Asherian Command wrote: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.

take a look at the beginning of the thread and you'll find a few pics posted of conversions that look better. search ebay for stormravens and pretty much every one you'll find is a valkyrie kitbash. i've only ever seen two that didn't involve valkyrie parts as the primary basis (one is sgt. diablo's here on dakka). it's really not difficult if you use google and/or dakka's search function.

warboss wrote:

Asherian Command wrote: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.

take a look at the beginning of the thread and you'll find a few pics posted of conversions that look better. search ebay for stormravens and pretty much every one you'll find is a valkyrie kitbash. i've only ever seen two that didn't involve valkyrie parts as the primary basis (one is sgt. diablo's here on dakka). it's really not difficult if you use google and/or dakka's search function.

I was asking for a tutorial.

http://www.mywargame.com/2010/04/29/crux-pattern-storm-raven-tutorial/

cute-hydra wrote:
IT's reallllllllllllllllllllllly ugly. Lacks any elegance.

Unlike every other Space Marine vehicle, which has elegance and grace in spades.

Spades I say.

Sidstyler wrote:

cute-hydra wrote:
IT's reallllllllllllllllllllllly ugly. Lacks any elegance.

Unlike every other Space Marine vehicle, which has elegance and grace in spades.

Spades I say.

And because everyone knows...

In the grim darkness of the far future, aerodynamics matters

Crux has tutorials for two different versions posted in our P&M Tutorials forum:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/293431.page#1589456

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/286057.page

There are a ton more conversions, including WIP blogs, in our P&M blogs forum & general P&M forum.

If it was real then the wings would definetly fall off. It just doesnt look realistic. i HAVE TO KITBASH

Am I missing the point here.....the 40K universe is not real?!?! Who said anything needed to be realistic!

The Decapitator wrote:Am I missing the point here.....the 40K universe is not real?!?! Who said anything needed to be realistic!

This has been discussed to death many times before. Yes, you're missing the point. Yes, consider reading the rest of the thread.

The model is both unrealistic and unbelievable. For 40k, we suspend our disbelief because of both the "rule of cool" and things seem acceptably believable. The new Stormraven is both ugly and unbelievable.

I like it, reminds me of red dwarf. I'm gonna paint me green one.

Absolutionis wrote:The model is both unrealistic and unbelievable. For 40k, we suspend our disbelief because of both the "rule of cool" and things seem acceptably believable. The new Stormraven is uncool.

Fixed for you brother.

Bonegrinder wrote:I like it, reminds me of red dwarf. I'm gonna paint me green one.

Or put some tracks on it and paint it blue. either way it's a good plan.

this stormraven is a fail compared to other conversions than this ugly thing!! i am dissapinted but in thetop left corner there is a dread that looks like a furiosos culd it be plastic??

HeRozZ x wrote:this stormraven is a fail compared to other conversions than this ugly thing!! i am dissapinted but in thetop left corner there is a dread that looks like a furiosos culd it be plastic??

That's the general consensus at the moment, HeRozZ.

Absolutionis wrote:

The Decapitator wrote:Am I missing the point here.....the 40K universe is not real?!?! Who said anything needed to be realistic!

This has been discussed to death many times before. Yes, you're missing the point. Yes, consider reading the rest of the thread.

The model is both unrealistic and unbelievable. For 40k, we suspend our disbelief because of both the "rule of cool" and things seem acceptably believable. The new Stormraven is both ugly and unbelievable.

I'm sorry but that's bullcrap, you may suspend your disbelief because of the 'rule of cool', but I suspend my belief because it's FICTION. Something doesn't have to be cool in fiction for me to believe that it will work. So long as the authour of said fiction has said it will work, then it will. There is no arguement to this.

Now it's one thing having an opinion that something isn't to your taste, that's fine. But to use parameters from the REAL world and apply them to a FICTIONAL world is ridiculous. So to say something is 'unrealistic and unbelievable' just because you don't like the look of it is like 2 + 2 = 1000.

If you don't like something, fine! Just say that, and don't bother getting into how it just 'wouldn't work' etc, because as much as you might like it to be, it isn't real. Whether it's cool or not really has no bearing on how it would work in a fictional universe.

You know... just throwing that out there.

Damn I really wish I had the money now to do that really really cool conversion... BUT ONE THING THAT I HAVE FOUND IS THIS!
Storm Ravens are awesome
But not the model for it.
GW Get me that Damn Conversion Beamer! ALREADY I WANTS IT!

