8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Given how pretty the forgeworld flyers are, this is fairly poor.
Glad my second 40k army is going to be Dark Eldar, I'd pondered Grey Knights, if this model had been better looking, as I'm reading the Eisenhorn trilogy and I'd been getting nostalgic about having an inquisitor and retinue.
It's not 'hideous' in a pumbagor/minotaur/obliterator way, it's just a fairly uninspired looking thing with some bad proportions and a 'nailed on' feel.
I will keep my fingers crossed the fighter bomber will be better, at least if it isn't, I can just loot a valk.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Turalon wrote:Well I think that this model will really show what type of gamer you are. Either you play an army for cool models, or because they are ridiculously op in game terms (and look like hell).
I sense that these will be really popular with people who only play blood angels for the cheese.
If you don't like the model, that's fine. But honestly, "anyone that buys this is a powergamer?"
I'm trying to think of a way to put this that won't get me yet another warning...how about: It takes a very special person to think like that. Instead of just chalking it up to people having weird or different tastes we just jump straight to "IF YOU BUY THIS YOU'RE WAAC LOLOLOL"?
Lycaeus Wrex wrote:And yet, upon seeing one in person and actually being able to view the model from every angle it didn't look as atrocious as the promo pics made it look.
...no, the daemon prince is every bit as atrocious in person and from multiple angles as it was in the promo pics.
My knee will never quit jerking on that one, the plastic DP is the worst god-damned kit ever. I will not accept any justification for people wasting their money on that thing, even though I just said "differing tastes" and all that. 
Anyway, I saw the leak before I went to work tonight...had all day to think about it...read this thread when I got home and facepalmed at the stupidity raging while I was away...and I still don't know what to think about it. It definitely wasn't what I was expecting, I can say that much...and I'll say MajorTom's photoshop looks way better than the official model, but I don't think it's the worst thing GW has ever done (worst thing for Marines, maybe).
I dunno, I think I'll wait until we see more pics before condemning it. In any case I think it could be easily saved, with a different turret and a chopped top like what was suggested earlier...but it should look good right out of the box, so just because you can make something good out of it doesn't make it a good kit I guess.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
H.B.M.C. wrote:This model had the same build up. Same amount of excitment over it, same amount of people making fantastic and awful scratch builds (best I've seen was a GW staffer at the new North Sydney store here in Oz) but... now this model has been revealed (sorta, even if by mistake) and... people hate it? I wasn't expecting that. Were we spoilt by the Valkyrie kit? I've not seen such a universal reaction to a new GW kit since the Pumbagore, but even that was pretty low key.
It is interesting, especially since this is a plastic vehicle kit. I don't remember any negative backlash against those for as long as I can remember. The "new" Basilisk was something of an outrage, since it went up in price but didn't contain anything new, but besides that, they've not done bad plastic models. The trukk, the battlewagon, the Raider, the new Chimera, the Venerable Dread, etc, etc... These were all met with reactions ranging from joyful to quiet acceptance. Nobody went out and said, "this is a terrible model".
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
H.B.M.C. wrote:Ah good! I do so love the part of every rumour thread where BrassScorpion shows up to tell us both how many pages the thread is and also and then to insult everyone (and then posts
And then often shortly after I do that the MODS shut the thread down for exactly the reasons I've mentioned. And I don't believe my post insulted everyone, but for the people who are so hyper-negative in nearly every rumor thread all the time that they feel insulted or they feel the need to attack others personally, maybe they should rethink what they are doing. For a change, try being part of the solution, not part of the problem. I haven't seen this much negativity toward a GW release since the Beastmen last February. Perhaps a better approach would be waiting for more pictures instead of getting apoplectic over it and turning on other forum members like rabid animals.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Remember when pics were shown of the WIP Mumakil? Lots and lots of negative feedback then for some reason or the other.
I wonder if that thing is balanced properly, a lot seems to be going to the rear of the thing and not a lot is in front. The prototype they got there could be weighted down in front for all we know.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
I really doubt it's a prototype or beta or whatever, considering it's due for release in the next three months this is probably what it's going to look like.
Even if it doesn't come out in the next few months then what are the odds they'd actually change it, after investing all that time into the current design? Remember the DP went unchanged despite the negative reaction to it, and it was delayed for a long-ass time at that.
7375
Post by: BrookM
They can't change the model, not now, not any more, too far into the cycle now and too many coins put into it all.
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
My only problem is that it is so 'front heavy'
Yes I realise that the dread is carried in the back section.
The front is reminisant of the thunderhawk, and that part I like.
But for me the wings are just too far back (hopefully it is just the angle of the shot).
Would I buy one, yes.
ONLY because I'm building BSa.
21202
Post by: Commander Endova
I actually really like it. I think I'm one of the few there, though. I also think the angle we're seeing it at is throwing us off. I think when we get a full profile stot, it'll look less stubby. Its seems like the tail boom might be a little longer than the awkward angle implies.
Either way, I'll be kitting up some GKs or BA's in these sooner or later.
26
Post by: carmachu
As someone said elsewhere, looks like one of the deisgn team ate a valkerie and landraider then went to the bathrrom and pooped this stormraven out.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
BrookM wrote:
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:
Unless I'm mistaken, most GW promo shots of Valkyries are of the old FW resin kit. The easiest way to tell is looking at the cockpit frames. There's also other details, like the fact that the lascannon housing has rivets on its top side, whereas the plastic one does not (casting reasons).
7375
Post by: BrookM
Agamemnon2 wrote:BrookM wrote:
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:
Unless I'm mistaken, most GW promo shots of Valkyries are of the old FW resin kit. The easiest way to tell is looking at the cockpit frames. There's also other details, like the fact that the lascannon housing has rivets on its top side, whereas the plastic one does not (casting reasons).
Now that you're mentioning it, you're right! Huh, odd. Why would they do something like that?
25963
Post by: Miraclefish
24 hours on and I still like it. It looks a bit slapped together though, so I'm gonna continue campaigning to brand it the Chunderhawk*...
(*Chunder being British slang for throwing up)
60
Post by: yakface
BrookM wrote:Agamemnon2 wrote:BrookM wrote:
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:
Unless I'm mistaken, most GW promo shots of Valkyries are of the old FW resin kit. The easiest way to tell is looking at the cockpit frames. There's also other details, like the fact that the lascannon housing has rivets on its top side, whereas the plastic one does not (casting reasons).
Now that you're mentioning it, you're right! Huh, odd. Why would they do something like that?
Because production schedules for models and codexes take much longer then we want to believe and when it comes time to take promotional pictures they need painted models and that sometimes means they end up using the prototype versions of their models.
18045
Post by: Snord
yakface wrote:BrookM wrote:
Because production schedules for models and codexes take much longer then we want to believe and when it comes time to take promotional pictures they need painted models and that sometimes means they end up using the prototype versions of their models.
The first WD photos of the Devilfish definitely show a resin prototype. Not only that, but a former GW manager told me that (during the 3rd Edition era) they would sometimes be so pressed for time that they'd photograph models which had only been only painted on one side.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:My only problem is that it is so 'front heavy'
Yes I realise that the dread is carried in the back section.
The front is reminisant of the thunderhawk, and that part I like.
But for me the wings are just too far back (hopefully it is just the angle of the shot)....
Thats the thing the bugs me. The wings being that far back aesthetically implies that the Dreadnought is heavier than that big bulky transport section. I imagine it can actually be modeled with the dreadnought held, that it likely will improve the "balance" and make it look less front heavy.... but how many people want to buy extra dreadnoughts just so their transports look right.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Holy crap this thread when I left it was around 198 posts. Now 358? HOLY CRAP!
Anyway it seems this thread has not deevolved into a troll fest good job! 
686
Post by: aka_mythos
yakface wrote:BrookM wrote:Agamemnon2 wrote:BrookM wrote:
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:
Unless I'm mistaken, most GW promo shots of Valkyries are of the old FW resin kit. The easiest way to tell is looking at the cockpit frames. There's also other details, like the fact that the lascannon housing has rivets on its top side, whereas the plastic one does not (casting reasons).
Now that you're mentioning it, you're right! Huh, odd. Why would they do something like that?
Because production schedules for models and codexes take much longer then we want to believe and when it comes time to take promotional pictures they need painted models and that sometimes means they end up using the prototype versions of their models.
Issues of White Dwarf are made 3 or more months prior to their release. That means photos taken have to be done almost 4 months prior to a publication. Producing models, they don't generally have huge lead times between starting production and releasing, since it costs a lot to just to store the surge in product. They then have to prep and paint it and if its a prototype it could be nightmare compared even to FW models. So the publication photos have to either be made using prototypes or the very first production pieces depending on how much time they have. They are effectively trying to take a high quality photo of something that doesn't fully "exist."
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
aka_mythos wrote:yakface wrote:BrookM wrote:Agamemnon2 wrote:BrookM wrote:
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:
Unless I'm mistaken, most GW promo shots of Valkyries are of the old FW resin kit. The easiest way to tell is looking at the cockpit frames. There's also other details, like the fact that the lascannon housing has rivets on its top side, whereas the plastic one does not (casting reasons).
Now that you're mentioning it, you're right! Huh, odd. Why would they do something like that?
Because production schedules for models and codexes take much longer then we want to believe and when it comes time to take promotional pictures they need painted models and that sometimes means they end up using the prototype versions of their models.
Issues of White Dwarf are made 3 or more months prior to their release. That means photos taken have to be done almost 4 months prior to a publication. Producing models, they don't generally have huge lead times between starting production and releasing, since it costs a lot to just to store the surge in product. They then have to prep and paint it and if its a prototype it could be nightmare compared even to FW models. So the publication photos have to either be made using prototypes or the very first production pieces depending on how much time they have. They are effectively trying to take a high quality photo of something that doesn't fully "exist."
yeah and not only that but their customer service for sending letters fails..
8709
Post by: OnTheEdge
This is a sad model. This front-heavy deal ruins the model. So sad GW could have made it so much better 
When the time comes to do one I will look at all the beautiful conversions by my fellow dakka brother and sisters
//Edge
60
Post by: yakface
I'm definitely in the 'meh' camp when it comes to this model.
Although we'll never know from the studio, I would bet any amount of money that the production cost of the model had a large part to do with its design. My guess is that it uses the same amount of plastic frames as the Valkyrie/Vendetta and adding any more frames into the kit would have ended up pushing it into the cost/price range of the Super-Heavy vehicles, which is likely somewhere GW didn't want to go with this type of unit.
So they were stuck with a very real limitation on what could be done with the given size and those limitations likely ended up producing a truncated version of what was (hopefully) a much better original design.
But as pointed out by a variety of photoshops in this thread, even with the size restriction on the kit I still think they could have done a much better job at making the proportions seem less awkward.
21658
Post by: youthminister40k
I like the weirdness. Boxy is Space Marine -ish right? This looks like it could be cool.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
youthminister40k wrote:I like the weirdness. Boxy is Space Marine -ish right? This looks like it could be cool.
Most of the people I have sent messages to via aol. Have said " WTF IS THAT! THATS CRAP!"
But apart from that it looks nice if I could take a file and file it down alot and destroy top part.
But I am concerned about the price. If it is 65$ i will go broke. *shakes head in shame*
People do not have that money anymore!
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
But I am concerned about the price. If it is 65$ i will go broke.
Unfortunately, with Land Raiders, Valkyries and Defilers at $62 I don't see how the Stormraven could possibly be cheaper. At an absolute minimum it would be $49.50 like many of the tank kits. That would seem like a pleasant surprise at this point.
The friends to whom I emailed the picture have so far been fairly positive about the look of the model. I will admit I was a little surprised by the actual appearance, but I can see things about the model that look like fun and I'm sure if there's a place for it in at least one of my armies I'll happily get at least one.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Yeah, even the guy in our group who sits on the fence with everything wasn't too keen on it. I'd like to prop up my own ego and say it's not everyone and that it's just me and a few others being (typically) negative, but so many long-time posters have come into this thread and said the same thing. I'm a big believer in consensus... and I think we have one here. This is a near-universal dud. 
23115
Post by: OoieGoie
Some extra "stuff". Sorry if seen already. I didnt see it in this thread.
EDIT: Just noticed this info on Warseer page 1. Sorry.
From the page that got taken off the GW site (which had the Stormraven pic). No page 2 was posted apparently so this is all I have.
Over the next few pages, we will be taking a look at how to paint the Blood Angels Stormraven Gunship, including how to weather the vehicle and paint the interior detail. A great addition and centrepiece model for any Blood Angels army, this will be an invaluable guide to help you get the most from this fantastic kit.
Death from Above
The Stormraven Gunship is an incredibly versatile craft, able to fulfil the roll of orbital dropship, armoured transport and strike aircraft in a way that few, or indeed any, ships could hope to match. The Stormraven ensures that the Blood Angels remain undisputed masters of the skies, as dominant in the air as their troops are on the ground. Smaller and nimbler than the more cumbersome Thunderhawk Gunships, the Stormraven's compact hull and vectored thrusters enable it to operate at maximum efficiency in all but the densest terrain. A Stormraven can often be seen hurtling straight into the heart of the enemy forces, unleashing its considerable arsenal in a terrifying display of firepower, before disgorging a squad, Dreadnought, or even both, into the thick of the fighting.
On the tabletop
With its potent firepower, speed and transport capacity, the uses of a Stormraven on the battlefield are myriad, but its role of choice is as an unparalleled assault vehicle. With a huge variety of weapon options, and no less than four tank-busting Bloodstrike Missiles, both enemy infantry and vehicles alike fear drawing the attention of its guns. A transport capacity of 12 combined with the ability to safely carry a Dreadnought to battle as well certainly proves the Stormraven to be a transport vehicle of the very finest quality. This unique combination of speed, firepower and transport capacity means that a Stormraven can support any tactical preference, so there is always a place for it in any Blood Angels army.
