a miniature representing a "real world" vehicle & is wholly just a gaming token.

I see, are you therefore suggesting that all your "complete" miniatures are representing real world things like daemons and hover tanks? Which in turn are actually not purely game pieces?

...

You do understand that "real world" refers to a unit in the "real" 40k universe, right? The Dorn doesn't have a missing floor plate because the "real" Dorn is like that, it has one because GW decided to sell an incomplete kit at a premium price.

**LunarSol**

There was definitely a time where this would have really bugged me, but these days I'm tempted to only paint the half of my models I physically see so obviously my standards have dropped.

I do want to see someone glue a unit of Cadians underneath carrying the thing like some kind of cardboard parade float.

**Racerguy180**

Dudeface wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
If the exterior does not resemble a tank(all have a bottom), it ceases to be a miniature representing a "real world" vehicle & is wholly just a gaming token.

I see, are you therefore suggesting that all your "complete" miniatures are representing real world things like daemons and hover tanks? Which in turn are actually not purely game pieces?

No, every other tank i own has one(even floaty Primaris ones) why not this one?

I'd expect them to represent how they look in universe. By your logic the Rogal Dorn has a design choice that leads it to have a very large hole on the underside...to better dissipate a landmine blast? Or it's actually like the inflatable tanks they used to fool the Nazi's before d-day?

If I wanted purely gaming pieces I'd just use paper chits.

**Dudeface**

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
If the exterior does not resemble a tank(all have a bottom), it ceases to be a miniature representing a "real world" vehicle & is wholly just a gaming token.

I see, are you therefore suggesting that all your "complete" miniatures are representing real world things like daemons and hover tanks? Which in turn are actually not purely game pieces?

...

You do understand that "real world" refers to a unit in the "real" 40k universe, right? The Dorn doesn't have a missing floor plate because the "real" Dorn is like that, it has one because GW decided to sell an incomplete kit at a premium price.

How do you know? Have you ever seen a real in universe dorn to verify? Is there any artwork with the bottom visible? Are there written accounts of a baseplate existing?

You assume these things, because they conform to your definition of normality and logic.

Yes I am being awkward. But honestly the entire situation is utterly unreal that so many people are upset they won't have a square of plastic under the tank that'll nearly never been seen and because they can't prime/basecoat it on the assumption they get as far as building it or buying it in the first place.

How many people in here complaining actually own a dorn? How many were legitimately going to buy one otherwise? How many of you are just here to whinge about something trivial for the sakes of boredom?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
If the exterior does not resemble a tank(all have a bottom), it ceases to be a miniature representing a "real world" vehicle & is wholly just a gaming token.

I see, are you therefore suggesting that all your "complete" miniatures are representing real world things like daemons and hover tanks? Which in turn are actually not purely game pieces?

No, every other tank i own has one(even floaty Primaris ones) why not this one?

I'd expect them to represent how they look in universe. By your logic the Rogal Dorn has a design choice that leads it to have a very large hole on the underside...to better dissipate a landmine blast? Or it's actually like the inflatable tanks they used to fool the Nazi's before d-day?

If I wanted purely gaming pieces I'd just use paper chits.

OK, if you want actual tanks on your tabletop, may I recommend actual tanks? Or better yet, if you insist on anatomical accuracy for fictional items you can't verify, please try a historical game where it can be verified.

**AtoMaki**

Dudeface wrote:
Yes I am being awkward.

No, you are being reasonable. As far as I'm concerned, the Dorn doesn't have a bottom plate in-universe either, the internals are just hanging over a big hole because it is more cost-efficient to make the tank that way or something. I hope Karak Dorn Clansman writes about it in his Descendant Degeneration thread, it really deserves a story there.

Dudeface wrote:
if you insist on anatomical accuracy for fictional items you can't verify, please try a historical game where it can be verified

The moment 40k has fully verified and realistically accurate anatomy for its tanks will be the moment I know GW secretly offed their writing team and is now using AIs to create lore.

**Unit1126PLL**

Tbh, I don't think it's a big deal, but it's just sort of silly.

It's not that I'm personally offended that the Dorn has a gigantic hole in the bottom. It's that you can really read into GW's mindset with it.

The reasons the Dorn doesn't have a plate to cover up that part of the hull could be (not in any particular order):

1) Incompetence (the designer who sculpted it wrote "continue hull across" and the person making the mold or whatever didn't bother to check)
2) Finance ("we have to fit in a whole sprue just for one bit? just delete the bit, it's on the bottom anyways.")
3) Designer carelessness ("we sculpted the Dorn without a bottom plate in order to represent how well I don't give a feth")
4) Laziness ("finished? yeah, sure. It looks fine on the tabletop, check the box boys, job well done.").