I want to know why so many SM players love the thunderhawk (which is by far the UGLIEST flyer/SM vehicle I've seen so far, moreso than the storm raven, and probably even more absurd from a technical/engineering standpoint), but think the storm raven is too "ugly", or reject it because it couldn't actually fly.

The thunderhawk is "believable", we all apparently think that thing could actually fly and looks "awesome" (we must because every other storm raven conversion was based on the thunderhawk design)...but the storm raven is unacceptable?

I don't think it's that bad. I might buy two of them and build a Flesh Tearers army around them just to spite you guys actually.

Well, after I get a good look at the back of it.

Dysartes wrote:

HeRozZ x wrote:this stormraven is a fail compared to other conversions than this ugly thing!! i am dissapinted but in thetop left corner there is a dread that looks like a furiosos culd it be plastic??

That's the general consensus at the moment, HeRozZ.

Speak for yourself. I like it, and so do many others.

Well according to the polls on here and other forums, most people are not fond of it or ambivalent, so he isn't wrong on his general consensus statement. Many people like it too, and good on em! But there was no need to be rude about his comment, that was a bit pointless no?

If I remember right, there have been a couple of people so far who pretty much came out and said people who did like the model had no taste, so...I disagree about him being "rude".

Oh, and let's not forget my favorite stupid comment of this entire thread: "Only WAAC players will buy this model."

Obviously not the exact quote but that's pretty much what he said. I don't feel like quoting him again and starting up gak that ended on page...what, 11? But if you're interested go back and look for my post and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Sidstyler wrote:I want to know why so many SM players love the thunderhawk (which is by far the UGLIEST flyer/SM vehicle I've seen so far, moreso than the storm raven, and probably even more absurd from a technical/engineering standpoint), but think the storm raven is too "ugly", or reject it because it couldn't actually fly.

I'd actually argue that the Vindicator is the ugliest SM model. Love the rules, but the model could use a little work. As for the Storm Raven, I'm a Space Marine player, and I like it.

But then, as always...

Monster Rain wrote:

I'd actually argue that the Vindicator is the ugliest SM model. Love the rules, but the model could use a little work. As for the Storm Raven, I'm a Space Marine player, and I like it.

Ha! It just goes to show that we all have our preferences. The vindicator is probably my favorite SM vehicle as far as looks go.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

You know... just throwing that out there.

That would have been fine except they took a concept based on that and added all these other things to it, without making corrections in the balance and proportions. They took something like your image shoved the engines to the rear and enlarged the crew section... your helicopter has balance, the storm raven is a skewed as this:

Not scientific by anyy means but the Warseer poll had it 47- for 53 against. Hardly 'most'... adn the poll here was pretty badly worded. We;ve also been told by people who have seen the model that the pic posted was not flattering at all. Soooooo..... We shall see when its released. I do like what I've seen, and think the layout follows its form and function very well in a universe where counter grave tech is moderaly commonplace.

Monster Rain wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I want to know why so many SM players love the thunderhawk (which is by far the UGLIEST flyer/SM vehicle I've seen so far, moreso than the storm raven, and probably even more absurd from a technical/engineering standpoint), but think the storm raven is too "ugly", or reject it because it couldn't actually fly.

I'd actually argue that the Vindicator is the ugliest SM model. Love the rules, but the model could use a little work. As for the Storm Raven, I'm a Space Marine player, and I like it.

But then, as always...

IMAGE REMOVED FOR POOR TASTE

I would like to make a motion that any further use of Justin Beiber result in no less than 10 lashings.

Back on topic. I am reserving all judgment until I have seen the model built in person (can't wait for that GW black box to come into our FLGS). If it looks even semi-decent and WD puts out data sheets so I can use them with either C:SW or C:SM then I will be buying at least 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wolfshadow wrote:Not scientific by anyy means but the Warseer poll had it 47- for 53 against. Hardly 'most'... adn the poll here was pretty badly worded. We;ve also been told by people who have seen the model that the pic posted was not flattering at all. Soooooo..... We shall see when its released. I do like what I've seen, and think the layout follows its form and function very well in a universe where counter grave tech is moderaly commonplace.

In all honesty the poll should have been worded like the one I put up on Capture and Control. I think it provides for more accurate feedback on how people feel about the kit.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

I would like to make a motion that any further use of Justin Beiber result in no less than 10 lashings.

I am reserving all judgment until I have seen the model built in person.

These have got to be the two most intelligent things to come out of this thread so far.

However, I disagree about Justin Beiber... maybe a permanent ban would be appropriate, to protect dakkaites from repeat offenders?

Just a thought!

Padre^.