Nick: A Stormraven will be the focal point of your army, so it's well worth giving it a lot of attention when painting it. These techniques can effectively be applied to any other vehicles in your Blood Angels army too, so keep this in mind and you will have a great looking fleet of vehicles in no time. I painted this Stormraven to match the battleforce that I painted for the Blood Angels army workshop in February 2011's White Dwarf; it's part of the 3rd Company, in keeping with the rest of the models. As a personal touch, I've weathered the model to appear heavily battle worn, but if you wish to keep your vehicle in pristine condition, skip page 6 and you'll have an immaculate vehicle, fresh as if at the beginning of a campaign.....
The links to the subsequent pages weren't working.
My internal marketing cynic has made its own assessment as to how likely it is that GW would 'accidentally' internally redirect their 40k FAQ page to a teaser article on the Stormraven before going 'whoops, lets pretend nothing happened'....... Noting the section in bold, I'd guess we'd be talking about a Feb/March release of the model with this article likely in the Mar 2011 White Dwarf.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
I always liked the star wars republic gunship, perhaps I might use one of those instead...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Made in au wrote:My internal marketing cynic has made its own assessment as to how likely it is that GW would 'accidentally' internally redirect their 40k FAQ page to a teaser article on the Stormraven before going 'whoops, lets pretend nothing happened'...
It has happened to Sony PlayStation several times.
I think the model looks very "Imperial" -- square and clunky like a Land Raider. The proportions around the rear fuselage, tail and wings are not fully evident and may save it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I always liked the star wars republic gunship, perhaps I might use one of those instead...
Thanks for bringing that thing up. When I first saw it in the movies (among so much else that was disappointing), I thought "that is the ugliest piece of gak they've dared to put on the screen yet." Now that several years have gone by, I totally accept it even if I still think it looks clunky, unfliable, and front-heavy.
30532
Post by: Zefig
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I always liked the star wars republic gunship, perhaps I might use one of those instead...
Stompa, you beat me to it by about 15 minutes. I was thinking this new Stormraven model really does look a decent amount like the republic gunship. The proportions are pretty similar, the role is pretty similar. The chibihawk just looks like a heavily Space Marined version. If you squint real hard.
All the issues of aerodynamics and weight distribution seem kind of laughable to me though in an army with relatively commonplace antigrav. The landspeeder isn't exactly the most aerodynamic of things, and those wings certainly wouldn't support one, especially placed as they are. It's the antigrav system that keeps it up, everything else is for thrust and maneuvering. Looking at this from that perspective, you've got a transport/gunship with some beefy engines and some huge maneuvering thrusters, which would certainly help is weave through the hive cities, eh?
That said, I'm kind of ambivalent about the model itself. I like parts of it, and I'm certainly not too fond of others. I'm looking forward to actually seeing some other angles of it, especially the dreadnought enclosure. A profile shot would certainly help too.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
...I'm not sure but I may have died a little inside when i saw that...
Republic gunships are awesome though, if i was any good at conversions I'd try something with that.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
This looks like a SM vehicle. The Land Raider is boxy. The Thunderhawk is boxy, SM dreads are boxy...
I rather like how it sticks to the established Sm aesthetic as quite frankly I don't like GW's attempt to change up the classic look of armies as of late (Ork dread, etc.).
IF you want sleek and curvy play Tau or Eldar.
8330
Post by: kestral
I will say two things in the models defense (though I don't like it)
1) It has a certain homage to the Aliens dropship (though square) in the layout I like.
2) Its not as huge as I feared. Valks push the edge of a playable/storeable model for me, and this seems to have a more reasonable footprint.
Still ugly though.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
The_0perator wrote:Yea.... considering that was the main reason I was excited for Blood Angels, I'm Kinda not feeling it...
I hope many of the bandwagon BA players feel the same and stop playing them to be honest...  Automatically Appended Next Post: MajorTom11 wrote:Aerodynamics are heresy.
Because the Thunderhawk is an Aerodynamic marvel... Automatically Appended Next Post: Therion wrote:
Magical weapons, daemons, or galaxy spanning empires haven't been encountered in real life. Space shuttles and aeroplanes however have.
The vast majority of 40K weaponrey and vehicles make no sense from a real world perspective.
Two Words: Toy Soldiers
23613
Post by: Stubby
I HOPE THAT TURRET FITS ON RAZORBACKS.
Because that would be amazingly dank.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I always liked the star wars republic gunship, perhaps I might use one of those instead...
hehehe. I am trying to do that look at my blog. But I am using it for a thunderhawk instead. As the gunship is four times the size of a land raider. XD PS i can say this because I own one and it cost me 60$ including the collectable items inside!
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Asherian Command wrote:MeanGreenStompa wrote:I always liked the star wars republic gunship, perhaps I might use one of those instead...
hehehe. I am trying to do that look at my blog. But I am using it for a thunderhawk instead. As the gunship is four times the size of a land raider. XD
PS i can say this because I own one and it cost me 60$ including the collectable items inside!
Republic Gunship looks like a Tau vehicle...
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
Now that you mention it, it really does!
32821
Post by: shaft
I think its not bad, what about this one-home made pegasus gunship for my Alpha/Omaga marines, it just needs painting
2
8471
Post by: olympia
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, there is no space marine aesthetic to this vehicle. Its aesthetic, such as it is, is distinctly ork.
18045
Post by: Snord
Shaft - now that's a gunship! It doesn't look like a Marine vehicle, but it's a great looking model.
35815
Post by: Wolflord Grimnar
awsome gunship shaft
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
shaft wrote:I think its not bad, what about this one-home made pegasus gunship for my Alpha/Omaga marines, it just needs painting
I sense a Halo reference!
1478
Post by: warboss
CT GAMER wrote:This looks like a SM vehicle. The Land Raider is boxy. The Thunderhawk is boxy, SM dreads are boxy...
I rather like how it sticks to the established Sm aesthetic as quite frankly I don't like GW's attempt to change up the classic look of armies as of late (Ork dread, etc.).
IF you want sleek and curvy play Tau or Eldar.
i don't think the issue is that it's sticking to a boxy marine aesthetic but that it's taking it too far. it's TOO boxy and TOO stubby. no one here was expecting a mid-90's teardrop sports car. also, it doesn't actually stick to marine aesthetics in all points as the turret is a throwback for no reason to non-marine designs. marine vehicles since the 3rd edition redesign have had remote turrets of a modern design instead of manned sponsons. this model has a WWII bomber ball turret for some unknown reason. IF i get one, the first thing i'm doing is taking off the ball turret and gluing the two lascannons together to make a more consistent marine vehicle.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Actually I love the turret. I would stick that on a land raider just for the extra lolz.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
warboss wrote:CT GAMER wrote:This looks like a SM vehicle. The Land Raider is boxy. The Thunderhawk is boxy, SM dreads are boxy...
I rather like how it sticks to the established Sm aesthetic as quite frankly I don't like GW's attempt to change up the classic look of armies as of late (Ork dread, etc.).
IF you want sleek and curvy play Tau or Eldar.
i don't think the issue is that it's sticking to a boxy marine aesthetic but that it's taking it too far. it's TOO boxy and TOO stubby. no one here was expecting a mid-90's teardrop sports car. also, it doesn't actually stick to marine aesthetics in all points as the turret is a throwback for no reason to non-marine designs. marine vehicles since the 3rd edition redesign have had remote turrets of a modern design instead of manned sponsons. this model has a WWII bomber ball turret for some unknown reason. IF i get one, the first thing i'm doing is taking off the ball turret and gluing the two lascannons together to make a more consistent marine vehicle.
Said it in the poll thread, but I'll repeat it here.
On top of the fuselage is the only real place the twin lascannons would work. Why?
Because you can't have it placed underneath and still be able to provide covering fire while landed to drop off troops due to the ramp placement.
You can't move the ramp to the rear either, because then troops would have to wait for the Dreadnought to disconnect and clear its attachment point.
As for why it's a ball turret versus a remote design...
That's easy. Remotely operated turrets on air vehicles wouldn't work out too well.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
On top of the fuselage is the only real place the twin lascannons would work. Why?
Because you can't have it placed underneath and still be able to provide covering fire while landed to drop off troops due to the ramp placement.
Nor can it provide covering fire while landed anyway since the things it's shooting at aren't above it.
You can't move the ramp to the rear either, because then troops would have to wait for the Dreadnought to disconnect and clear its attachment point.
Why would it need a ramp at all? Do the marines need help riding their wheelchairs into it? Did they all forget their knees on the barge?
As for why it's a ball turret versus a remote design...
That's easy. Remotely operated turrets on air vehicles wouldn't work out too well.
'Scuse me?
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
You could make a rear exit on the back and basically there you go an Apache + Vulture = Awesome.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Kanluwen wrote:
On top of the fuselage is the only real place the twin lascannons would work. Why?
Because you can't have it placed underneath and still be able to provide covering fire while landed to drop off troops due to the ramp placement.
You can't move the ramp to the rear either, because then troops would have to wait for the Dreadnought to disconnect and clear its attachment point.
As for why it's a ball turret versus a remote design...
That's easy. Remotely operated turrets on air vehicles wouldn't work out too well.
And the twin las ( turret) and the meltas ( fixed forward ) are options, but I would guess the thing we miss on the pic are the optional sponsons.
So it does not state turret in the rules, thus anyone may place the weapons elsewhere.
I'd keep the turret if possible, but I am going to change the model for sure and maybe move the turret to its middle.
What is given, are the access points, 1x front, both sides and 1x rear. This model may not provide cover fire if you disembark at the rear.
Plus IMo the sponsons ( hurricane bolters ) are the cover fire and the turret is meant as AA and fire support.
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
shaft wrote:I think its not bad, what about this one-home made pegasus gunship for my Alpha/Omaga marines, it just needs painting
Wow that thing is so full of win!!!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
ShumaGorath wrote:On top of the fuselage is the only real place the twin lascannons would work. Why?
Because you can't have it placed underneath and still be able to provide covering fire while landed to drop off troops due to the ramp placement.
Nor can it provide covering fire while landed anyway since the things it's shooting at aren't above it.
You're overestimating the height of this thing compared to armored vehicles(you know...the thing lascannons shoot at?).
You can't move the ramp to the rear either, because then troops would have to wait for the Dreadnought to disconnect and clear its attachment point.
Why would it need a ramp at all? Do the marines need help riding their wheelchairs into it? Did they all forget their knees on the barge?
Why wouldn't it use a ramp? Ramps let you get more troops out at once, and doesn't cramp up the interior unnecessarily.
1478
Post by: warboss
Kanluwen wrote:Said it in the poll thread, but I'll repeat it here.
On top of the fuselage is the only real place the twin lascannons would work. Why?
Because you can't have it placed underneath and still be able to provide covering fire while landed to drop off troops due to the ramp placement.
You can't move the ramp to the rear either, because then troops would have to wait for the Dreadnought to disconnect and clear its attachment point.
feel free to repeat it as many times as you want as i can't stop you but that doesn't change the fact that i'm not disagreeing with that in the first place. you need to stop reflexively defending everything gw does and actually read posts. my problem is with the design of the turret (among other things with this model) and not the placement.
Kanluwen wrote:
As for why it's a ball turret versus a remote design...
That's easy. Remotely operated turrets on air vehicles wouldn't work out too well.
boeing said to tell you hi and to that the b-29 superfortress disagrees with your statement. it did quite well during the war with all those remote turrets, you know, being pivotal to winning the pacific theatre of WWII and all, thank you very much.
http://www.lonesentry.com/blog/b-29-remote-control-turret-system.html/comment-page-1
16387
Post by: Manchu
Just preemptively: Everyone take a deep breath. It's just the internet.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Wait are we acting out of term I thought this was a legitmate conversion! Because they aren't ripping each other. The two of them are just saying the model is either good or bad. I don't see it as insulting.
4884
Post by: Therion
I agree that the obvious flaws are the wings being too small, front being too heavy, tail being too short and the top turret not matching the SM style of automated heavy weaponry. The Storm Raven isn't a great success for GW. Will be fun to see what weapon options the Grey Knights get for it and what the sprues look like. GW can screw this thing up even further by not including all the weapon options in the kit. Happens all the time.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
You're overestimating the height of this thing compared to armored vehicles(you know...the thing lascannons shoot at?).
That turret is placed higher up then almost every vehicle in the game, it's probably taller then a land raider judging by the marines there. It also doesn't look like it can turn sideways with how it's modeled there, nor can it shoot behind itself, thus making it useless against most other aircraft.
Why wouldn't it use a ramp? Ramps let you get more troops out at once, and doesn't cramp up the interior unnecessarily.
How does waiting for the ramp to drop let out more troops at once? Why can't they just use their mighty power armor and godlike legs to drop the four feet like with almost every other vtol troop carrying craft ever designed or imagined?
1478
Post by: warboss
Therion wrote:I agree that the obvious flaws are the wings being too small, front being too heavy, tail being too short and the top turret not matching the SM style of automated heavy weaponry. The Storm Raven isn't a great success for GW. Will be fun to see what weapon options the Grey Knights get for it and what the sprues look like. GW can screw this thing up even further by not including all the weapon options in the kit. Happens all the time.
i have been wondering about that. the weapons the only pic we have show are specifically the anti-armor choices (las, melta, missles). i'd be shocked if it didn't come with the heavy bolter/assault cannon standard loadout... but i'm hoping that it comes with the optional hurricane bolter sponsons also.