I can't think of any other reason it'd've been done, and none of those are things to be extremely proud of when saying you're a professional model company.

"What do you do?"
"Build high-quality models."
"OOh, sounds awesome, what do you prioritize most when really going to town?"
"Cheapness."
"Isn't that the antonym of quality?"
"Shut up it looks fine."

**Aecus Decimus**

Dudeface wrote:
How do you know? Have you ever seen a real in universe dorn to verify? Is there any artwork with the bottom visible? Are there written accounts of a baseplate existing?

If that's the best argument you have I think I can safely accept your concession of defeat and we can move on.

How many people in here complaining actually own a dorn? How many were legitimately going to buy one otherwise?

I was considering buying one, but now that I've seen what GW considers appropriate for a "premium" product sold at a premium price I'll pass. LRBTs work just fine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I can't think of any other reason it'd've been done, and none of those are things to be extremely proud of when saying you're a professional model company.

To be fair, option 2 would be a reason for pride if you're a cheap model company. If you're making those $3 snap together model planes and tanks you see at walmart then saving a few cents per kit is absolutely something to be proud of. If the Dorn cost $5 I'd be fine with it having missing pieces to bring down the price because it would still work fine as a $5 gaming piece. It's only because GW insists on charging premium prices that making a sub-premium product to save money is an issue.

**Commissar von Toussaint**

Racerguy180 wrote:

No, every other tank i own has one(even floaty Primaris ones) why not this one?

I'd expect them to represent how they look in universe. By your logic the Rogal Dorn has a design choice that leads it to have a very large hole on the underside...to better dissipate a landmine blast? Or it's actually like the inflatable tanks they used to fool the Nazi's before d-day?

What if the Dorn is actually scrupulously accurate? The tank does have a removable bottom plate for the crew to bail out under fire.

And the infantry simply stole them all for use as foxhole covers. (This actually has happened.)

Over time, it was decided to just save time and effort and issue the plate to the infantry and use a mesh screen to keep people from falling out.

Then the infantry started taking the screens for cooking grates...

**Dudeface**

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
How do you know? Have you ever seen a real in universe dorn to verify? Is there any artwork with the bottom visible? Are there written accounts of a baseplate existing?

If that's the best argument you have I think I can safely accept your concession of defeat and we can move on.

You'd be wrong captain sassy pants.

**Unit1126PLL**

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:

No, every other tank i own has one(even floaty Primaris ones) why not this one?

I'd expect them to represent how they look in universe. By your logic the Rogal Dorn has a design choice that leads it to have a very large hole on the underside...to better dissipate a landmine blast? Or it's actually like the inflatable tanks they used to fool the Nazi's before d-day?

What if the Dorn is actually scrupulously accurate - the tank does have a removable bottom plate for the crew to get out.

And the infantry simply stole them all for use as foxhole covers.

This is why the Imperium is 40,000 years more advanced than modern humanity. We here in M2 are still putting solid floors on our tanks, perhaps only punctuated by access hatches. In the Imperium, you just leave off the whole floor, flintstones style.

Maybe this design choice is a statement about life in the Imperium - like how space battleship macrocannons are loaded by teams of 20,000 slaves or whatever, maybe the Rogal Dorn's engine is really just like, 6 ogryn and some candy bars on sticks.

**Commissar von Toussaint**

Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is why the Imperium is 40,000 years more advanced than modern humanity. We here in M2 are still putting solid floors on our tanks, perhaps only punctuated by access hatches. In the Imperium, you just leave off the whole floor, flintstones style.

Maybe this design choice is a statement about life in the Imperium - like how space battleship macrocannons are loaded by teams of 20,000 slaves or whatever, maybe the Rogal Dorn's engine is really just like, 6 ogryn and some candy bars on sticks.

They sling it over a dreadnought wearing a pair of steel-belted suspenders and it waddles about with it.

**Unit1126PLL**

Dudeface wrote:
Aecus Decimus wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
How do you know? Have you ever seen a real in universe dorn to verify? Is there any artwork with the bottom visible? Are there written accounts of a baseplate existing?

If that's the best argument you have I think I can safely accept your concession of defeat and we can move on.

You'd be wrong captain sassy pants.

I don't think it's wrong to say "the Rogal Dorn's design is dumb, whether it is deliberate because the tank is this way in universe ~~(HA, like anyone believes that)~~ or it is deliberate because GW is lazy/incompetent/cheap/careless"

So if your argument is "maybe it was done like that because it's that way in universe! Have you seen any EVIDENCE? HMM?" it comes off a bit trollish (even if that wasn't your intent).