I've heard its not even the SR, might need to take that with a pinch of salt as what else could it be???.

twas from a fairly good source. But we'll have to see.

I quite like it.

It is cool enough, but the shape of it is really odd. Be good if my Crimson Claws could have one though

Forgot to say, I love it. The 2nd version with out the tail more so. As for stability in flight, I think its balanced with front and rear thrusters. I hope one day they are avalaible to all SM chapters.

As a general reminder: This kind of post is considered spam. Please refrain from posting spam. Thanks! ~Manchu

kronk wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'd actually argue that the Vindicator is the ugliest SM model. Love the rules, but the model could use a little work. As for the Storm Raven, I'm a Space Marine player, and I like it.

Ha! It just goes to show that we all have our preferences. The vindicator is probably my favorite SM vehicle as far as looks go.

One modeler's dream is another modeler's nightmare. I like the Vindicator so much I've painted 9 of them, 3 Linebreakers for 3 different armies. Hopefully, on close inspection the Stormraven will seem better to more people.

To me, the stormraven looks like a poorly done conversion. Poking around the internet, I've found so many others that I would rather fork out ~$60 for...

Poking around the internet, I've found so many others that I would rather fork out ~$60 for...

Though the actual model is not as exciting looking as I had hoped, I have seen few conversions I genuinely like. Most of them look like badly chopped up Valkyries or flying Land Raiders or some odd combination of the two. With a few exceptions, the GW model still looks better to me even if it's not their best work of the past couple years.

I think that the storm raven just needs some more design work put into it. It seems that that would solve a lot of the design problems.

Of course, we probably shouldn't judge the model until we can see it in person, imho.

prime12357 wrote:I think that the storm raven just needs some more design work put into it. It seems that that would solve a lot of the design problems.

Of course, we probably shouldn't judge the model until we can see it in person, imho.

Agreed on all counts - though it is 'done', so it won't be getting any more design work, unless you count your own conversions!

Alpharius wrote:
Agreed on all counts - though it is 'done', so it won't be getting any more design work, unless you count your own conversions!

If it looks like that, it's gonna get converted like there's no tomorrow

prime12357 wrote:

Alpharius wrote:
Agreed on all counts - though it is 'done', so it won't be getting any more design work, unless you count your own conversions!

If it looks like that, it's gonna get converted like there's no tomorrow

If there's no tomorrow, you're going to spend today converting a stormraven?

I'm going to go hit on chicks...

For all you "I have to see it first" people - how much different do you think this thing will actually look in real life? Like if I took a picture of a toaster oven and posted it online, would you guys expect to see it magically transform into an SR-71 or something if you looked at it in real life? And really, if most people think the 50+% of the (likely extremely symmetrical) model we can see looks terrible, what will the rest of it really have to contain for it to suddenly go from complete crap to an awesome model?

MikeMcSomething wrote:blah blah from complete crap something something

I think the "wait and see" crowd most likely aren't as emotionally invested in this as you seem to be. You don't like the Stormraven. We get it. Some people do, and others can't be bothered to give a damn. Why do you care what they think about it?

It's a model for the love of Mike, and it didn't rape anyone's mother.

wolfshadow wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

HeRozZ x wrote:this stormraven is a fail compared to other conversions than this ugly thing!! i am dissapinted but in thetop left corner there is a dread that looks like a furiosos culd it be plastic??

That's the general consensus at the moment, HeRozZ.

Speak for yourself. I like it, and so do many others.

In my defence, wolfshadow, I was responding to the query regarding the plastic Furioso and just forgot to crop the first sentence out.

I'm currently nonplussed regarding the Stormraven.

Monster Rain wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:blah blah from complete crap something something

I think the "wait and see" crowd most likely aren't as emotionally invested in this as you seem to be. You don't like the Stormraven. We get it. Some people do, and others can't be bothered to give a damn. Why do you care what they think about it?

It's a model for the love of Mike, and it didn't rape anyone's mother.

Talk about emotional investment.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of acting like that model will somehow NOT look like it's picture, and you're uhh...I don't know really. From what I gather you think I punched your grandmother.

In my defense, if she looked like this new Stormraven, she was asking for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aren't these things fabulously expensive to develop? They couldn't run it by a few outsiders, and upon seeing those outsiders flee the scene, decide maybe they need to make it look better?