4884
Post by: Therion
warboss wrote:Therion wrote:I agree that the obvious flaws are the wings being too small, front being too heavy, tail being too short and the top turret not matching the SM style of automated heavy weaponry. The Storm Raven isn't a great success for GW. Will be fun to see what weapon options the Grey Knights get for it and what the sprues look like. GW can screw this thing up even further by not including all the weapon options in the kit. Happens all the time.
i have been wondering about that. the weapons the only pic we have show are specifically the anti-armor choices (las, melta, missles). i'd be shocked if it didn't come with the heavy bolter/assault cannon standard loadout... but i'm hoping that it comes with the optional hurricane bolter sponsons also.
Don't forget the Typhoon Missile Launcher, TL Plasma Cannons, and like I said previously any GK specific weapon options I'm already setting myself up for disappointment.
8907
Post by: cadbren
Absolutionis wrote:There's no explanation as to why the thing that looks like a brick should fly. We're not given any explanation.
...In the end, I'll just attack and blow off the weapons of an airborne Stormraven with a few really angry Termagants and not consider realism nor believability for a moment.
You answered your own question. The explanation for why they look the way they do is so that they'll fit on the tabletop so that your 'nids or whatever can attack them. Long sleek aircraft would simply cover too much of the table surface which is ultimately about squad level tactics in an already compressed environment.
I'd imagine that a "real" thunderbolt would be a boxy affair compared to modern aircraft but nowhere near as boxy as the model.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
cadbren wrote:Absolutionis wrote:There's no explanation as to why the thing that looks like a brick should fly. We're not given any explanation.
...In the end, I'll just attack and blow off the weapons of an airborne Stormraven with a few really angry Termagants and not consider realism nor believability for a moment.
You answered your own question. The explanation for why they look the way they do is so that they'll fit on the tabletop so that your 'nids or whatever can attack them. Long sleek aircraft would simply cover too much of the table surface which is ultimately about squad level tactics in an already compressed environment.
I'd imagine that a "real" thunderbolt would be a boxy affair compared to modern aircraft but nowhere near as boxy as the model.
Which brings to mind the question of why this small scale tabletop wargame has aircraft.
102
Post by: Jayden63
Well in game, those top mounted lascannons are going to have a huge range of fire. Don't forget, in game, its on a 3" flying stand, add 2-4" for the height of the vehicle itself and your looking at something 6 or so inches off the table. What can't it shoot at?
8944
Post by: Jackmojo
Stuff below it? Good reason to model it in a strafing run or banking turn
Jack
15799
Post by: terribletrygon
Someone actually made that? Give that man a medal.
11254
Post by: veritechc
That is dreadful. A real cop out. I hope that this is not the way all the new fliers will look. All of the kit bashes look way better then that.
Its look reminds me of the Parasite Fighter. A one man fighter tucked away in a B-36 Peacemakers bomb bay. It was a FAILED project.
99
Post by: insaniak
olympia wrote:As was pointed out earlier in this thread, there is no space marine aesthetic to this vehicle. Its aesthetic, such as it is, is distinctly ork.
I disagree. It very much fits the Space Marine aesthetic. It's a very clear relative of the Land Raider and Rhino.
What it doesn't do is look good. While I'm willing to hold off final judgement until we get some pics from other angles, it's an awkward and ugly design.
Having said that, if it was labelled a 'drop ship' rather than a 'gunship' I think I would have fewer issues with it. In some bizarre way, it rather reminds me of the drop ships from the Starship Troopers movie. A drop ship can be a box that just has to get to the ground as quickly as possible. A gunship should look like something that could conceivably fly around a bit.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
I am just going to buy a halo pelican and say its a storm raven.
10470
Post by: shrike
As i said in my poll about this;
What I am going to do to make the chibi-hawk ( ) look better:
The turret- Going off. I shall buy a razorback. The razorback's lascannons will go on the "nose" of the SR, one on either side. The SR lascannons will go on my Razorback.
The vent over the turret- is going off (the top of it will stay on the roof, though).
The non-existent rear end- I shall build one, following the same rough shape of the hull. I will not enclose the back.
The bit where the dread's meant to go- It shall go inside the newly-constructed rear. (It can jump out via the open rear).
This, IMO, will make it look considerably better.
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
shrike wrote:
As i said in my poll about this;
What I am going to do to make the chibi-hawk ( ) look better:
The turret- Going off. I shall buy a razorback. The razorback's lascannons will go on the "nose" of the SR, one on either side. The SR lascannons will go on my Razorback.
The vent over the turret- is going off (the top of it will stay on the roof, though).
The non-existent rear end- I shall build one, following the same rough shape of the hull. I will not enclose the back.
The bit where the dread's meant to go- It shall go inside the newly-constructed rear. (It can jump out via the open rear).
This, IMO, will make it look considerably better.
Where have you been lol??
24223
Post by: Holycrusader27
What a deep striking land raider should look like lol
Not bad tho model wise....
@MajorTom11
I Really like your redesign! I shall call it tomahawk... No seriously if this is legit and model comes out please make a tutorial on how you did it!
28899
Post by: Pvt. Jet
MajorTom, is GW doesn't change the model before release with the adjustments you made, I will personally light them all on fire, then commission you to make me one just like your design.
That said, the current design isn't terrible. I like it, even if it is flawed.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
olympia wrote:As was pointed out earlier in this thread, there is no space marine aesthetic to this vehicle. Its aesthetic, such as it is, is distinctly ork.
I disagree. It looks very Imperial to me and various other people.
An Ork dropship would look more like this...
with more rivets, and guns sticking out.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
1.) Had some discussion today in my local store. Actually most people quite liked it and thought it fitting the Space Marine aestetics. None was over enthusiastic, but noone disliked it. Just to counter the impression that everyone hates this model.
2.) While there is a scalewise fitting model of the Star Wars Republican Gunship by Revell, it has a sleak, round design, the excact opposite of Imperial flyers. I use it as an alternative for the Devilfish (and the ATT as an alternative to the Hammerhead).
3.) While dropships in Aliens, Halo (Pelican) and Starship trooper look more like it and sometimes have even models, the best fit currently seems to be this 1:60 scale cardboard model by Ebbles Miniatures: http://www.ebblesminiatures.com/shop/ud41_2010.php . It is large (13.85x12.61x3.94"), made of cardboard, but the pdf costs only 16$. And as a bonus you can get an alternative to the Rhino: http://www.ebblesminiatures.com/shop/m722_lev.php .
25139
Post by: micahaphone
Meh.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
What other models could we substitute?
3934
Post by: grizgrin
I'm with AshCommand. I been cruisin ebay for different toys and models, but no luck yet. I would just drag my happy ass on down to toys are us if it wasnt 12,000 flight miles away. The website just aint the same. Any suggestions that arent completely loltastic.
15799
Post by: terribletrygon
I saw this mod on Warseer that I liked.  It looks more like the air crane helicopter it was based off this way. Though I'd still replace the turret with something else, such as the FW razorback turret. Maybe bulk the back end a little so it looks a little like a smaller version of the Thunderhawk and Valkyrie vehicle transporters.
10470
Post by: shrike
MajorTom11 wrote:Figured better post this in case they try to yank it -
...I am not sure if it is a kit-bash or not. A good one...Pretty cool, but not as cool as it could have been if it is the real deal.
I was thinking that-
"nice kit-bash, well put-together, cool, can't wait 'til GW make them, but even cooler...wait- THEY ARE GW! WHAT THE F-"
3934
Post by: grizgrin
terribletrygon wrote:I saw this mod on Warseer that I liked.
It looks more like the air crane helicopter it was based off this way. Though I'd still replace the turret with something else, such as the FW razorback turret. Maybe bulk the back end a little so it looks a little like a smaller version of the Thunderhawk and Valkyrie vehicle transporters.
now it's just a chibi hawk with a longer, skinnier neck. Hearts in the right place, but back to the drawing board.
You know why people are going to buy this thing? To try and unsplice the rat feth fail from its genome. Automatically Appended Next Post: Not a terrible Idea, AshCommand, but there is nothing there that really follows the SM aesthetic (ie, boxy, hereafter to be refered to as "Volvo aesthetic")
. So, while that certianly is cool for those who are cool with it, it DOES kind just trade some issues away just to take others on, you think? But hey, if someone out there likes it go for it!
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
I wouldn't be surprised if GW used this as an excuse for why they never do previews anymore (even if this was an accident). "Nuh uh, no way, you guys say it improves sales but look what happened with the finely-detailed stormraven we slaved over! You hated that model because it was shown off too early, never again!"
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
Guys and Gals, I think they 'accidentally' put it up on their website to see how the community would react, and would change the model accordingly.
This seems too big an error to just have happened.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
that's just derp enough to be plausible.
10470
Post by: shrike
MajorTom11 wrote:shrike wrote:
As i said in my poll about this;
What I am going to do to make the chibi-hawk ( ) look better:
The turret- Going off. I shall buy a razorback. The razorback's lascannons will go on the "nose" of the SR, one on either side. The SR lascannons will go on my Razorback.
The vent over the turret- is going off (the top of it will stay on the roof, though).
The non-existent rear end- I shall build one, following the same rough shape of the hull. I will not enclose the back.
The bit where the dread's meant to go- It shall go inside the newly-constructed rear. (It can jump out via the open rear).
This, IMO, will make it look considerably better.
Where have you been lol??
I saw it- thought "Wow."- until I remembered. I will bugger it up. Too complicated for the likes of me. For me- clip here, glue there, little bit of plasticard here, done.
3862
Post by: Duncan_Idaho
When i first saw it it reminded my of my kitty-litter box, just with added wings and tail and a turret on top.
Sorry, but after growing up with all the nice FW-flyers and the really good transfers to plastic, this is a major dissapointment.
@changes
With the lead times for plastic production in mind and the prices to change the forms it is already too late to change anything if it is going to be released in February. BTW, noone in his right mind would produce a plastic form and then change it after such a preview. That´s what mock-ups are for.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
grizgrin wrote:that's just derp enough to be plausible.
Actually it kinda make sense.
4058
Post by: StarGate
I like the look of the one top.... BUT IT reminds me of a tau devilfish for some reason.....
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Asherian Command wrote:grizgrin wrote:that's just derp enough to be plausible.
Actually it kinda make sense.
Not unless it was an early finished prototype from before the molds were constructed. They would be too deep in the development cycle for it to make sense otherwise.
23960
Post by: Gargskull
GW changing it is just wishful thinking, if this is accompanying the Grey Knights in Feb or thereabouts then the moulds are done and dusted by now.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
gannam wrote:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CbSWEUnVCVU/TDdjIg-4xFI/AAAAAAAABnY/OUMxDNGTqkk/s1600/Bob%27s+Stormraven.jpg
Wow... I'm amazed someone went and made that - complete with Dante playing air guitar on his power axe!
6292
Post by: Valhallan42nd
It really doesn't look anything like what I would have expected. I'm staying with my kit-bashes, thank you very much.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
H.B.M.C. wrote:gannam wrote:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CbSWEUnVCVU/TDdjIg-4xFI/AAAAAAAABnY/OUMxDNGTqkk/s1600/Bob%27s+Stormraven.jpg
Wow... I'm amazed someone went and made that - complete with Dante playing air guitar on his power axe!
Lol that is awesome
10470
Post by: shrike
Just think "I want to break free".
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Ahh the good old days back when 40k was less grimdark.
284
Post by: Augustus
vitki wrote:I dub it the chibi-hawk
Funniest thing I have read on Dakka in a while! Right on the money! I agree completely!
I will sure build at least one.
Cool.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Frgt/10 over at Warseer confirmed the release date:
having seen multiple pictures of the stormraven (and the other feb releases for that matter); that is indeed the official GW model.
It looks awesome when you see it from other angles, and it comes with EVERY option in the BA codex.(...)
in fact as of feb it will be more than just BA and grey knights...
Guess that means wave 1.5 of Dark Eldar.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Good, maybe that'll help stop people from comaplining about the lack of DE models.
Wait, what am I kidding.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Yeah people will not stop complaining about stuff.
ANYWAY on the topic of models never being released where is my god damn Tech Marine with a conversion beam and where is my Korsaha khan on bike! And where the hell is my Eldar Harelquen Death Jester, Troupe Leader?
33033
Post by: kenshin620
Asherian Command wrote: And where the hell is my Eldar Harelquen Death Jester, Troupe Leader?
This bit was sarcastic right? 
35094
Post by: Ouroborus
It doesn't look that bad. If i were to buy one, I'd get some plasticard and lengthen it a bit.
4904
Post by: nathonicus
I like it.
Reminds me of this:
In fact, I like it a bit more than I like the thunderhawk.
I like that it actually looks tall enough to transport a dread in back, and the turret is ace. It's also quite distinctive - looks almost like a bomb - really suggests that it plummets at great speed toward the drop zone.
The wings might not look big enough, but the wings aren't big enough on the Valk either - that's a limitation of scale. After all, we have to transport these things somehow!
All in all, I'd say good job. I'm glad it is distinctive. Being nice and tall like that, and armor 14, it's also going to function as instant LOS blocking terrain.
2726
Post by: J'santai Khan
Having been around 'back in the day' when half of the REALLY good stuff never made it to the table unless you scratchbuilt it yourself, I'm in awe over the fact that GW is actually putting forth some effort toward producing most of the models in the codex (I know, I know, someone is going to point out SOMETHING that they haven't yet/aren't going to produce, but they're doing a TON better than they used to!). Besides, all I have to do with this one is put it together and paint it, which will take much less time and cause NO problems at tourneys! I LIKE it!
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
nathonicus wrote:I like it.
Reminds me of this:
In fact, I like it a bit more than I like the thunderhawk.
That is a sin! Destroy him!
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
nathonicus wrote:It's also quite distinctive - looks almost like a bomb - really suggests that it plummets at great speed toward the drop zone.
Nath, I'm going to let you in on a little secret.