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is why the Imperium is 40,000 years more advanced than modern humanity. We here in M2 are still putting solid floors on our tanks, perhaps only punctuated by access hatches. In the Imperium, you just leave off the whole floor, flintstones style.

Maybe this design choice is a statement about life in the Imperium - like how space battleship macrocannons are loaded by teams of 20,000 slaves or whatever, maybe the Rogal Dorn's engine is really just like, 6 ogryn and some candy bars on sticks.

They sling it over a dreadnought wearing a pair of steel-belted suspenders and it waddles about with it.

Even in the Imperial Guard, you're playing Space Marines. With hats.

**Commissar von Toussaint**

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Even in the Imperial Guard, you're playing Space Marines. With hats.

Ok, specially a Sentinel without a main gun. Or maybe the tank is the main gun. He just walks around and then sets it on the ground to turn the turret.

All the sponsons are manned by ratlings.

**xttz**

Dudeface wrote:
But honestly the entire situation is utterly unreal that so many people are upset they won't have a square of plastic under the tank that'll nearly never been seen and because they can't prime/basecoat it on the assumption they get as far as building it or buying it in the first place.

How many people in here complaining actually own a dorn? How many were legitimately going to buy one otherwise? How many of you are just here to whinge about something trivial for the sakes of boredom?

The giveaway here is how many other similar cases of GW models over the decades have had detail 'missing' in places where no one would normally look, especially underneath.

However it only becomes a 'problem' when a reviewer mentions it to a bunch of people who wouldn't normally buy the model to see it.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
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.

My five-year-old repeats stuff back like that too. Cute.

But oh dear, what's this?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

It's simple. The Cerberus can be made with a token upgrade sprue for the Spartan they already have...

Now, is it a good sign for the long-term health of the game that GW is making production decisions based on aggressive cost reduction...

So you say that I'm wrong in this thread but agree that I'm right in the other thread. Reading your posts is like those cartoons where the character just can't stop stepping on rakes.

**Aecus Decimus**

Dudeface wrote:
You'd be wrong captain sassy pants.

No, I'm pretty sure that "BUT WHAT IF THE REAL TANK HAS A HOLE IN IT TOO YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE" is the last resort of someone who has lost the argument and just won't admit defeat.

**Daedalus81**

Racerguy180 wrote:

No, every other tank i own has one(even floaty Primaris ones) why not this one?

I'd expect them to represent how they look in universe. By your logic the Rogal Dorn has a design choice that leads it to have a very large hole on the underside...to better dissipate a landmine blast? Or it's actually like the inflatable tanks they used to fool the Nazi's before d-day?

If I wanted purely gaming pieces I'd just use paper chits.

I mean do you randomly turn your tanks over to admire them? "Yep. That there is a bottom! I am confident this tank would survive a land mine if it were real."

Your concern is perfectly valid and certainly GW made a misstep. I'm just confounded by the expenditure of energy over what I feel is something that is so trivial ( to me ). In the end your best action is to just vote with your wallet.

**Commissar von Toussaint**

xttz wrote:
The giveaway here is how many other similar cases of GW models over the decades have had detail 'missing' in places where no one would normally look, especially underneath.

However it only becomes a 'problem' when a reviewer mentions it to a bunch of people who wouldn't normally buy the model to see it.

I don't know, even the first-gen Rhinos came with hatches to cover up the underside. If anything, those kits were a bonanza of spare parts and bitz. Only now, after 20 years of kit-bashing, am I starting to run low on that stuff. Need I mention how cheap they were?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

xttz wrote:
So you say that I'm wrong in this thread but agree that I'm right in the other thread. Reading your posts is like those cartoons where the character just can't stop stepping on rakes.

It's a recurring theme with him.

**Aecus Decimus**

xttz wrote:
So you say that I'm wrong in this thread but agree that I'm right in the other thread.

No, you're either not paying attention to what I actually said or dishonestly misquoting me because you know you can't win an honest argument. I never disputed that sharing sprues allows cost reduction, the reason your supposed "real world calculations" are wrong is your assumption that the Proteus will sell an order of magnitude more kits than the Dorn despite being a kit for a secondary game that was dead at the time GW committed to making it.

**Unit1126PLL**

ITT:

"Yes, cheapness is certainly a motivation, but that doesn't jive with 'high-quality model company' or their prices"

"WELL IT LOOKS FINE IF YOU DON'T TURN IT OVER, LUL. I KNOW YOUR CRITIQUE DEFINITELY WAS ABOUT HOW IT LOOKS SO I AM CLEVER."

**Kid_Kyoto**

AtoMaki wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Yes I am being awkward.