I don't think that's how GW works. They don't care what "outsiders" think, if the studio thinks it's cool then it's good. That's why they gave up on actual outside playtesting and just have all the developers play friendly, casual games with each other with 'Eavy Metal models instead. Makes sense they'd do that with their models, too...which explains how some releases got a green light. *cough*Beastmen, Daemons*cough*

I think the stormraven could have been much better, but I still think people are exaggerating, probably because they were expecting too much. It looks pretty much exactly like what I expected, a Space Marine vehicle, and I think the reason why everyone is so mad is because they were expecting something completely different for no real reason. They didn't want a Space Marine vehicle, they wanted something completely different that doesn't fit the established aesthetic at all, like the gunship from Attack of the Clones that people keep bringing up.

Still like the FW "Assault Ram" as a Storm-thingie better, too bad it would cost a mint to use 2-3 in an army.

now.. i want... to make the chibi marine just to grab two of these and paint chibi hawk on the sides >.<

damn you vitki!

Sidstyler wrote:
I think the stormraven could have been much better, but I still think people are exaggerating, probably because they were expecting too much. It looks pretty much exactly like what I expected, a Space Marine vehicle, and I think the reason why everyone is so mad is because they were expecting something completely different for no real reason. They didn't want a Space Marine vehicle, they wanted something completely different that doesn't fit the established aesthetic at all, like the gunship from Attack of the Clones that people keep bringing up.

It's not that I was expecting something completely different, I was expecting a better looking space marine vehicle

prime12357 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
I think the stormraven could have been much better, but I still think people are exaggerating, probably because they were expecting too much. It looks pretty much exactly like what I expected, a Space Marine vehicle, and I think the reason why everyone is so mad is because they were expecting something completely different for no real reason. They didn't want a Space Marine vehicle, they wanted something completely different that doesn't fit the established aesthetic at all, like the gunship from Attack of the Clones that people keep bringing up.

It's not that I was expecting something completely different, I was expecting a better looking space marine vehicle

i was expecting something that fit the established aesthetic of marine vehicles, which the chibi-hawk doesn't. plenty of fan conversions of valkyries manage that (though not all).

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:blah blah from complete crap something something

I think the "wait and see" crowd most likely aren't as emotionally invested in this as you seem to be. You don't like the Stormraven. We get it. Some people do, and others can't be bothered to give a damn. Why do you care what they think about it?

It's a model for the love of Mike, and it didn't rape anyone's mother.

Talk about emotional investment.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of acting like that model will somehow NOT look like it's picture, and you're uhh...I don't know really. From what I gather you think I punched your grandmother.

In my defense, if she looked like this new Stormraven, she was asking for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aren't these things fabulously expensive to develop? They couldn't run it by a few outsiders, and upon seeing those outsiders flee the scene, decide maybe they need to make it look better?

So yes, you don't like the stormraven model, understood.

So yes, you don't like the stormraven model, understood.
Ya think?

Rhich wrote:So yes, you don't like the stormraven model, understood.
Ya think?

He won't rest until everyone hates it.

Neconilis wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:blah blah from complete crap something something

I think the "wait and see" crowd most likely aren't as emotionally invested in this as you seem to be. You don't like the Stormraven. We get it. Some people do, and others can't be bothered to give a damn. Why do you care what they think about it?

It's a model for the love of Mike, and it didn't rape anyone's mother.

Talk about emotional investment.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of acting like that model will somehow NOT look like it's picture, and you're uhh...I don't know really. From what I gather you think I punched your grandmother.

In my defense, if she looked like this new Stormraven, she was asking for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aren't these things fabulously expensive to develop? They couldn't run it by a few outsiders, and upon seeing those outsiders flee the scene, decide maybe they need to make it look better?

So yes, you don't like the stormraven model, understood.

Except that we've been told by someone who has SEEN it (Stickmonkey) that the pic is the least flattering angle for the model, and that it looks much better than in the pic.
Meh.

I sorta-kinda-like it in the way that I like anything that is function over form.

See the A-10, Mi-24, Apache, Supercobra etc.

I agree with the "function over form" we'll see when it come out.

warboss wrote:i was expecting something that fit the established aesthetic of marine vehicles, which the chibi-hawk doesn't.

And I think it does. Almost perfectly, save for the round, manned turret on top.

Someone help me out here and define what the Marine aesthetic actually is, because it seems like we have two different definitions. Marine armor to me = boxy, ugly, and about as aerodynamic as a 50-pound brick. This thing is boxy, ugly, and doesn't look like it could actually work. It's perfect, it's just like every single other Space Marine vehicle.

But at this point I'm just repeating myself. Repeating myself. Repeating myself. Seems like people's minds are made up, for whatever reason, and for the sake of my sanity I'm just going to ignore this thread until more pics surface.