Plummeting at great speed is the easy part. Any idiot can do that. The hard part is not reducing yourself to a red smear on the ground when you land. The Stormraven neglects this vitally important aspect, with a design that would be incapable of doing anything but hasten its destruction, and can't even pretend that it would do otherwise.
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
But it would somersault like no one's business lol!
7597
Post by: Kirbinator
AlexHolker wrote:Plummeting at great speed is the easy part. Any idiot can do that. The hard part is not reducing yourself to a red smear on the ground when you land. The Stormraven neglects this vitally important aspect, with a design that would be incapable of doing anything but hasten its destruction, and can't even pretend that it would do otherwise.
The truth is that GW is making Codex: Angry Marines actual fluff and the Stormraven is the basis for things like this.
35094
Post by: Ouroborus
AlexHolker wrote:nathonicus wrote:It's also quite distinctive - looks almost like a bomb - really suggests that it plummets at great speed toward the drop zone.
Nath, I'm going to let you in on a little secret.
Plummeting at great speed is the easy part. Any idiot can do that. The hard part is not reducing yourself to a red smear on the ground when you land. The Stormraven neglects this vitally important aspect, with a design that would be incapable of doing anything but hasten its destruction, and can't even pretend that it would do otherwise.
Yeah but they're not designing it to be effective in reality.
10274
Post by: Thalor
I suppose it is nice that GW is putting forth the effort to make the models that are listed in the codex, but comeone, it took several members less than a day to look at the model and improve tremendously upon it. Do they actually unveil these things to more than two people before making the production mold?
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Ouroborus wrote:Yeah but they're not designing it to be effective in reality.
I'm not expecting their visual design team to have done an Aerospace Engineering course, but I at least expect their ideas to stand up to five seconds of scrutiny.
6979
Post by: Nicorex
Well to dump my 2 cents in the pot.. I dont hate it.. I dont love it either. If I get one I will do a bit(and by a bit I mean a lot) of work to it to make it fit more inline with what I was picturing in my head when I read the codex.
Nice to hear that it will come with all the codex options.
It would be nice if they would make something similar for my Chaos marines.
23793
Post by: Acardia
Kroothawk wrote:1.) Had some discussion today in my local store. Actually most people quite liked it and thought it fitting the Space Marine aestetics. None was over enthusiastic, but noone disliked it. Just to counter the impression that everyone hates this model.
2.) While there is a scalewise fitting model of the Star Wars Republican Gunship by Revell, it has a sleak, round design, the excact opposite of Imperial flyers. I use it as an alternative for the Devilfish (and the ATT as an alternative to the Hammerhead).
3.) While dropships in Aliens, Halo (Pelican) and Starship trooper look more like it and sometimes have even models, the best fit currently seems to be this 1:60 scale cardboard model by Ebbles Miniatures: http://www.ebblesminiatures.com/shop/ud41_2010.php . It is large (13.85x12.61x3.94"), made of cardboard, but the pdf costs only 16$. And as a bonus you can get an alternative to the Rhino: http://www.ebblesminiatures.com/shop/m722_lev.php .
Wow that looks quite a lot like Serenity
17130
Post by: rdlb
It seems weird to criticize the realism or practicality of the design. It is an imaginary dropship for space marines in the year 40000. The main goal should be that it looks cool...
21593
Post by: DiscoVader
rdlb wrote:It seems weird to criticize the realism or practicality of the design. It is an imaginary dropship for space marines in the year 40000. The main goal should be that it looks cool...
Which is kind of the problem. Suspension of disbelief is perfectly fine if the thing in question is cool enough or looks great regardless of if it's accurate (e.g. a non- 40K example, the Velociraptors from Jurassic Park, which look nothing like the real species Velociraptor mongoliensis but have ingrained themselves in the public consciousness due to how awesome they were.) However, a decent amount of people seem to feel that the StormRaven just plain looks goofy, which weakens the suspension of disbelief a lot. Granted, it is kind of silly to be arguing aerodynamics and such over a tabletop mini, but it still feels like they could have made a better design. Here's hoping that Melissia's right and it looks better from another angle or that it's just a test/early version.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Ouroborus wrote:AlexHolker wrote:nathonicus wrote:It's also quite distinctive - looks almost like a bomb - really suggests that it plummets at great speed toward the drop zone.
Nath, I'm going to let you in on a little secret.
Plummeting at great speed is the easy part. Any idiot can do that. The hard part is not reducing yourself to a red smear on the ground when you land. The Stormraven neglects this vitally important aspect, with a design that would be incapable of doing anything but hasten its destruction, and can't even pretend that it would do otherwise.
Yeah but they're not designing it to be effective in reality.
No, but they could at least pretend to care.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Not sure if anyone follows Beasts of War on YouTube, but I though this was relevant. I just love his reaction, lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4pnEnuerJA&feature=recentlik
I wouldn't recommend watching their DE codex review, though...they just seem to complain the entire time about how DE aren't as resilient as Marines. x_x
"It's like a toaster with wings!"
618
Post by: shabbadoo
If GW does allow other chapters to take Stormaravens , I will buy one precisely because it looks like a dumpster with wings and guns, and that it relies as much on faith to fly as it does on its engines.
Seriously, I think it will take some time, but that this model will grow on people. Remember when the current style of Land Speeder first came out? Lots of people hated that too, but that murmur of discontent died out long, long ago. I'll definitely pick up a Stormraven, as it will not only be useful for my Dark Angels army(hopefully), but also as an added piece of scenery sitting on a landing platform or as a scenario objective.
And because I won't have to kit-bash/scratch-build one.
430
Post by: wolfshadow
Going to drop StickMonkey's from Warseers post over there into the discussion here, as he's actually SEEN it.
"It is the SR.
The photo does not show it off as well as it should.
It's been months since I saw it, but I remember the wings sitting about a quarter to half way over the side doors. This angle make them look like they are much further back on the model. I recall it was front heavy, but there's a whole undercarriage of bits obscured by the marines here.
The angle makes the tail look like it's connected to nothing, the body does go back that far, it's not just on a stick from the intake.
I liked the model a lot when I first saw it. Still do.
As far as the furioso...you've seen that model before elsewhere...can you find it again? "
18746
Post by: Heliodore
It is disturbingly cute, but I'll hold my constructive judgement/ opinion till I see more pics or the actual kit. Although I do agree that this looks to be a good kit to buy for bitz and what not for other projects. Someone's post quoted a bit of of hear-say that said the kit will come with every option listed in the codex; even extra armor? I wonder how that will look?
3934
Post by: grizgrin
I'm hoping so cause short of a fulll-on scratch build I am just not finding a ready replacement that truly fits the bill.
28390
Post by: nevertellmetheodds
It looks orkish, might look better when its carrying a dread at the back. I would like to think this is a mockup, i will ask.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
AlexHolker wrote:Ouroborus wrote:Yeah but they're not designing it to be effective in reality.
I'm not expecting their visual design team to have done an Aerospace Engineering course, but I at least expect their ideas to stand up to five seconds of scrutiny.
Dear armchair engineers:
Maybe GW realized that wings on jets and space shuttles are not as large as in doubledecker times because the wings are more for stabilizing and steereing, less for uplift:
The Space Shuttle can even glide with these tiny wings:
Maybe GW realized that if dropped from orbit, large wings are a bad thing while entering the atmosphere.
In an army, where the main battle tank fields a main gun with ammo that doesn't even fit into the turret and Space marines with impossible armour and proportions, having a "heroic scale" transport is the least of problems. And, as all people who have actually seen the model say, it looks better than on the pic.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Kroothawk wrote:
Dear armchair engineers:
Maybe GW realized that if dropped from orbit, large wings are a bad thing while entering the atmosphere.
In an army, where the main battle tank fields a main gun with ammo that doesn't even fit into the turret and Space marines with impossible armour and proportions, having a "heroic scale" transport is the least of problems. And, as all people who have actually seen the model say, it looks better than on the pic.
Too bad both pics show vehicles with some sort of balance
The leaked SR may be not as bad as a real kit, but its unlikely the pic is so badly taken for a company used to show their stuff with pics before showing the sprues.
And its a matter of taste too, so maybe those who saw the SR like it chibi-style?
686
Post by: aka_mythos
I'm betting the Stormraven will look better balanced with a Dreadnought being carried, but I doubt that's enough to save it.
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Kroothawk wrote:AlexHolker wrote:I'm not expecting their visual design team to have done an Aerospace Engineering course, but I at least expect their ideas to stand up to five seconds of scrutiny.
Dear armchair engineers:
Maybe GW realized that wings on jets and space shuttles are not as large as in doubledecker times because the wings are more for stabilizing and steereing, less for uplift:
Actually, if you'd been paying attention, it's the placement of the wings and engines I have an issue with, not their size.
If you look at the F-104, you'll recognise that the lift from the wings and the thrust from the engines both exert themselves along a vector that at least passes close to the plane's centre of mass. It is not like the Stormraven, where the thrust from the engines acts above the centre of mass, the VTOL nozzles act behind the centre of mass, the lift of the wings act behind the centre of mass and the drag from the deep hull acts beneath the centre of mass when flying forwards and the drag from the wings act behind the centre of mass when flying downwards, all producing moments in the same direction: all pushing the tail up and nose down.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
... if there wasn't a multi ton Cybot hooked to the tail, yes.
The Stealth fighter is also totally imbalanced, but computers take care of that. And machine spirits and AdMech rituals can do similar things, like getting functioning battleship cannons into a tank or making a Cybot actually walk!
Talking about wrong proportions and illogical equipment in a Space Marine army is futile in a world where hands are as big as heads and magic and anti-grav vehicles widespread.
3862
Post by: Duncan_Idaho
@Stealth Fighters
Nope, even the SFs are aerodynamically balanced in some way. It is an urban myth that only the computer makes them fly. What the computer does is controlling the flaps, wings. etc. in the right combination and thus lets the pilot concentrate more on the mission. Also the american SF are not the best examples for a good design. German flying wings from WWII were better than american flying wings that were constructed years later. Somehow american engineers have the tendency to solve a problem by throwing every technical solution including the kitchen sink at a problem. Russians are much more pragmatic, also German engineers that are somwhere in between. The B-2, as cool as it may look like, is a stupid solution (e.g. stealth color that reacts when coming into contact with water, etc.) to a problem that already was obsolete when the design process started. The F-117 and Cruise Missiles do the job much better at only a fraction of the cost of a B-2.
@Stormdodo
Even a Cybot would not keep this thing from being unbalanced. All flyer designs up until now had some aeronautical plausibility, even the drop-pods. But this is just hilarious.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
It's painted red.
You KNOW that it's going to fly.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
My suspension of disbelief alone will keep it in the air. But it's the goofy look that will make it crater, for me.
102
Post by: Jayden63
aka_mythos wrote:I'm betting the Stormraven will look better balanced with a Dreadnought being carried, but I doubt that's enough to save it.
I'd be willing to bet you can't actually put a dread behind it. The scale will be wrong, or it wont fit due to different weapon options because they are all different sizes. And heaven forbid you have a banner or something on the top. At the very least everyone will have a good laugh at the chunk of ground (dread base) that is somehow attached to the dangling dreads feet.
And even if it does somehow actually fit a dread back there, how long is that dread going to be there? Turn 1, maybe turn 2. Now you have dropped off the dread and have to play the next 2 hours staring at that ugly unbalanced angry goldfish.
23960
Post by: Gargskull
There's a cheapo dread in the black reach set, just convert that.
21574
Post by: Mewiththeface
May not be beautiful but it will make for some great painting and free hand.
18072
Post by: TBD
It's hindquarters & placement of the wings look quite odd from this viewpoint, and as some have already said extremely unbalanced.
It also looks kitbashed and real at the same time. The setting and background make me think it is a real GW picture though.
I'll need to see more pictures first to know if I like it.
35815
Post by: Wolflord Grimnar
the parts are unique and the scenery it is on is the same as the board on the back page of WD Dark eldar, so i think it aint fake, cant wait to turn it into somethink for my army or add a land raider to it and call it a thunderhawk
28456
Post by: darthmatty
I think this may be the real deal, the scenery has been used in numerous white dwarf articles. I quite like the Stormraven and although having a Black Templars army will in all likelihood get one, for using in Apoc games. Look forward to seeing more pics.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Anyway, I'm still hoping that some better pics will salvage this thing for me.
If not, well, that's some money 'saved' then!
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Alpharius wrote: Anyway, I'm still hoping that some better pics will salvage this thing for me. If not, well, that's some money 'saved' then!
I have one of those XD. It can fit a rhino... or 15 marines. or 2 dreads. Omg I just thought of something I can use that as my Storm Raven!
27770
Post by: foor301
Awww it so cute.
But seriously its fake if i had the time and or patience i could so find out where all the parts came from but i don't so i wont but i wish they would produce that one just so i could pet it(and occasionally field it)
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Well, there is also the FW Caestus:
Or models of the Starship Trooper Dropship:
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Kroothawk wrote:Well, there is also the FW Caestus:
Or models of the Starship Trooper Dropship:
The Storm bird from the Thunderbirds is really really cool
But i like the STarship troopers thing and the Avatar one.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Kroothawk wrote:AlexHolker wrote:Ouroborus wrote:Yeah but they're not designing it to be effective in reality.
I'm not expecting their visual design team to have done an Aerospace Engineering course, but I at least expect their ideas to stand up to five seconds of scrutiny.
Dear armchair engineers: Maybe GW realized that wings on jets and space shuttles are not as large as in doubledecker times because the wings are more for stabilizing and steereing, less for uplift: The Space Shuttle can even glide with these tiny wings: Maybe GW realized that if dropped from orbit, large wings are a bad thing while entering the atmosphere. In an army, where the main battle tank fields a main gun with ammo that doesn't even fit into the turret and Space marines with impossible armour and proportions, having a "heroic scale" transport is the least of problems. And, as all people who have actually seen the model say, it looks better than on the pic.
