Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BrassScorpion wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Miss Dee wrote:Its still a flying brick.....

Could we at leat go five minutes without an oh so clever "flying brick" quip or similar? We get it: it's boxy.

And while we're at it, we could also do without the other stupid trendy nickname that has the same number of syllables and characters to type out as just calling it by it's actual release name, Stormraven. It's amazing what passes for "cool" sometimes in some gamer circles. Double and unsubscribe from this path to nowhere.

OK, henceforth, I go with "shortbus" as the nickname

JohnHwangDD wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Miss Dee wrote:Its still a flying brick.....

Could we at leat go five minutes without an oh so clever "flying brick" quip or similar? We get it: it's boxy.

And while we're at it, we could also do without the other stupid trendy nickname that has the same number of syllables and characters to type out as just calling it by it's actual release name, Stormraven. It's amazing what passes for "cool" sometimes in some gamer circles. Double and unsubscribe from this path to nowhere.

OK, henceforth, I go with "shortbus" as the nickname

No. Just no.

I knew a local band that used that name for a while.

BrassScorpion wrote:

I'm getting the feeling that I will be required to weigh down the forward section a bit lest it tips backwards.

The model can be assembled with the landing gear extended or retracted. With the gear down it sits fine on a flat surface without the flying stand. With the gear retracted it will tip backwards if you set it down without the flying stand, but what pilot lands their aircraft with the gear retracted? ... .

It was a common problem in the late 1930s and early 40s, since many pilots were transitioning to retractable carriage planes for the first time, and the on-board pilot assistance was almost non-existent.

To be honest, seeing one at the local store has completely changed my mind, I now like the Stormraven in the flesh but I dislike the new Librarian Dread. Preferring my own with the FW GK NFW.

can you fit a leman russ turret orpredator turrent on it and would it look good? I think it would be more thunderhawk esque

I like the 2 magnits on the top of the BA Dreadnaught.

OK now I'm actually excited about getting mine!

Thanks JHall, I am totally doing this, and I don't even care about losing the Assault cannons firing arch!

Also who ever mentioned earlier about the rappelling marines? Genius! Robbing that idea too!

Plus the good thing about getting rid of the servitor is now the BS will be correct!

Saw it live in the shop today, it looks good. Needs some converting, but plenty of potential!

I was thinking a long time ago about scouts repelling out of a Valk...

The Storm Raven sure as hell looked significantly better when I held it in my hand yesterday. The pictures on the internet don't do it justice.

I don't minds the turret and vent either, but I hope that when I get one and build it for the upcoming Grey Knights, that GW doesn't suddenly change the weapons options...

Looking good.

Thanks for the comments guys. I started painting it last night and I hope to have it done by the end of the week.

For whoever asked, the doors are FW Rhino doors.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Miss Dee wrote:Its still a flying brick.....

Could we at leat go five minutes without an oh so clever "flying brick" quip or similar? We get it: it's boxy.

And while we're at it, we could also do without the other stupid trendy nickname that has the same number of syllables and characters to type out as just calling it by it's actual release name, Stormraven. It's amazing what passes for "cool" sometimes in some gamer circles. Double and unsubscribe from this path to nowhere.

OK, henceforth, I go with "shortbus" as the nickname

Go with what you know I guess...

How did you get your hands on one of them this early?

We need a new Dakka Challenge for February. Build and convert a Stormraven in such a way that it doesn't look slowed. Winner is the conversion that makes the model look the best. Final model pics must include front oblique and rear oblique in addition to side, top, and bottom shots.

The FLGS has one.

I'm gonna get so flamed for this, but I can't help it.

That might very well be the ugliest vehicle model GW has ever created. The proportions are wonky. Its as aerodynamic as a lumpy sack of bricks. It reminds me of a hydroencephalic tadpoal.

Yes, I understand that the design is in keeping with the other blocky, slab-sided Imperial vehicles. Unfortunately, the Stormraven seems to take everything that was visually unappealing about every other Imperial vehicle and combined it on a single model.

Feel free, flame away. I apologize for not seeing the awesome that is the Stormraven.

I think I just figured out the inspiration for this pile. Anyone ever see that awful movie, Battlefield Earth? Remeber the ship that Travolta's character flew around in?

Breotan wrote:We need a new Dakka Challenge for February. Build and convert a Stormraven in such a way that it doesn't look slowed. Winner is the conversion that makes the model look the best. Final model pics must include front oblique and rear oblique in addition to side, top, and bottom shots.