Sidstyler wrote:
And I think it does. Almost perfectly, save for the round, manned turret on top.

I think that the biggest problem that I have with the design is that funky turret and intake thing.

Sidstyler wrote:Someone help me out here and define what the Marine aesthetic actually is, because it seems like we have two different definitions. Marine armor to me = boxy, ugly, and about as aerodynamic as a 50-pound brick. This thing is boxy, ugly, and doesn't look like it could actually work. It's perfect, it's just like every single other Space Marine vehicle.

Oh come on.

You know this model could have looked like Megan Fox, naked, covered in whiskey and lying on a bed of bacon and the haters would be tooling on it.

MikeMcSomething wrote:
I'm pointing out the absurdity of acting like that model will somehow NOT look like it's picture, and you're uhh...I don't know really.

I've seen lots of pictures of new cars that I thought were ugly until I saw them in person, pictures (especially foreshortened three-quarters views) can mislead as to relative dimensions quite a lot.

This shot of an F-14 makes it appear as if its wildly stubby and half cockpit for example:


And this shot of the XF-85 goblin is equally misleading, since it fools the eye into thinking it isn't as stubby as it actually is:


So yeah, I'm waiting till I see many more pictures, and even then final judgment will be based on its looks in person.

Jack

I think you've just provided the best examples in the entire thread on how a photo angle actually influences how things look, Jack. I still think it looks ugly and I want to see how that tail boom and the wings actually connect, but simply posting a normal picture of an ugly yet functional helicopter and saying the photo of the model looks bad doesn't quite get the point across as accurately as the above shots.

Those are pretty outstanding examples of extreme foreshortening, but you still come away from them with the understanding that you're looking at an enormous F-14 and a stubby-ass Goblin. The people in the photos (and the dreadnoughts and marines for the Stormraven) standing near the vehicles also do wonders for helping a viewer understand the proportions of what they're looking at.

My point was, and is, none of the ''I'll wait till I see it" guys are going to pick up the model, and say something like "A-HA! The tail is actually 2.65 inches long, not 2.84! That makes it look good! I like this model now!" Yet this is essentially what they are claiming could happen.

The distortion in the photo of the miniature is also far less severe of an angle than say, that Goblin, and there are 10 little guys for reference with identically-sized circular bases standing all around it. Anyone who looks at the picture and is familiar with the Space Marine model will have sized the Stormraven up to probably 99% of it's actual proportions. For giggles, someone with a strong enough background in geometry could probably use the distortion in two of the Marine bases to tell you exactly how big the thing is. The F-14 is alot easier, I eyeballed it, factored in that I'm not looking at it completely sideways and guessed that about 11 of that lady would wrap around the side, and she's probably about 5'6", which put my guess of the F-14's length at 60 feet 6 inches, or 96.4% of it's actual length.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Rhich wrote:So yes, you don't like the stormraven model, understood.
Ya think?

He won't rest until everyone hates it.

Reading comprehension is an acquired skill, so I attempt to be understanding when someone is clearly lacking in that department. It simply means you haven't had enough practice!

I could care less about someone's opinion of the model (Combine multiple sculptors, cloak-and-dagger secrecy, and a complete lack of communication with your fanbase until it's too late and you are virtually guaranteed to come up with a few duds from time to time) but I will be more than happy to point out the absurdity of someone who looks at that picture and legitimately thinks it somehow isn't detailed enough for them to form a true idea of what the model looks like.

MikeMcSomething wrote:
Reading comprehension is an acquired skill,

One which is useful, for example, when perusing the forum posting guidelines, especially the bit about politeness to other users.

Relax a little people, it's just toy soldiers. It's not something really important like who gets the World Cup, the distressing lack of bacon butties at work or trying to decide who was Batman's best Robin.

What if the toy soldiers are being carried around in really ugly flying egg beaters?

Flying egg beaters that can deliver your washing machine coffin/cyborg warriors and your jump infantry into combat from space or somewhere thereabouts.

At that point, you just have to decide if the rules are worth using the model for, ugly as it is. I feel the Stormpelican is a bit heavy in the beak, but it can hold a lot of fish.


I'm extremely eager to create a pelican paint job for this model.

I really want to do create a different version of the stormraven. A Huey style, dual top rotor version with vectored engines. I was thinking of even using the drop pod turbines as the basis for it.

This model is RIDICULOUSLY AWESOME! I want to build this right now and completely kit it out. This model is the shiz! I don't understand why everyone thinks it looks so bad. It looks more bad ass than any other kit on the shelf to me. Imagine the optional weapons and magnetizing them so you can swap them out.