None of those designs have anything to do with the stormraven, which doesn't even use it's wings to achieve lift or stabilise itself (something they couldn't do given their shape). The wings are just missile mounts, the tail serves no visible purpose at all. It uses it's goofy little wing jets to stay aloft, just like the valkyrie. The placement of the wings would cause it to tumble foreward in an actual effort at either stable falls or sustained lift, which I think is the issue most people take with it.
21202
Post by: Commander Endova
I'm fairly convinced that the the thing sticking out in the area in the red square is a forward thruster. Unfortunately, there is a pair of Marines in the way. If this true, however, the placement of the thruster could feasibly provide stabilization.
8907
Post by: cadbren
ShumaGorath wrote:
Which brings to mind the question of why this small scale tabletop wargame has aircraft.
Because GW know that they can make more money by having cool looking machines hovering over the table.
First they sell more stuff to cover the table with. Then when people get sick of not being able to get their troops from A-B quickly because of the terrain features they start selling models that can simply fly over the top of everything or be dropped into place.
The next thing will be to sell small sets of anti-aircraft weapons Automatically Appended Next Post: MajorTom11 wrote:
Where have you been lol??
Much better!
32900
Post by: whrextheimpaler
Burn it.
26407
Post by: Bloodwin
That's a really odd looking machine. I've been a bit confused by the Stormraven concept as I cant see what its use is within the game. I mean we have plenty of transport options on tracks aswel as teleporting and deepstrike. Maybe this is an Apocolypse scale thing. Perhaps it will bed in more if the BL authors bed it into the fluff more.
One thing that I find interesting is that this ought to become an iconic model like the Rhino and Land Raider. I can't see it myself.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Commander Endova wrote:
I'm fairly convinced that the the thing sticking out in the area in the red square is a forward thruster. Unfortunately, there is a pair of Marines in the way. If this true, however, the placement of the thruster could feasibly provide stabilization.
Good catch!
I hope you're right, as it would go a ways towards 'saving' the model...
21940
Post by: nels1031
Commander Endova wrote:
I'm fairly convinced that the the thing sticking out in the area in the red square is a forward thruster. Unfortunately, there is a pair of Marines in the way. If this true, however, the placement of the thruster could feasibly provide stabilization.
Ya, I agree. I got the same impression from the boxy thing thats slightly above it, protuding from the rear of the transport room section. The ones you observe may (hopefully) be thrusters to push up, the ones behind them at the angle to push out and the main engines on the wings to truly accelerate. Total arm chair engineering on my part, and may not even be what we think they are, but good enough for me. I personally don't need too much real science in my Science Fiction.
For all the negative talke about this model, I guarantee the next iterations of the many space marine codexes* will have this vehicle as a standard option, ala the once limited Land Raider Crusader of the Black Templars. When that happens, over time the Stormraven will probably outnumber Rhinos and Razorbacks combined.
* I could even see them putting the rules for the Stormraven on their Website, and allowing it for all Marine Codexes, to drum up sales. Would make perfect sense to get it out there to as many folks as possible, rather then just 2 divergent Marine armies.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
When that happens, over time the Stormraven will probably outnumber Rhinos and Razorbacks combined.
I doubt it, they kinda suck for their point cost.
15076
Post by: fire4effekt
foor301 wrote:Awww it so cute.
But seriously its fake if i had the time and or patience i could so find out where all the parts came from but i don't so i wont but i wish they would produce that one just so i could pet it(and occasionally field it)
It's Hideous, but im betting it's real. Also i seriously doubt your skills foor301.
4884
Post by: Therion
When that happens, over time the Stormraven will probably outnumber Rhinos and Razorbacks combined.
You must not play a lot of 40K.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Kroothawk wrote:... if there wasn't a multi ton Cybot hooked to the tail, yes.
The Stealth fighter is also totally imbalanced, but computers take care of that. And machine spirits and AdMech rituals can do similar things, like getting functioning battleship cannons into a tank or making a Cybot actually walk!
Talking about wrong proportions and illogical equipment in a Space Marine army is futile in a world where hands are as big as heads and magic and anti-grav vehicles widespread.
Quite true, but talking about what we find to be aesthetically pleasing is perfectly valid. Automatically Appended Next Post: That Caestus looks a mite big for a switch out, but mebbe not. hard to tell.
4566
Post by: catharsix
MajorTom11 wrote:
Where have you been lol??
Much better!
This is about 10 times better than the GW pic everyone (including me) dislikes. And even this is about 1/10th as good as nearly all the converted Stormravens I've seen built on Dakka
29163
Post by: Sanguinary Dan
Conversion fodder? Yes. I've thought of half a dozen things to do from the start including canards and reinforcing the wings.
Sweet model out of the box? Not by a long shot.
25668
Post by: ChaosxVoid
I will not be buying this..looks for too ugly :\ too bad i was looking forward to it
36032
Post by: nidsplitter
The more i look at it the more i like it its weird. this really is a marmite vehicle you either love it or hate it. 2 please
10470
Post by: shrike
Shame that with marmite, 90% of people hate it.
Including me.
BTW GW delicerately leak it onto these sites to get feedback. 
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
430
Post by: wolfshadow
Oddly enough the poll over @ Warseer has the votes there about 49% like 51% dont like.
Its growing on me, and I'm pretty sure that there are thrusters @ the front.
And for those bitching about aerodynamics... This is a universe with teleporting and counter-grav. Why would it need to be aerodynamic?
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Two people who actually have seen the model say that it looks better in reality.
If GW had clever marketing, they would bite the bullet and leak another pic of the Storm Raven. But then again, they are GW and don't believe in marketing
wolfshadow wrote:Oddly enough the poll over @ Warseer has the votes there about 49% like 51% dont like.
On our own poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327513.page it's 45% like and 55% don't like, in my local store it was 100% like.
26894
Post by: Regnak
I like the front part but to me the back/wings looks a little squashed and sorta rushed...
9777
Post by: A-P
Kroothawk wrote:Two people who actually have seen the model say that it looks better in reality.
If GW had clever marketing, they would bite the bullet and leak another pic of the Storm Raven. But then again, they are GW and don't believe in marketing
wolfshadow wrote:Oddly enough the poll over @ Warseer has the votes there about 49% like 51% dont like.
On our own poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327513.page it's 45% like and 55% don't like, in my local store it was 100% like.
Although drawing conclusions based on internet polls is always more art than science, I think we can agree on one. The model heavily divides opinions. It is not the unmitigated success GW might have hoped for.
123
Post by: Alpharius
A-P wrote:Kroothawk wrote:Two people who actually have seen the model say that it looks better in reality.
If GW had clever marketing, they would bite the bullet and leak another pic of the Storm Raven. But then again, they are GW and don't believe in marketing
wolfshadow wrote:Oddly enough the poll over @ Warseer has the votes there about 49% like 51% dont like.
On our own poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327513.page it's 45% like and 55% don't like, in my local store it was 100% like.
Although drawing conclusions based on internet polls is always more art than science, I think we can agree on one. The model heavily divides opinions. It is not the unmitigated success GW might have hoped for.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
So to speak...
I am officially reserving final judgment until I see more pics, more angles, and just... more!
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Jayden63 wrote:aka_mythos wrote:I'm betting the Stormraven will look better balanced with a Dreadnought being carried, but I doubt that's enough to save it.
I'd be willing to bet you can't actually put a dread behind it. The scale will be wrong, or it wont fit due to different weapon options because they are all different sizes. And heaven forbid you have a banner or something on the top. At the very least everyone will have a good laugh at the chunk of ground (dread base) that is somehow attached to the dangling dreads feet.
And even if it does somehow actually fit a dread back there, how long is that dread going to be there? Turn 1, maybe turn 2. Now you have dropped off the dread and have to play the next 2 hours staring at that ugly unbalanced angry goldfish.
What says to you the "scale" would be wrong? As a geometric issue of fitting any dreadnought, I don't think you've considered the dreadnought would stand with its back to the back of the Stormravens hull; at which its only a matter of shoulder space for the "different weapons" while the weapon's barrel stick out and away.
I only said that the aesthetics were likely planned with a dreadnought in tow, but I was also commenting on the fact I didn't think it was entirely practical. The fact is you have to design it with dreadnought in mind, since otherwise form doesn't meet function and you have something aesthetically more worthless.
Not to be too insulting, but it only shows some people have low standards. Or that people learn to love things no matter how bad they are, when they have no other alternative.
Yeah... that's sarcasm.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
aka_mythos wrote: Not to be too insulting, but it only shows some people have low standards. Or that people learn to love things no matter how bad they are, when they have no other alternative.
There are people who have the same taste than you and people with low standards. Why should anyone feel insulted by that statement
All hail the man with the absolute taste!
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
There are people who have the same taste than you and people with low standards. Why should anyone feel insulted by that statement All hail the man with the absolute taste!
I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read that "not to be too insulting" post. You always know it's going to be "good" when someone starts out with what is basically a "no offense, but..." comment.
23960
Post by: Gargskull
More possible alternate models, obviously they're meant for more standard human infantry but you could easily marine them up a bit;
http://www.oldcrowmodels.co.uk/25vtol.htm
3934
Post by: grizgrin
I had taken a look at these day before yesterday but disregarded them as too generic looking without actually clicking on them first. Thank you for posting this link up here, I actually took a look and think they are a really good find. Too bad they are on the far side of the pond from me, but hey.
35704
Post by: DPBellathrom
lots of space marine sholder pands left over from true scales and now this, looks like I'll be making a chibi blood angel army after all 
the new pic looks better but the valk/whirlwind conversion looks much better. and cheeper
dont know about you guys but I'm sticking with DSing land raiders
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
aka_mythos wrote: Not to be too insulting, but it only shows some people have low standards. Or that people learn to love things no matter how bad they are, when they have no other alternative.
Not to be too insulting, but saying "no offense" or "not to be insulting" before your post does not make you look like any less of a dick when you post elitist bs.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
I wish GW would burn for this transgression! has anyone told GW about this or no?
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
I imagine if anyone tried the GW employees would just cock their head to the side and go "Wot?", and pretend you're crazy and have no idea what you're talking about, like their corporate masters likely told them to if anyone brought it up.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Sidstyler wrote:I imagine if anyone tried the GW employees would just cock their head to the side and go "Wot?", and pretend you're crazy and have no idea what you're talking about, like their corporate masters likely told them to if anyone brought it up.
Just like S--ats?
See they censored me OH MY GAWD THEY FOUND ME! Oh wait thats just a word filter nevermind!
21170
Post by: Klawz
Sidstyler wrote:I imagine if anyone tried the GW employees would just cock their head to the side and go "Wot?", and pretend you're crazy and have no idea what you're talking about, like their corporate masters likely told them to if anyone brought it up.
No, I was chatting with a redshirt in the NY GW and he mentioned it (we were discussing new models).
26642
Post by: vorpalhit
An Atlantis puddle-jumper, grimdarked
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Kroothawk wrote:aka_mythos wrote: Not to be too insulting, but it only shows some people have low standards. Or that people learn to love things no matter how bad they are, when they have no other alternative.
There are people who have the same taste than you and people with low standards. Why should anyone feel insulted by that statement
All hail the man with the absolute taste!
My statement was meant to be taken more neutrally as a statement against people reading to much into a poll. That the poll they linked to was relatively subjective, that what they were reading into it was equally as subjective as the examples I gave. That they were taking a poll with 6 different possible answers and distilling it down to 2 answers, interpolating 6 subjective answers to a subjective question and then re-categorizing the percentiles in a subjective way, that didn't convey what they were trying to say it did. That contextually if people had read their link would have been made clear.
The poll they linked to simply asked: "What's your take on it?"
With answers and results...
Sweet model! 9%
I'll probably get one. 12%
it's okay. 22%
Pretty bad. 19%
Ghah! WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?! 16%
BURN IT! BURN! 23%
Saying the top 3 are "like it" and the bottom 3 are dislike it, is subjective. Since as many people would take "Its okay" to mean impartiality rather than an affirmation of like.
The statement was meant to be taken as so blatantly overblown that people could immediately see I wasn't saying the literal interpretation.... like saying "drug dealers are such good people, we should have them in every school."
BrassScorpion wrote:I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read that "not to be too insulting" post. You always know it's going to be "good" when someone starts out with what is basically a "no offense, but..." comment.
That part of the statement was meant to be read literally because I knew some people who wouldn't bother looking at the thread the linked to would read it literally rather than contextually. So when I said "not to be..." I was acknowledging the fact that I thought it might be misread by people... as it was by 3 or more.
It was sarcastic hyperbole.
Sidstyler wrote:Not to be too insulting, but saying "no offense" or "not to be insulting" before your post does not make you look like any less of a dick when you post elitist bs.
Not to be a dick, but it wasn't meant to be read that way. It was intended for people who had bother going to the linked thread and think for themselves and see that what was stated didn't match what he linked to. If I prescribe to any elite group, that would be the literate. By that I mean, I really don't prescribe to a high level of elitism but one of reasonable expectations from the average person, but I thought I should say that in case anyone else wanted to try to read too much into that.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I still reported the post, because it is a flaming/trolling post, and while you might be able to weasel-word your way into trying to explain it, that's still what it was.
Let us move on.
I wonder if I should get one of these for my Orks...
I can say they stole it from the Ultramarines off of Macragge, in "da great fighta-bomma raid!".
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Well take it which ever way you want. If you knew me, you wouldn't feel that way. I am sincerely hurt that people would think that was my intent. I make little distinction between how people take what I say here and how my friends would. I am not a weaselly person just an often ill spoken one.