I'll do one. definitely not gonna win, but it sure as hell will look funny.

Saldiven wrote:The FLGS has one.

I'm gonna get so flamed for this, but I can't help it.

That might very well be the ugliest vehicle model GW has ever created. The proportions are wonky. Its as aerodynamic as a lumpy sack of bricks. It reminds me of a hydroencephalic tadpoal.

Yes, I understand that the design is in keeping with the other blocky, slab-sided Imperial vehicles. Unfortunately, the Stormraven seems to take everything that was visually unappealing about every other Imperial vehicle and combined it on a single model.

Feel free, flame away. I apologize for not seeing the awesome that is the Stormraven.

I agree, though not as strongly. look at 90% of the RT tanks.
All it needs are a razorback turret and no vent and it'll look half decent.

I'm fine with the design. It's pretty much what I was expecting. Very close to what I had designed for a conversion I wanted to make, but figured GW would have the kit before too long.

I don't understand everyone's problem with the design. It's a smaller Thunderhawk. It's boxy. That's the Imperial design philosophy, and always has been. I would be very curious to see a thread containing designs other folks had in their minds.

It wasn't a simple task, designing this. It had to have a front access ramp and a space for a dread. It's naturally going to be front heavy. It can't be all that aerodynamic. Repulsor and gravity manipulation technologies make aerodynamics not as necessary.

I'm not whoo-hoo-ga-ga over the design and think that several of the conversions seen here are an improvement to the basic design, but overall I think it's fine and I suspect I'll like it more in person.

Well aerodynamics is still important. Though you may be able to float around, there is still such thing as air resistance. An aerodynamic shape would make this thing fly a lot faster, and furthermore missiles do less damage, similar to roman shields. The may just deflect off. Try stabbing a citadel paint pot (on it's side) with a metal skewer. Now try stabbing it with the pot standing up. Which was easier?

shrike wrote:Well aerodynamics is still important. Though you may be able to float around, there is still such thing as air resistance. An aerodynamic shape would make this thing fly a lot faster, and furthermore missiles do less damage, similar to roman shields. The may just deflect off. Try stabbing a citadel paint pot (on it's side) with a metal skewer. Now try stabbing it with the pot standing up. Which was easier?

You don't want a gunship to be "flying faster". Flying faster means less time on station delivering its ordnance.

Why do you think they used the C-130 Hercules and the C-47 Skytrain to make gunships rather than jets?
Or why the AH-64 emphasized armor and weaponry over sheer speed?

So maybe there is a sci-fi force field over the nose that creates an aerodynamic bubble around the ship?

I don't see that as a thing that would have to be explicitly spelled out for us, for it to exist.

But it would help me suspend my disbelief in its ability to fly. Or hover

It's still meant to "swiftly" deploy infrantry and a dread to the battle, and being a "fast" skimmer and all that...

Fast compared to ground vehicles does not mean it is not slow compared to other aircraft.

It would still benefit more being faster. It will be able to divert more power to weapons, faster insertion and be more manoeuvrable. (sp?)

shrike wrote:It would still benefit more being faster. It will be able to divert more power to weapons, faster insertion and be more maneuverable.

It doesn't need to "divert more power to weapons". Just like real weapons, they do have self-contained power sources that function separately.

And it also doesn't need "faster insertion" capabilities(really. it operates in what amounts to powered freefall from low orbit, it doesn't get much faster than that ) or maneuverability. It's not meant to jink incoming fire, it takes it head on with the armor it's got.

Diverting power to weapons is a Star Trek thing that just sounds cool.

I highly doubt many real weapons are developed with the capability to do that.

BrookM wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Miss Dee wrote:Its still a flying brick.....

Could we at leat go five minutes without an oh so clever "flying brick" quip or similar? We get it: it's boxy.

And while we're at it, we could also do without the other stupid trendy nickname that has the same number of syllables and characters to type out as just calling it by it's actual release name, Stormraven. It's amazing what passes for "cool" sometimes in some gamer circles. Double and unsubscribe from this path to nowhere.

OK, henceforth, I go with "shortbus" as the nickname

No. Just no.

What about FLYING METAL BOXES!!!!

skrulnik wrote:Diverting power to weapons is a Star Trek thing that just sounds cool.

I highly doubt many real weapons are developed with the capability to do that.

"She Canna take it Captain."