I hope other space marine armies can't use these. That would be B.S. Give Blood Angels players something like orbital bombardment or chapter tactics with as many options for a list as the space marine codex and maybe we would hand over the schematics of the Storm Raven to the tech priests of mars, but I doubt it.

Wow. Channel Black Blow Fly much?

Too might've had too much sugar and/or caffeine.

Or he just watched a lot of Beavis and B-head episodes in a row.

Destrado wrote:Too might've had too much sugar and/or caffeine.

Or he just watched a lot of Beavis and B-head episodes in a row.

Yeah, but he does have a bit of a point. The thing is so ugly, I feel compelled to make it look decent.

Jackmojo wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:
I'm pointing out the absurdity of acting like that model will somehow NOT look like it's picture, and you're uhh...I don't know really.

I've seen lots of pictures of new cars that I thought were ugly until I saw them in person, pictures (especially foreshortened three-quarters views) can mislead as to relative dimensions quite a lot.

This shot of an F-14 makes it appear as if its wildly stubby and half cockpit for example:


And this shot of the XF-85 goblin is equally misleading, since it fools the eye into thinking it isn't as stubby as it actually is:


So yeah, I'm waiting till I see many more pictures, and even then final judgment will be based on its looks in person.

Jack

EXTREMELY good point. I really hope you are right and it's just an angle thing. I however am not so optimistic, but I can hope it's just an angle thing.

Perhaps The Stormraven wears it's ugliness like a badge of honor, like the A-10 "Warthog". It could be so ugly it's great looking.

I like how youre thinking Brass Scorpion!

well my verdict-
stormpelican.

I want to see it with a dread attached before i judge. Maybe it will look less front heavy.

I like it. Plus people may say "Oh it's unbalanced" But the back is where the dreadnought goes, which would balance it back out. If it was bulky at the back, then there would be no-where for the dreadnought to go; use common sense people!

yes, but what GW should have done is put a back end on it, following the shape of the hull, but have no back panel, so the dread can still go in the back and it won't look like a pelican or a fish...

Honestly I don't like the model. It's not at all what I was expecting really.

Personally I'm also in the wanting to see more shots before I judge group. One thing though it looks like if you look at the v bottom of the Stormraven to the right of the Sargent but before the tac marine I think I can see an anti-gravity plate that looks like the land speeder one.. wishful thinking? maybe but if it is what I think it is all the "it wouldn't fly" comments no longer apply. although the location of the up thrusters is a bit odd *from that angle* but heck with an anti grav plate who knows?

metal slug anyone??? lol

MrNurgle wrote:I like it. Plus people may say "Oh it's unbalanced" But the back is where the dreadnought goes, which would balance it back out. If it was bulky at the back, then there would be no-where for the dreadnought to go; use common sense people!

Well I was the first person to say ""unbalanced..." but my argument has been that in being unbalanced, even if a dreadnought balances it we shouldn't be required to buy a dreadnought to complete it. That with little work it could have both looked balanced without the dreadnought and be able to carry a dreadnought.

aka_mythos wrote:That with little work it could have both looked balanced without the dreadnought and be able to carry a dreadnought.

With a door, for example. So that your honoured veteran doesn't have to sit outside the vehicle during reentry.

That might be a little hard to pull off, given the size of the dread. Plus, the fluff says it's carried outside...

Right, stormpelican.
But remember it can transport a Dread.

I think the model is really good. I prefer the idea of having troops on the battlefield above anything else so I'll have as few tanks/transports as possible. But if this is a necessary purchase, I won't be disappointed to have to fork out.

It has the glide path of a brick, but like my Grand-daddy use to say, "If you put a big enough engine on it, you can make a barn-door fly."

Well the engine has to be connected to a propulsion system otherwise you've just duck taped a engine to a door and everyone will lol at you.

At this point, I'm actually starting to think this model isn't so bad... I'm actually starting to ... like it?!?

Well, it will still need a few changes, but not as many as I feared at first!

Well the engine has to be connected to a propulsion system

While that makes it look more convincing, in Warhammer style always wins over substance. Ever notice how the exhausts for the Land Speeder have compressor blades showing in them? In a real jet engine those are toward the front and the exhaust area looks "empty", but I guess the designers at GW thought it looked better with some detail in it so there you go. The Drop Pod has the same issues. Other models have these kinds of "problems" too. It's 40K and it's what everyone's come to expect at this point. If people want accurate, historical models then Warhammer is the wrong model range to be collecting. When I want to see cool real aircraft, I go to an airshow or the Air & Space Museum. My 40K models provide something else in the way of entertainment entirely.