That said I think the model has a lot of potential for conversions and an Ork version that takes advantage of that large open rear space to turn it into a flying truk bristling with guns.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
vorpalhit wrote:
An Atlantis puddle-jumper, grimdarked
Shhhhh
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
ChrisCP wrote:vorpalhit wrote:
An Atlantis puddle-jumper, grimdarked
Shhhhh
My god I just noticed that XD
32545
Post by: Element206
I love the look of the new model. I think the angle of the photo and the rear wing of the model make it look strange in the picture. I like that it has a bulky look to it though...to me it makes sense. I love the fact however, that the consensus from most players is that it looks like a brick and has no areodynamics to it.....yet people convert their own Stormravens using the Landraider kit as a base and somehow that looks ok to everyone. I cant wait for the release or more pics to do some further judging!
686
Post by: aka_mythos
It just looks odd with the wings high enough up for a marine to get a perm from those wing thrusters.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
A friend told me that GW posted it at their site.
They took it off a few hours later.
I'm disappointed, not my taste.
5256
Post by: NAVARRO
I think its the angle! We just need to adjust this kit angle with a sledgehammer.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
It looks like they too the wings off ceastus ram, the tail from an ork fighta, a marauder's turret, some bit6s from a few land raiders... guys, I think this is fake.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
I think you don't have a discerning enough eye. The turret though similar to the marauder, has peeked roof with a single window instead of flat one with two windows. The SR turret is flat sided with the 2 lasguns on the side, the marauder has a more hexagonal turret with protrusions. The Caestus has missile pods on the wings, this doesn't. The SR has the large engine pods on the wings the Caestus doesn't. The detail on both wings are completely different the similarities are only the angles. With the tail the details are all wrong and its just a matter of similar angles.
These are relatively superficial aspects of each and appear in a number of real world aircraft. The details do not jive up. If it is a fake its a nearly completely scratchbuilt piece.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
BaronIveagh wrote:It looks like they too the wings off ceastus ram, the tail from an ork fighta, a marauder's turret, some bit6s from a few land raiders... guys, I think this is fake.
Yeah, and Dark Eldar surely get squatted 
When something is posted on the GW website and GW personnel and major rumour posters who held the model in their hands confirm it to be the right thing, then it is the right thing.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
aka_mythos wrote:I think you don't have a discerning enough eye. The turret though similar to the marauder, has peeked roof with a single window instead of flat one with two windows. The SR turret is flat sided with the 2 lasguns on the side, the marauder has a more hexagonal turret with protrusions. The Caestus has missile pods on the wings, this doesn't. The SR has the large engine pods on the wings the Caestus doesn't. The detail on both wings are completely different the similarities are only the angles. With the tail the details are all wrong and its just a matter of similar angles.
These are relatively superficial aspects of each and appear in a number of real world aircraft. The details do not jive up. If it is a fake its a nearly completely scratchbuilt piece.
How to make that turret out of a marauder turret and some bits:
Take a jewel saw, cut the crossbar out of the mid-aft turret, and cut the turret between the last crossbar and the end of the last window. Glue this together. You now have that exact peaked roof. For the guns, I'm not entirely certain, but it looks like the barrels off a Kreig Leman russ hull lascannon attached to a command vehicle bit for apoc.
As far as the wing goes, you're right, I goofed:
To make the wings: cut down a Valkyrie's wings, cluing them to the valk engines, and use some board to make boxes around the vtol thrusters and engine.
As far as the tail goes: the fighta has bery little detail on it's tail. Though as simple as it is, it might just be plastic card that was updetailed.
EDIT: didn't know it was confirmed. Though I trust nothing GW says. They did, after all, say that Blood Angels were not getting a flying land raider.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
And after all the work to get what you describe most anyone as dedicated could have scratch built the whole thing for way less cost and as much time.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
I think you underestimate the amount of time and effort that some people put into a good hoax. I've seen them where they spent months of time and thousands of dollars just to try and get their fifteen min.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Yes, because Games Workshop totally goes out of their way to post hoaxes on their site for a few minutes then remove them from said site in the hopes that the Internet Peoples have saved the image to spread like a bad case of crabs in a hippy commune.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
BaronIveagh wrote:EDIT: didn't know it was confirmed. Though I trust nothing GW says. They did, after all, say that Blood Angels were not getting a flying land raider.
A kinder GW employee might have answered the question "Are BA getting a flying landraider?" with "No, its something else." But as they are not as receptive these days to rumors, they gave as a response to "Are BA getting a flying landraider?"... "no, there is no flying land raider."
Just because it can be equipped similarly and its a transport doesn't make it a "flying land raider." Even if you ignore the literal interpretation of the question... there are enough disimilar aspects that most would not think of it as such unless you started calling it that and they contextually got a grasp... for example, internally GW discussed it as a marine Valkyrie... so the notion of it as a flying 14/14/14 brick capable of carrying terminators clashes with the mental image projected to characterize this new unit. Automatically Appended Next Post: BaronIveagh wrote:I think you underestimate the amount of time and effort that some people put into a good hoax. I've seen them where they spent months of time and thousands of dollars just to try and get their fifteen min.
No I'm well aware of the effort people put into hoaxes, but thats my point... for an equally believable hoax they wouldn't have needed to spend as much and any one so skilled to perpetrate the hoax in the way you describe would be skilled enough to have just scratchbuilt it... and both would have taken as much time given how you described it "happening."
1478
Post by: warboss
i found another conversion that is way beyond my kitbash ability and apparently GW's talent for the storm raven design. boxy marine aesthetic? check. turrets and weapons consistent with previous marine designs? check. overall shape consistent with mini-thunderhawk motiff? check. if you digitized this model and then rammed it into a cartoon adamantium wall to get a comical accordion effect, you'd sadly get the official GW version. boxy shape and a flying brick design aren't the problem; it's GW take on a boxy flying brick that is for a bunch of us.
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?s=32684da7032dff60be6d47afa42f8c31&showtopic=204544&st=25
686
Post by: aka_mythos
I like that one.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
It looks better at first, but has even more logical flaws:
1.) No adequate landing gear: The front leg is shorter than the turret, no hind legs, so the flyer stands on the turret and the carried Dreadnought.
2.) Roof wings and the air intake on the air intake make no sense, even when they give the model a busy look.
Still a good looking kitbash of the Valkyrie model.
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
I think it's amazing! Great job whoever you are on BandC!
686
Post by: aka_mythos
It may have some logic flaws but it grasps the spirit better.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
And it LOOKS better. Aerodynamics be damned.
31682
Post by: CommissarCandlestick
That looks far too heavy at the front to fly. I've seen some much better conversions around, such as the one warboss posted 
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Well its alot more proportional than a thunderhawk, in that case.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
WINGED METAL BOXES!!!!!!
And I defer to your greater knowledge of crabs in a hippy commune, Kanluwen.
Though, frankly, if you want to spread disinformation, the best way to do it is to make it look like no one is supposed to see it.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
If that were the case, then they wouldn't just have kept quiet about it. They would have said "We mistakenly posted photos of the Stormraven", etc.
15799
Post by: terribletrygon
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Now see, that would require GW to admit that a mistake took place...
722
Post by: Kanluwen
BaronIveagh wrote:Now see, that would require GW to admit that a mistake took place...
Now you're sounding like a tin hat conspiracy theorist or the JFK assassination nutters.
GW doesn't do misinformation on the Internet. They barely do information on the Internet.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Kanluwen wrote:BaronIveagh wrote:Now see, that would require GW to admit that a mistake took place...
Now you're sounding like a tin hat conspiracy theorist or the JFK assassination nutters.
GW doesn't do misinformation on the Internet. They barely do information on the Internet.
LOL In all honesty, I get the feeling they barely do information within their own company.
At times i wonder if they aren't all fitted with cortex bombs set to go off if they think about the wrong subjects...
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
BaronIveagh wrote:At times i wonder if they aren't all fitted with cortex bombs set to go off if they think about the wrong subjects...
Unfortunately the cortex bomb is one of those subjects, making it somewhat like The Game with more explosions.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
warboss wrote:
This is a great build.
32599
Post by: JimBowen38
Flying bricks seem to be the go to design for for the Imperium I kind of like it sorry folks.
21574
Post by: Mewiththeface
I really like Battlefoam's. That one looks sweet
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
aka_mythos wrote:The Caestus has missile pods on the wings, this doesn't.
Look again, it does, actually.
11
Post by: ph34r
That's nice warboss, and certainly well converted, but lets be honest, it is not marine aesthetic. It is Imperial aesthetic. Marine has much more limited range of angles, inset panels, etc.
20650
Post by: Pyriel-
Yes, because Games Workshop totally goes out of their way to post hoaxes on their site for a few minutes then remove them from said site in the hopes that the Internet Peoples have saved the image to spread like a bad case of crabs in a hippy commune.
Maybe its a deliberate GW slipup to let the public see "a" picture that no one can confirm is the real deal to gauge the publics reaction to it on various forums.
If it was a wip then this would be the perfect way of getting feedback on what is needed to be altered in order to make it more aesthetically pleasing (selling more) without loosing face.
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
Pyriel- wrote:Yes, because Games Workshop totally goes out of their way to post hoaxes on their site for a few minutes then remove them from said site in the hopes that the Internet Peoples have saved the image to spread like a bad case of crabs in a hippy commune.
Maybe its a deliberate GW slipup to let the public see "a" picture that no one can confirm is the real deal to gauge the publics reaction to it on various forums.
If it was a wip then this would be the perfect way of getting feedback on what is needed to be altered in order to make it more aesthetically pleasing (selling more) without loosing face.
Which is exactly what I said way at the beginning. (Unless it was the other identical Stormraven 'OMG PICS IT SUX LOL' thread....)
15799
Post by: terribletrygon
ph34r wrote:That's nice warboss, and certainly well converted, but lets be honest, it is not marine aesthetic. It is Imperial aesthetic. Marine has much more limited range of angles, inset panels, etc.
Whhattt? It is basically a little Thunderhawk. What could be more Space Marine then a Thunderhawk?
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
To be clear, I think the people who are not overly fond of the design's main issue is not one of physics or aerodynamics. EVERYTHING in the marine range is functionally slowed in terms of that.
But, the problem lies in the (subjective) view that it simply looks off. That in turn, makes you look and pick on all kinds of things that would not normally be picked on so heavily. It's a case of 'Thunderhawk would never fly? So what it looks AWESOME!' as opposed to 'Stormraven looks whack. You know what it wouldn't fly either on top of it!'
4884
Post by: Therion
But, the problem lies in the (subjective) view that it simply looks off. That in turn, makes you look and pick on all kinds of things that would not normally be picked on so heavily. It's a case of 'Thunderhawk would never fly? So what it looks AWESOME!' as opposed to 'Stormraven looks whack. You know what it wouldn't fly either on top of it!'
I never thought Thunderhawk looked awesome. It looks just as slowed as this Stormraven, if not more so.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
MajorTom11 wrote:But, the problem lies in the (subjective) view that it simply looks off. That in turn, makes you look and pick on all kinds of things that would not normally be picked on so heavily. It's a case of 'Thunderhawk would never fly? So what it looks AWESOME!' as opposed to 'Stormraven looks whack. You know what it wouldn't fly either on top of it!'
It is a proportional dilemma. That even in the context of other vehicles of the imperium and space marine vehicles its proportions seem to be imbalanced.
chaos0xomega wrote:aka_mythos wrote:The Caestus has missile pods on the wings, this doesn't.
Look again, it does, actually.
I am aware of the Storm Ravens missile pods. Context of the conversation was that the two wings that of the Caestus and Storm Raven are not the same. I see no importance in pointing out something that contextually is still true. Pointing out a prepositional ambiguity serves little point. Given the context the preposition "on" is not the same as "under" or "on the bottom." Since it is a missile pod clearly mounted to the underside as opposed incorporated into the leading edge as it is on the Caestus, the two things are not the same. My point is still valid.
23203
Post by: Raptorkid
But, the problem lies in the (subjective) view that it simply looks off. That in turn, makes you look and pick on all kinds of things that would not normally be picked on so heavily. It's a case of 'Thunderhawk would never fly? So what it looks AWESOME!' as opposed to 'Stormraven looks whack. You know what it wouldn't fly either on top of it!'
This seems to pretty much cover it.
Therion wrote:I never thought Thunderhawk looked awesome. It looks just as slowed as this Stormraven, if not more so.
I always think it looks awesome unless I'm looking at it, then the front wings seem kind of off.
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
Therion wrote:But, the problem lies in the (subjective) view that it simply looks off. That in turn, makes you look and pick on all kinds of things that would not normally be picked on so heavily. It's a case of 'Thunderhawk would never fly? So what it looks AWESOME!' as opposed to 'Stormraven looks whack. You know what it wouldn't fly either on top of it!'
I never thought Thunderhawk looked awesome. It looks just as slowed as this Stormraven, if not more so.
Thanks Therion for adding to that. I don't think I wrote 'Everyone' anywhere or even implied any such thing. But let me amend to make you feel better lol -
Fictional 'Everyone' except Therion.
lol.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Falk over at Warseer made this 3d mock-up pic:
Here's a cheap 3D mock-up I did by placing more or less accurately the picture as a background in my 3D software. If I haven't screwed up everything right from the start, it should be kinda accurate, those that have seen it already should be able to tell.
I didn't try to do the rear, no use in trying to invent something that exists and make something different...
Anyway, it looks better from other angles and without the crowd around it.
Hard to tell without seeing the landing gear, but the landing gear covers (or are those front thruster ?) seem to make the whole shape less towering, much more bulldog-like from the front (I tried to stay true to the design, there would be no point in doing something look better than it actually is).