No, you are being reasonable. As far as I'm concerned, the Dorn doesn't have a bottom plate in-universe either, the internals are just hanging over a big hole because it is more cost-efficient to make the tank that way or something. I hope Karak Dorn Clansman writes about it in his Descendant Degeneration thread, it really deserves a story there.

Well I'm not Karak but I hope this tides you over

With a crash the mighty Rogal Dorn 356 medium battle tank smashed through the rebels' barbed wire and broke through their lines. Heavy stubber fire drove the cowards before them like rats.
"Emperor's Gondads!" Sgt Smitty ejaculated loudly "It's a good thing the Imperial Guard has, and has always had, the mighty Rogal Dorn medium battle tank!" he correctly said, for in fact the Imperial Guard had always had the Rogal Dorn medium battle tank, even if no one ever mentioned it before it was still there just out of the frame.
Smitty clanged on the side of the turret with the hilt of his sword.
"Hendrick, take out that bunker!"
The Rogal Dorn medium battle tank's oppressor cannon roared and the bunker vanished in tremendous explosion. Sgt Smitty laughed, at this rate there'd be no one left for his to hit with his sword once they reached the enemy's main force.
"Reload Hendrick and target that artillery bank!"
"Sorry sarge, I cann't!"
"What?" Smitty ejaculated loudly.
"The shells sir, they done fell out the gaping hole at the bottom of the tank!"
Smitty looked down at the gaping hole in the hull of the tank the Emperor had placed there to save millions of Space Dollars and sighed.
"Turn her around Hendrick, guess we have to go back to base."
And with that the mighty Rogal Dorn Medium Battle Tank, available in a store near you just $95 ($278 Australian), turned back to base for the third time that day.

**xttz**

Aecus Decimus wrote:
xttz wrote:
So you say that I'm wrong in this thread but agree that I'm right in the other thread.

No, you're either not paying attention to what I actually said or dishonestly misquoting me because you know you can't win an honest argument. I never disputed that sharing sprues allows cost reduction, the reason your supposed "real world calculations" are wrong is your assumption that the Proteus will sell an order of magnitude more kits than the Dorn despite being a kit for a secondary game that was dead at the time GW committed to making it.

I'll admit it is hard to keep up with how many posts you've been wrong in. Oddly you stopped posting in the "dead secondary game" Heresy thread when the other folks started telling you how wrong you are, especially about the weird repeat dissing of Alan Bligh.

Rakes. Just rakes, everywhere.

**A Town Called Malus**

xttz wrote:

The giveaway here is how many other similar cases of GW models over the decades have had detail 'missing' in places where no one would normally look, especially underneath.

I mean, my Hammerheads don't have missing detail on the bottom. I don't really see why you would ever do that when you are designing models with computer technology and so it is just as easy to detail to bottom by putting some lines, rivet nubs etc. as it is to do it to the top or sides.

**Dudeface**

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
You'd be wrong captain sassy pants.

No, I'm pretty sure that "BUT WHAT IF THE REAL TANK HAS A HOLE IN IT TOO YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE" is the last resort of someone who has lost the argument and just won't admit defeat.

No, complaining a model kit is only good as a game token like a poker chip because it doesn't match it's "real world" counter part is crazy. There isn't any fluff as to whether it does or does not have a bottom plate. The tank isn't real, other vehicles are "incomplete" lots of them have no interior, lots have doors that don't open like their "real world" counterpart, most of them don't have interior crews. This tank is no more or less "true to it's real life self" as the 10 ft long rhinos who are too small by design, the monsters with no buttholes, the physiology of terminators impossibly posture. There's a billion and one abstractions in this game like 360 no scope tanks in game, the fact that a 5ft 5 guardsman is 80% or more of the height of a 9-10ft armoured transhuman.

But no the goddamn plate on the bottom of the tank you won't fething see is the point you draw the line.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Aecus Decimus wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
How do you know? Have you ever seen a real in universe dorn to verify? Is there any artwork with the bottom visible? Are there written accounts of a baseplate existing?

If that's the best argument you have I think I can safely accept your concession of defeat and we can move on.

You'd be wrong captain sassy pants.

I don't think it's wrong to say "the Rogal Dorn's design is dumb, whether it is deliberate because the tank is this way in universe ~~(HA, like anyone believes that)~~ or it is deliberate because GW is lazy/incompetent/cheap/careless"

So if your argument is "maybe it was done like that because it's that way in universe! Have you seen any EVIDENCE? HMM?" it comes off a bit trollish (even if that wasn't your intent).