BrassScorpion wrote:

Well the engine has to be connected to a propulsion system

While that makes it look more convincing, in Warhammer style always wins over substance. Ever notice how the exhausts for the Land Speeder have compressor blades showing in them? In a real jet engine those are toward the front and the exhaust area looks "empty", but I guess the designers at GW thought it looked better with some detail in it so there you go. The Drop Pod has the same issues. Other models have these kinds of "problems" too. It's 40K and it's what everyone's come to expect at this point. If people want accurate, historical models then Warhammer is the wrong model range to be collecting. When I want to see cool real aircraft, I go to an airshow or the Air & Space Museum. My 40K models provide something else in the way of entertainment entirely.

Here here.....

BrassScorpion wrote:

Well the engine has to be connected to a propulsion system

While that makes it look more convincing, in Warhammer style always wins over substance. Ever notice how the exhausts for the Land Speeder have compressor blades showing in them? In a real jet engine those are toward the front and the exhaust area looks "empty", but I guess the designers at GW thought it looked better with some detail in it so there you go. The Drop Pod has the same issues. Other models have these kinds of "problems" too. It's 40K and it's what everyone's come to expect at this point. If people want accurate, historical models then Warhammer is the wrong model range to be collecting. When I want to see cool real aircraft, I go to an airshow or the Air & Space Museum. My 40K models provide something else in the way of entertainment entirely.

That's pretty much all true, but I think many folks (certainly including myself) see the Stormraven as utterly failing in "Warhammer style" (as well, obviously, in function). Assuming I look for a Stormraven for my own Blood Angels, I'll definitely be going with a scratch-build based on one any of the home-rolled designs out there. IMHO, just comparing GW's official model (at least in the one picture we've seen so far) with what's out there already on the hobbyist side of the house shows how completely GW missed the mark on both...

A lot of GW's unrealistic models "work" for me since they fit in GW's design ethos and make you say (assuming you've bought into their vision of the grim darkness of the far future), "Hey, that's cool...". The Leman Russ has a stupidly unworkable suspension system, but it pulls off the "WWI-meets-SciFi" look fairly well. It's, by my admittedly loose definition, "cool". I don't need realism in my 40k figures (although it's nice when they can at least tip their hat in that direction from time to time), but I -again within GW design ethos- do need "cool".

Bottom line, GW's Stormraven doesn't make me say, "Wow... That's cool".

Valete,

JohnS

Alpharius wrote:At this point, I'm actually starting to think this model isn't so bad... I'm actually starting to ... like it?!?

Well, it will still need a few changes, but not as many as I feared at first!

It has potential, and getting it will certainly make kit bashing easier than trying to marry up completely different sets. On its own from what I've seen of it, its the worst assembled thing to date in the Astartes armoury, no doubt each forgeworld with access to this STC will be producing its own variation.

Actually I think it's only the BA and potentially the GK which have access to it, at least at the moment anyway. It only appears in the BA codex ATM and in the fluff points out that GK have been known to use it and so there is a good possibility that they will get it also. As for the rest of the SM chapters, unless there is some serious retconning I don't see them getting it at all.

Although it would be interesting to see what they get for this 'flyers' expansion due in the summer.

All signs point towards the SR being made available to ALL SM Chapters on or shortly after its release.

GW would be foolish indeed to NOT do this, via WD or some other format...

Indeed they would be foolish not too, but as they would have had an idea that they would have been releasing a Storm Raven for the BA a long time ago you would have thought they would have either put it in the SM codex or at least mentioned it to leave the door open.

The Decapitator wrote:Indeed they would be foolish not too, but as they would have had an idea that they would have been releasing a Storm Raven for the BA a long time ago you would have thought they would have either put it in the SM codex or at least mentioned it to leave the door open.

The SM codex is two+ years old. And it was being written for at least a year prior to that. So they might have conceived the Storm Raven in that gap, after seeing how well the Valk did.

Moving on, we have a precedent with things appearing in WD being considered Codex material: the night spinner.

Valhallan42nd wrote:

The Decapitator wrote:Indeed they would be foolish not too, but as they would have had an idea that they would have been releasing a Storm Raven for the BA a long time ago you would have thought they would have either put it in the SM codex or at least mentioned it to leave the door open.

The SM codex is two+ years old. And it was being written for at least a year prior to that. So they might have conceived the Storm Raven in that gap, after seeing how well the Valk did.

Moving on, we have a precedent with things appearing in WD being considered Codex material: the night spinner.