35543
Post by: lunarghost
Lol the 3D mock-up looks better to me than the actual model. But the original model never appeared to me. Not because of how it looks like a rhino thrown into a Thunderhawk but of how much time it looked like GW took to make it. Sure no model is as easy as one day of work, but still i was expecting something like this with the back of it connected with the front and having 2 access doors on each side and off the back could have a door which the dread would drop out of.
21170
Post by: Klawz
See? It does look fine. Now stop whining, marine players.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Well its cool to see it from other views... though the bottom left picture does seem to only compound concerns about the height of portions. A lot of this seems to accentuate height in a needless way.Obviously due to the limits of making a model based on a single picture, we still can't see the backside... lots hangs on how that done.
26852
Post by: Warlord Gazghkull Thraka
It looks nice,but,I'd rather go w/ a Thunder Hawk,but ya it looks nice......
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
Well the 3D pics certainly help but I'm still gonna wait till I walk into a GW store and pick one up before deciding whether or not to buy one.
4892
Post by: akira5665
It is Vile.
I want 6.
Hurrr.
430
Post by: wolfshadow
Nice 3 d pic. certainly gives some perspective on it.
Again, I'm going to throw this out there.
For those who are saying "It can't fly!"
Stop thinking 'airplane'... start thinking 'counter-grav VTOL assault gunship'... I'm throwing this out there that the 'thrusters' are prob there more for brakeing and manouvering than for actual lift. Lift would be provided via counter grav, same as the land speeder.
Nearest Real Life Equivlent:
Not exactly a beautiful aircraft.
8907
Post by: cadbren
Fine? It looks like a Land raider being humped by an oversized hang glider.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Klawz wrote:See? It does look fine. Now stop whining, marine players.
The 3d mockup doesn't show the rear and is using almost entirely flattering angles that cover up the fact that it's missing an ass which would cause it, AND I'M SAYING THIS A FIFTH TIME to tumble foreword endlessly if it ever tried to actually fly. The 3d mockup didn't make it any better and if it looks "better" to someone now then they aren't paying particular attention to what their eyes are showing them. Nice 3 d pic. certainly gives some perspective on it.
Again, I'm going to throw this out there.
For those who are saying "It can't fly!"
Stop thinking 'airplane'... start thinking 'counter-grav VTOL assault gunship'... I'm throwing this out there that the 'thrusters' are prob there more for brakeing and manouvering than for actual lift. Lift would be provided via counter grav, same as the land speeder.
That would work, except this is a spacecraft. With jet engines. So it wouldn't work. Grav plates have a ceiling of functionality, and jets don't work in space. Everything is wrong with this model.
33646
Post by: Zuul
Am I the only one wondering why they are supposedly going straight for a plastic kit rather than test the "popularity waters" of a totally new vehicle with a resin model?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Zuul wrote:Am I the only one wondering why they are supposedly going straight for a plastic kit rather than test the "popularity waters" of a totally new vehicle with a resin model?
Because thats not actually how they do their thing, and never really has been.
430
Post by: wolfshadow
ShumaGorath wrote:
That would work, except this is a spacecraft. With jet engines. So it wouldn't work. Grav plates have a ceiling of functionality, and jets don't work in space. Everything is wrong with this model.
So you totally hate the Thunderhawk as well right? Becauses its a spacecraft that uses Jet engines? Or for that matter, EVERY SINGLE imperial space/atmospheric craft?
Or maybe... just maybe... Imperial Tech engines that function both in space and in atmosphere?
And you totally are missing the thrusters @ the front and on the wingtips?
Meh. Haters gonna hate, and the hate based on it not looking like it could fly is more than a little silly in a sci-fi game.
Most drop ship models dont look like they could 'fly' worth a crap.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
So you totally hate the Thunderhawk as well right? Becauses its a spacecraft that uses Jet engines? Or for that matter, EVERY SINGLE imperial space/atmospheric craft?
I hate the jet engines. But then I'm in the camp that wants to punch the imperial vehicle designer in the gut and then have him replaced with someone who can do the job.
Or maybe... just maybe... Imperial Tech engines that function both in space and in atmosphere?
Nah, it's just an awful design from the era when the tanks had tracks six inches wide and they were putting silencers on laser guns. GWs design team used to be worst in class at this.
And you totally are missing the thrusters @ the front and on the wingtips?
If there are thrusters in front I can accept this as a poor design, rather then the worst vehicle yet debuted. They aren't shown in the pictures though and the wheel well placement of them doesn't make me very hopeful. That could just be a landing strut. And yes, I'm aware of the little wing jets. For the sixth time they would result in it tumbling foreward endlessly.
Meh. Haters gonna hate, and the hate based on it not looking like it could fly is more than a little silly in a sci-fi game.
Most drop ship models dont look like they could 'fly' worth a crap.
With standards that low, let me direct you this way.
430
Post by: wolfshadow
ShumaGorath wrote:So you totally hate the Thunderhawk as well right? Becauses its a spacecraft that uses Jet engines? Or for that matter, EVERY SINGLE imperial space/atmospheric craft?
I hate the jet engines. But then I'm in the camp that wants to punch the imperial vehicle designer in the gut and then have him replaced with someone who can do the job.
Or maybe... just maybe... Imperial Tech engines that function both in space and in atmosphere?
Nah, it's just an awful design from the era when the tanks had tracks six inches wide and they were putting silencers on laser guns. GWs design team used to be worst in class at this.
And you totally are missing the thrusters @ the front and on the wingtips?
If there are thrusters in front I can accept this as a poor design, rather then the worst vehicle yet debuted. They aren't shown in the pictures though and the wheel well placement of them doesn't make me very hopeful. That could just be a landing strut. And yes, I'm aware of the little wing jets. For the sixth time they would result in it tumbling foreward endlessly.
Meh. Haters gonna hate, and the hate based on it not looking like it could fly is more than a little silly in a sci-fi game.
Most drop ship models dont look like they could 'fly' worth a crap.
With standards that low, let me direct you this way.
Those actually look pretty cool. Wouldn't mind getting those for my daughter to play with... but alas they aren't 28mm Heroic, so wouldn't make a good SR replacement.
If you don't like it because it's UGLY, well thats an asthetic choice.
If you don't like it becuase it doesnt look like it can fly... sorry. I think you're being a little silly considering the hobby that we have. Counter grav, teleporting, flying bricks of all sorts. Jump packs, drop troopers.... for that matter you dont get much more like a flying brick than a SM Speeder. If you dont like the imperial asthetic at all... Well, I hope you dont play space marines then
21935
Post by: daemoniccorpse
That thing is hideous!
10345
Post by: LunaHound
The 3D mock up pic looks exactly the same as the original GW model , i dont see how it "looked better"
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
LunaHound wrote:The 3D mock up pic looks exactly the same as the original GW model , i dont see how it "looked better"
It shows it at better angles.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
I dunno, personally I think the mock-up helps a bit...I still think it's just "okay" though.
Really need to see what the rear looks like, though. (That's what she said.)
24150
Post by: ChocolateGork
My stormraven goes swas swas swas (its a roflcopter)
It looks funny (I do mean ha ha funny).
But with a dreadnought on the back it will look balanced i think. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sidstyler wrote:I dunno, personally I think the mock-up helps a bit...I still think it's just "okay" though.
Really need to see what the rear looks like, though. (That's what she said.)
Wouldn't that be what he said?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
The 3D mockup highlights even further how the wings/engine join to nothing, and how the model has no back. Hell, the 3D mockup even has holes in it because there's nothing for the whole rear assembly to connect to.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
jonolikespie wrote:LunaHound wrote:The 3D mock up pic looks exactly the same as the original GW model , i dont see how it "looked better"
It shows it at better angles.
Dont know about that... GW's original photo is clear enough to show the model , the rest are just... perspectives.
Which many people are able to tell without the 3D mock up , and again mentioned we still dont see the back :'<
18045
Post by: Snord
wolfshadow wrote:Nice 3 d pic. certainly gives some perspective on it.
Not exactly a beautiful aircraft.
Heresy! The Hind is a truly menacing looking helicopter. Watch this sequence from '9th Company' (a Russian movie about the war in Afghanistan - jump to 7.22):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zQvvarlN8A
and you'll see what I mean. This is an unflattering angle - rather as the angle of the Stormraven in the leaked photo may not show it in its best light.
H.B.M.C. wrote:The 3D mockup highlights even further how the wings/engine join to nothing, and how the model has no back. Hell, the 3D mockup even has holes in it because there's nothing for the whole rear assembly to connect to.
That may be because it's, y'know, a 3-D mock-up. As in someone's attempt to depict the model based on a single photo which doesn't show the rear. Not a strong basis for definitive judgments, but don't let that stop you
The mock-up actually suggests that the design is better proportioned than it seems in the leaked photo. It would be nice to know what is going on with the rear - I'm guessing some kind of grapple for the Dreadnought (as per the codex entry), which may fill some of the space under the tail.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Since we can't see in "the picture" all the "hopes" lie on how that back side handles the engine support and imbalanced look. Right now I'm kinda doubtful a single facet of the model can accomplish what is needed.
21966
Post by: col. krazy kenny
That picture was not a fake.Somebody messed up.Looked like all the other G.W piks.
32775
Post by: Tortured-Robot
Sorry, I read the couple but couldnt read all 19 pages...
can someone sum up... is this the real deal or a fake?
18698
Post by: kronk
It appears to be the real deal.
32775
Post by: Tortured-Robot
Glad I dont use Marines!
I bet the new DE feel lucky they didnt get abused by the designer that came up with that.
4514
Post by: Myrthe
Tortured-Robot wrote:Sorry, I read the couple but couldnt read all 19 pages...
can someone sum up... is this the real deal or a fake?
It's supposedly the "real deal" ... that's why all the ire and frustration is directed solely to GW and it's sculptor.
Maybe the "Wing and Engine" assembly is detachable ? Sort of like a glider to drop the entire brick front as some bunker or super-rhino and then it goes back for another one ? OK ... I'm just being silly. But so is the model
32775
Post by: Tortured-Robot
I suggest IG players get in some Hydras, and chuckle as the boxes fall from the sky.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Tortured-Robot wrote:Sorry, I read the couple but couldnt read all 19 pages...
can someone sum up... is this the real deal or a fake?
No problem, it is asked and confirmed on ALL 19 pages
123
Post by: Alpharius
Real, coming and a wise man would bet that a WD article will allow any (and all?) Space Marine Chapters use it.
27553
Post by: Brother Heinrich
Thank the powers that be that I went over to Chaos before this garbage happened *projectile vomit*
24530
Post by: Prophecy07
I don't get it. For two months, all I heard was "there's no model, there's no model, there's no model!" Buncha whining by people who don't feel like doing all that delicious converting. Now there is a model and they're still not happy. I'm really starting to think that GW fans like hating GW more than they like their favorite GW game...
27553
Post by: Brother Heinrich
why nit-pick when you can paint your hatred in broad strokes across the whole company
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Prophecy07 wrote:I don't get it. For two months, all I heard was "there's no model, there's no model, there's no model!" Buncha whining by people who don't feel like doing all that delicious converting. Now there is a model and they're still not happy.
I'm going to assume you are not an idiot, and thus that you have merely overlooked the obvious.
There is more to a Stormraven than just having "Space Marine Stormraven" written on the box. We don't want one that costs $200, we don't want one that looks like it was made from Mega Blox, and we don't want one that requires excessive sanding or rescupting just to put together - any of these things would be deal breakers. We want a product that is at least adequate in every way.
17796
Post by: Slinky
I quite like it.
I bet when we see it from another angle the "gaps" will be filled in a bit.
My main problem is the turret, not sure about manned turrets on a marine vehicle, but a razorback turret would probably be a straight swap and look better, I reckon.
1478
Post by: warboss
AlexHolker wrote:Prophecy07 wrote:I don't get it. For two months, all I heard was "there's no model, there's no model, there's no model!" Buncha whining by people who don't feel like doing all that delicious converting. Now there is a model and they're still not happy.
There is more to a Stormraven than just having "Space Marine Stormraven" written on the box. We don't want one that costs $200, we don't want one that looks like it was made from Mega Blox, and we don't want one that requires excessive sanding or rescupting just to put together - any of these things would be deal breakers. We want a product that is at least adequate in every way.
agreed (except for the name calling part). i've been thirsty plenty of times in my life and wanted a cold drink but never thirsty enough to drink toilet water. the model GW is offering this thirsty gamer is *at best* the equivalent of new, mint in bowl toilet water. it might be potable with some serious conversion but not as is.
29163
Post by: Sanguinary Dan
warboss wrote:AlexHolker wrote:There is more to a Stormraven than just having "Space Marine Stormraven" written on the box. We don't want one that costs $200, we don't want one that looks like it was made from Mega Blox, and we don't want one that requires excessive sanding or rescupting just to put together - any of these things would be deal breakers. We want a product that is at least adequate in every way.
agreed (except for the name calling part). i've been thirsty plenty of times in my life and wanted a cold drink but never thirsty enough to drink toilet water. the model GW is offering this thirsty gamer is *at best* the equivalent of new, mint in bowl toilet water. it might be potable with some serious conversion but not as is.
Exactly. If we are "lucky" all it will take is a few sheets of plasticard and Valkyrie parts to make a good model. As I've never yet built one of their vehicles straight from the box, so I can't say that part worries me. But if it's overpriced, ugly AND requires a ton of work? Then, I reserve the right to call GW's design a complete FAIL.
I'd have been thrilled to shell out the $$$ for a few hot looking Stormraven kits. And that's even though I've built two conversions myself. But if this thing is actually half as much of an escapee from a bad kids cartoon as it looks to be, GW won't see a dime of that cash.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that I REALLY want my Orks to fly around in this thing.
And those Lego Space hot rods look awesome!
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Prophecy07 wrote:I don't get it. For two months, all I heard was "there's no model, there's no model, there's no model!" Buncha whining by people who don't feel like doing all that delicious converting. Now there is a model and they're still not happy. I'm really starting to think that GW fans like hating GW more than they like their favorite GW game...