See above, telling someone that kit is as valuable or useful as poker chip because it's not true to it's real life fictional self is the trollworthy posture I was responding to. If that's the biggest problem here, show me it's supposed to have a bottom plate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
xttz wrote:

The giveaway here is how many other similar cases of GW models over the decades have had detail 'missing' in places where no one would normally look, especially underneath.

I mean, my Hammerheads don't have missing detail on the bottom. I don't really see why you would ever do that when you are designing models with computer technology and so it is just as easy to detail to bottom by putting some lines, rivet nubs etc. as it is to do it to the top or sides.

As noted elsehwere the investment cost for the sprue is likely the issue, a very reasonable workaround would have been to move the extra guff to an additional generic accessories sprue and then put the price up slightly to allow recoup of the mould costs.

**Aecus Decimus**

Dudeface wrote:
There isn't any fluff as to whether it does or does not have a bottom plate.

Thank you for conceding defeat on this subject.

But no the goddamn plate on the bottom of the tank you won't fething see

People have already explained to you how you can see the hole.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

xttz wrote:
I'll admit it is hard to keep up with how many posts you've been wrong in. Oddly you stopped posting in the "dead secondary game" Heresy thread when the other folks started telling you how wrong you are, especially about the weird repeat dissing of Alan Bligh.

Rakes. Just rakes, everywhere.

WHY DIDNT U POST IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD I DEMAND THAT YOU POST IN CONSTANTLY AND HAVE NO LIFE OUTSIDE OF POSTING.

I stopped posting there because it had gone completely off topic from the point I had originally been making, about the state of Heresy 1.0 when the Spartan/Proteus/etc were designed and sent into production, and into discussion of the current state of Heresy 2.0. I don't care if Heresy 2.0 is succeeding because it has nothing to do with the original point about your invalid sales assumptions.

And who cares about Alan Bligh? Why do you feel the need to white knight for him against the fact that one of the things he made had poor sales performance and was not valued by GW?

**Dudeface**

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
There isn't any fluff as to whether it does or does not have a bottom plate.

Thank you for conceding defeat on this subject.

But no the goddamn plate on the bottom of the tank you won't fething see

People have already explained to you how you can see the hole.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

xttz wrote:
I'll admit it is hard to keep up with how many posts you've been wrong in. Oddly you stopped posting in the "dead secondary game" Heresy thread when the other folks started telling you how wrong you are, especially about the weird repeat dissing of Alan Bligh.

Rakes. Just rakes, everywhere.

WHY DIDNT U POST IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD I DEMAND THAT YOU POST IN CONSTANTLY AND HAVE NO LIFE OUTSIDE OF POSTING.

I stopped posting there because it had gone completely off topic from the point I had originally been making, about the state of Heresy 1.0 when the Spartan/Proteus/etc were designed and sent into production, and into discussion of the current state of Heresy 2.0. I don't care if Heresy 2.0 is succeeding because it has nothing to do with the original point about your invalid sales assumptions.

And who cares about Alan Bligh? Why do you feel the need to white knight for him against the fact that one of the things he made had poor sales performance and was not valued by GW?

Do you ever offer anything that isn't a complaint? But I'm glad the bottomless tank was so obvious it was clear from all the codex and stock photos, it's a real issue alright. I'll sleep worse at night knowing people looking up at their ceiling mounted glass shelves can see in the tank and how it broke their hobby immersion.

**Aecus Decimus**

Dudeface wrote:
Do you ever offer anything that isn't a complaint? But I'm glad the bottomless tank was so obvious it was clear from all the codex and stock photos, it's a real issue alright. I'll sleep worse at night knowing people looking up at their ceiling mounted glass shelves can see in the tank and how it broke their hobby immersion.

Yeah, because picking up a tank to take a closer look at it is such a rare event that only PEOPLE WITH CEILING MOUTNED CLASS SHELVES LOL will ever see it.

**Dudeface**

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Do you ever offer anything that isn't a complaint? But I'm glad the bottomless tank was so obvious it was clear from all the codex and stock photos, it's a real issue alright. I'll sleep worse at night knowing people looking up at their ceiling mounted glass shelves can see in the tank and how it broke their hobby immersion.

Yeah, because picking up a tank to take a closer look at it is such a rare event that only PEOPLE WITH CEILING MOUTNED CLASS SHELVES LOL will ever see it.

"Aww man, that tank looks amazing, let me turn it over" said nobody ever

**Tamereth**

Vankraken wrote:
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.

This shows a change in design philosophy at GW. I remember not glueing all the extra detail on a Taurox because I didn't want the hassle of painting it when nobody would ever really see it. With the dorn I'd have to put in a load of effort to fill a literal gapping hole in it people would see.