Indeed and the BA codex is 8 months old and would have been written a year previous, and it doesn't strike me that 2 weeks after the SM codex release someone in GW would have said "oh crumbs, we could have put a Stormraven in it!".

I think it was a deliberate omission, which of course is just my opinion.

I think it was a deliberate omission, which of course is just my opinion.

Like the fun and excitement being omitted from the Dark Angels Codex. Sorry, once in a while I can't resist one "of those" kinds of posts.

Perhaps it will get into the generic codex in the next edition, after all that's what happened with the LRC. It was a BT vehicle then everyone got it.

I don't see them producing a large model that is chapter specific. They can get away with the Baal Predator because they know the parts on it will be used by people who play other chapters, it is also still mostly the standard rhino model.

I love the Chibi-hawk, although it does fill me with "RAEG!!!" that it has a ramp on the front instead of a proper Angry Launcher and somebody painted it red, not yellow.

And flight is achieved with correct application of the thrust:weight ratio, not aerodynamics or aesthetic values. Do that math right and anything will fly

Two rumours by stickmonkey over at Warseer:

On a SM note, I do hear the Stormraven should be making its official debut "very soon." Not sure if its Advanced order or next White Dwarf, but it should have some better official shots soon...if not already, I havent really been watching the gw site....
(...)
On the flyer front. Theres a rumor of a thunderbolt fighter in design for plastic...from the sound its very early, and if other rumors are true of a "flyer" WD supplemental release, it would not make that cut.

As always, my rumors are typically far off and subject to change. but so far ive got a better hit to miss ratio...hopefully GK wont ruin my record...

Maybe they are eager to present better pics of the Stormraven

I'm sure lol

Kandle wrote: I love the Chibi-hawk, although it does fill me with "RAEG!!!" that it has a ramp on the front instead of a proper Angry Launcher and somebody painted it red, not yellow.

And flight is achieved with correct application of the thrust:weight ratio, not aerodynamics or aesthetic values. Do that math right and anything will fly

I agree. It is no where near angry enough. Where in the frack do I put the extra three flamers?

I think that whomever said that it could be included in the fliers suppliment as a choice for all space marines has it right.

75% that and 24.5% "WD article." The remaining 0.5% is "Not until the next codex."

I think I may have found another photograph of the GW chibihawk on the 4 chan image board:

Direct link to photograph

Source thread

old news bro. It originated on THIS forum The thread's been up all day!

>_< I guess this is what I get for working all day.

Why you gotta link to 4chan dawg?

For soem unknown reasone ven to me i really liket his little Stormraven, il have to pick a few up..... in a few years most likely

It's kind of a slightly longish story which basically involved finding one thing whilst another was being sought.

Edit:

...And no, it wasn't anything dirty.

Zuul wrote:It's kind of a slightly longish story which basically involved finding one thing whilst another was being sought.

Edit:

...And no, it wasn't anything dirty.

Dammit lol, you ruined a classic moment that was sure to happen i hope your happy

MajorTom11 wrote:Figured better post this in case they try to yank it -



Gotta say, I am not sure if it is a kit-bash or not. A good one mind you, but certain parts still look all too familiar. Pretty cool, but not as cool as it could have been if it is the real deal. It look a hell of a lot like the conversions done by hobbyists, almost like they copied the conversions for the design lol.

1 guess as to whats next in the pipeline..off the back of this kit........ plastic thunderhawk!!!!!

1 guess as to whats next in the pipeline..off the back of this kit........ plastic thunderhawk!!!!!

We all wish, but what's more likely are the smaller flier models rumored for this coming summer.

According to the inside back page teaser advert in the newest White Dwarf, the new Blood Angels models will be released on January 29.

BrassScorpion wrote:According to the inside back page teaser advert in the newest White Dwarf, the new Blood Angels models will be released on January 29.

Do you have a link to the exact test? or does it specifically mention January 29th? (Any hint on what models or just stormraven and plastic furioso?)

WD last page states something of "next month Blood Angels".
Where did I miss the 29th january bit?

I am sure there are BA related events from 24-28 january in their stores ( to prepare for the february release kits ).

I've had a friend point out to me that the teaser featuring Blood Angels in the back cover is more about White Dwarf being released and featuring Blood Angels on Jan. 29 than the model release, so I guess I'll have to amend my news there. I guess it's a case of seeing what was expected rather than the internal details. Models will therefore probably be released the following Saturday since the first Saturday of the month is the norm for big new releases for the past year or more, Skaven this month being the exception.

No, there is no hint regarding exactly what models will be released in February, but that's not really much in doubt at this point, is it?