If you are a "fan" you will love or hate anything GW does, because fans care and everyone else is apathetic. You will notice this of everything with a strong fan following not just GW... but love and hate are so closely entwined and come from the same emotional fount. The day people don't care is when GW should worry for then it will cease to be relevant in the lives of their customers.
As for complaints about "no models" and having to "convert," that stems from the wide berth that 40k and GW encompass; a matter of people prefering aspects of the hobby over others. These are people who enjoy the game and not necessarily the "hobby" of building and painting.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Prophecy07 wrote:I don't get it. For two months, all I heard was "there's no model, there's no model, there's no model!" Buncha whining by people who don't feel like doing all that delicious converting. Now there is a model and they're still not happy. I'm really starting to think that GW fans like hating GW more than they like their favorite GW game...
Wins thread.
36143
Post by: snake
I don't know how these are going to sell.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
They'll sell well enough. First to people who absolute have to have the unit in their army regardless of looks. Then to the people who care about the aesthetics and are willing to convert the thing. People who "love" its unique charm will tend to be in the first category.
36143
Post by: snake
aka_mythos wrote:They'll sell well enough. First to people who absolute have to have the unit in their army regardless of looks. Then to the people who care about the aesthetics and are willing to convert the thing. People who "love" its unique charm will tend to be in the first category.
Sound reasoning. In my ultimate fantasy, GW leaked this pic in order to gauge the reaction to this model and will alter it based on the substantially negative response. Wouldn't that be nice?
Too bad its a pipe dream.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
As much as I agree with the general feeling of meh about the vanilla model, it does look like it's a very good base for conversions of all types, not just as a base of a proper Stormraven, but for all sorts of other Marine vehicles, Chaos stuff and Orky junk. And I like it just for that particular trait.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
snake wrote:I don't know how these are going to sell.
Maybe to the 40-50% people who rather liked the model in the polls, which included all people who have actually seen the model instead of just the pic
15799
Post by: terribletrygon
Didn't half of the people in that 40-50% think it was 'Okay'? 'Okay' doesn't sound much like 'Rather Liked'.
I am not saying it will sell bad, but this whole 40-50% of people liking it in the polls thing is rubbish.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
terribletrygon wrote:Didn't half of the people in that 40-50% think it was 'Okay'? 'Okay' doesn't sound much like 'Rather Liked'.
I am not saying it will sell bad, but this whole 40-50% of people liking it in the polls thing is rubbish.
In the Warseer poll 17.54% voted "I love it, quite cool!" and 23.47% voted "I like it, a few minor issues though... ", making it 40+ % (not counting another 19.27% saying "I don't like it, although it's not that bad... ").
So no need to be rude.
BTW prowla over at Warseer posted this "real life Storm Raven" pic :
15799
Post by: terribletrygon
Kroothawk wrote:terribletrygon wrote:Didn't half of the people in that 40-50% think it was 'Okay'? 'Okay' doesn't sound much like 'Rather Liked'.
I am not saying it will sell bad, but this whole 40-50% of people liking it in the polls thing is rubbish.
In the Warseer poll 17.54% voted "I love it, quite cool!" and 23.47% voted "I like it, a few minor issues though... ", making it 40+ % (not counting another 19.27% saying "I don't like it, although it's not that bad... ").
So no need to be rude.
I will give you Warseer, but I was entirely referring to Dakka Dakka. My bad though for not making that clearer.
And as for being rude;
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Prophecy07 wrote:I don't get it. For two months, all I heard was "there's no model, there's no model, there's no model!" Buncha whining by people who don't feel like doing all that delicious converting. Now there is a model and they're still not happy. I'm really starting to think that GW fans like hating GW more than they like their favorite GW game...
So its like.. beggars cant be choosers?
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
No beggar I. I'm choosing to start playing Warmachine/Hordes. That's what I'm choosing.
21574
Post by: Mewiththeface
The top of that looks boss. I think it just needs some more junk n dat trunk and it will look a lot better.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Tailgunner wrote:That may be because it's, y'know, a 3-D mock-up. As in someone's attempt to depict the model based on a single photo which doesn't show the rear. Not a strong basis for definitive judgments, but don't let that stop you
Hypocrite much? Someone makes a 3D mockup and we have a cavalcade of people saying "It makes it look so much better", yet I say "No it doesn't..." and your reply to me is "Well it's a mock up! It doesn't show everything!". So the people who like it better due to the 3D angle showing it from 'better' angles are fine, but those who still don't see it... well we're just criticising a poor 3D mockup, aren't we? I know it's a mockup - I know the 'hole' in the model isn't going to really be a hole in the actual model. I just don't see how this mockup makes the model any better (or worse). The (missing) rear is this vehicle's biggest problem (next is the aesthetically incorrect turret). It feels incomplete. Tailgunner wrote:The mock-up actually suggests that the design is better proportioned than it seems in the leaked photo. It would be nice to know what is going on with the rear - I'm guessing some kind of grapple for the Dreadnought (as per the codex entry), which may fill some of the space under the tail.
Ah! I see you've answered my question already. The mock-up highlights all the good parts of the design, or confirms that the proportions are fine. So, as long as you like the Chibi-Hawk, the mockup is great and 'proves' that it's not a bad model. But if you don't like it, then you can't judge really because it's just a mock up. Honest to God...
686
Post by: aka_mythos
terribletrygon wrote:Didn't half of the people in that 40-50% think it was 'Okay'? 'Okay' doesn't sound much like 'Rather Liked'.
I am not saying it will sell bad, but this whole 40-50% of people liking it in the polls thing is rubbish.
I pointed that falsehood where the results were seeming lumped together in ways that didn't make sense and got cries of foul... the results last I saw were:
Sweet model! 9%
I'll probably get one. 12%
it's okay. 22%
Pretty bad. 19%
Ghah! WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?! 16%
BURN IT! BURN! 23%
Or about 21% like it well enough to want one. 22% who think its "okay" or are rather impartial. While 58% think its rather bad or worse. I would separate "okay" from the rest because thats what I selected and I don't like it but I don't think its "bad" though I probably won't buy it but others in this category might. Since people are trying to discern who will or won't buy it I think those are where the lines are drawn, that generally a person who thinks its "bad" will not be buying it.
1478
Post by: warboss
aka_mythos wrote:Or about 21% like it well enough to want one. 22% who think its "okay" or are rather impartial. While 58% think its rather bad or worse. I would separate "okay" from the rest because thats what I selected and I don't like it but I don't think its "bad" though I probably won't buy it but others in this category might. Since people are trying to discern who will or won't buy it I think those are where the lines are drawn, that generally a person who thinks its "bad" will not be buying it.
not the greatest poll choices. while "okay" can be construed as a mild like, there is no option for someone who mildly dislikes it. an ideal poll would have a strong like, mild like, neutral/no opinion, mild dislike, and strong dislike as choices instead of what is offered.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
The polling is irrelevant, all that matters is my opinion. My opinion is that this is rubbish. Thread over.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Reserved and reasonable as ever Shummy...
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
H.B.M.C. wrote:Reserved and reasonable as ever Shummy...
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
My computer translates that as simple squares, indicating that whatever font or symbols you used, I can't read them. So I'll just go ahead and assume it was aggressive and/or insulting and say ' Back at'cha big guy!'.
430
Post by: wolfshadow
I'll repeat my point:
If you don't like it becuase you dont like the asthetics of it...
Cool. Don't use it, or don't buy it and convert your own.
If you dont like it becasue you dont think it can fly: Neither can a raider, SM Speeder, Thunderhawk, Most eldar vehicles, any lander/lighter I've see.... and most of the 'aircraft' except for the Eldar stuff would burn up if they even twitched toward atmosphere.
Suspension of disbelief is necessary in a hobby such as ours. Its Sci Fi folks... relax and have some fun. :-).
I personally don't mind it, and will pick up at least one when the Grey Knights are released for my GK force.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
H.B.M.C. wrote:My computer translates that as simple squares, indicating that whatever font or symbols you used, I can't read them. So I'll just go ahead and assume it was aggressive and/or insulting and say ' Back at'cha big guy!'.
You need to update your language packs big guy.
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
ShumaGorath wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:My computer translates that as simple squares, indicating that whatever font or symbols you used, I can't read them.
So I'll just go ahead and assume it was aggressive and/or insulting and say ' Back at'cha big guy!'.
You need to update your language packs big guy.
Oh snap!
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
I dunno, I think it's starting to grow on me a little bit. Still not in a big hurry to go out and buy a Spess Mahreen army though, but if I did I'd just leave off the intake on the roof and call it good.
18045
Post by: Snord
H.B.M.C. wrote:Ah! I see you've answered my question already. The mock-up highlights all the good parts of the design, or confirms that the proportions are fine. So, as long as you like the Chibi-Hawk, the mockup is great and 'proves' that it's not a bad model. But if you don't like it, then you can't judge really because it's just a mock up.
Honest to God...
Nice try, but in attempting to paraphrase what I said, you've twisted the meaning. Thus, you appear to have misread 'the mock-up actually suggests that the design is better proportioned than it seems in the leaked photo' as 'wow, I now think this model is wonderful'. I'm sure that was inadvertent 
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
Rage? Against an innocent Stormpelican? They couldn't call it a Blood raven because that wouldn't make any sense. Oh, I meant to say in other codexes. That would totally make sense in the Blood Angels Blood Codex of Blood.
I find myself liking it more and more because of the Hind analogy. I loved that butt-ugly gunship to death. I wonder what a stormpelican would look like with the skyblue underside and tan and brown camouflaged fuselage.
2548
Post by: jmurph
Yeah, it does look like it should be packaged by LEGO. The Lego Stormpelican.
No comparison to the Hind- that is a sleek gunship. The Stormraven is almost a self parody of absurdity in GW design. Strange, too , considering that the Valk looks pretty darn sweet (and no more capable of 'real' flight).
8907
Post by: cadbren
The last two marine flyers are complete gak. Admittedly I thought the Ironclad Dred was awful until I saw it in real life, though I still think the underslung weapons are too close to the ground, but I don't see the flyers being better up close.
I realise you can get away with a lot in a sci-fi universe, but at some point a nod to science (the sci part of sci-fi) needs to be made.
As for the flying brick concept, if that is so then why bother with the silly (and flimsy looking) wings at the back, missile pods could have been on fold out "wings" and the whole thing could have just been a block with a dred at the back.
21593
Post by: DiscoVader
cadbren wrote:
As for the flying brick concept, if that is so then why bother with the silly (and flimsy looking) wings at the back, missile pods could have been on fold out "wings" and the whole thing could have just been a block with a dred at the back.
Don't know why but now I have a mental image of an winged 18-wheeler crashing through the sky, a trucker cap-wearing BA at the wheel and an angry Furioso Dread tied to the grill.
35815
Post by: Wolflord Grimnar
ok just got newsletter saying new wave of BA also is that a new furioso dreadnought in the background? also in the link the copyed info on it says "I painted this Stormraven to match the battleforce that I painted for the Blood Angels army workshop in February 2011's White Dwarf" so there could be a battleforce on the way?
18698
Post by: kronk
It's growing on me.
Like a polyp.
21829
Post by: Xeroen
My first reaction when I saw it was to recoil in horror.
When I stopped and spent a bit of time looking at it and noticed it should be as wide, if not wider than a Rhino chassis vehicle I squealed like a bitch.
I've decided it has a face only a Techmarine could love.
I'm a little dissapointed about the rumor everybody else will be getting it. I can understand why ( GW profits) but I don't like it because Blood Angels seem to be getting excluded from a lot of Forgeworld stuff, like the Caestus and the Achilles.
32729
Post by: cute-hydra
IT's reallllllllllllllllllllllly ugly. Lacks any elegance.
3918
Post by: BobMakenzie
terribletrygon wrote:Someone actually made that? Give that man a medal.
I demand my medal.
The new one isnt all that bad.
430
Post by: wolfshadow
BobMakenzie wrote:terribletrygon wrote:Someone actually made that? Give that man a medal.
I demand my medal.
The new one isnt all that bad.
Pics or it didn't happen.
3918
Post by: BobMakenzie
wolfshadow wrote:BobMakenzie wrote:terribletrygon wrote:Someone actually made that? Give that man a medal.
I demand my medal.
The new one isnt all that bad.
Pics or it didn't happen.
How about my whole build thread?
10830
Post by: synchronicity
If a new model (typically a vehicle) does not make you want to start a new army, then they are losing out on sales. The Valk made me want to start a Cadian army, that is for sure.
That being said, I really like the model, even from our limited angle. I will be buying one for sure, but I was already a BA player...
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
*ehem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring *ehem*
As long as there are turbines at the front aswell as on the wings then there is no reason for the model to "tumble forward". Sure it wont fly like a conventional aircraft but personally i think vertical take off and landing is far better, the wings are only there for stabalization and some lift. Engines at the back for fast forward motion and thrusters for easy manuvering / vertical take off and landing.
Plus isnt the stormraven meant to drop down from orbit? thats pretty much why it looks like a brick.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Can someone show me a Storm Raven using the Valkrie or the Vulture kits? And give me a tutorial. Because i need Storm Ravens for my Chapter.
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
If there are turbines in front naturally on the model I will be a lot less critical of it. I always imagined Imperial flying boxes as having 'grav plating' or some such nullifying their mass, which meant as long as they had thrust from reasonably sensical locations I would be ok with it. If there are no vtol turbines in front, I just cant picture the thing doing anything but flipping end over end like a vertical hockey stick with rockets attached horizontally only on one end lol. Hence my redesign.
If it does in face have thrusters in front, all the better, everything else I want to do would be very easy!
|
|
