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.

I keep seeing the same argument used on the akyhammer that makes no sense. People cite the same reasons.

1. 60" range, too bad that means you are ignoring TL assault cannon. Also as a tau player I have seen how often my railguns get to use max range, not often.

2. Three shots at possible bs 5, if your going to use the hover shot it means that the target has to die and nothing else can shoot back since you give up the defensive bonus of moving.

3. Aiming at av10/11, if this is the only use where you weapon is the best choice you are wasting the rest of the vehicle.

I am not saying it is a bad weapon, it just isn't as flexible or effective as the other choice at the same points cost.

The reasons above are exactly why I think piggybacking it into outflank via the Escort rule and leaving it with the basic setup is the best way to go. It is the most accurate version as all weapons are twin-linked, it is the cheapest variant, and it makes use of everything you are paying points for.

<redacted -- do NOT link scans of rules on Dakka. --Janthkin>

gimmicky, not useless but not great compared to other FA slots.
6th ed will make it better. Better enough to justify the costs, both in game and IRL? I'm going to wait for new 'dex before i pick this up if at all.

Oh and for my two cents on the Stormtalo:

I like the model, it looks chunky enough to look like the offspring of a Stormbird, as well as fitting in with the Stormraven and Stormeagle craft. but also, imo it is suitably Pre-heresy enough to be used in my Pre-heresy Iron Warriors army

the rules aren't too bad, and sure they will probably seem better once 6th ed is released along with an updated SM codex too. Sure its not for competitive lists, but who cares, its a game to be enjoyed, play it how ever you want, I certainly do.

For me it gets a big

I have been running White Scars as of late and I find this new vehicle interesting. I have a bigger concern for the FA slot (already filled by 3 squads of 2 TML Speeders) than the 130-155 point range.

Now, given cost, if I were to take a TML on the stormtalon vs a land speeder, I find they are near identical. A speeder with a TML and Assault cannon is 130 points. Stormtalon is 155, higher AV, and a few other gimmicks. The only problem is I never assault cannons on my speeders as I prefer to keep them in the 36"to 48" range (i.e. out of harm' way). So, the TL assault cannon seems to fit more of a "just in case someone gets too close" role than a definite need.

My plan is to take the skyhammer missile system, possibly the TL Lascannon. As for the Typhoons, what would be the point? As previously stated, speeders already fill that need better, cheaper, etc. I can see taking the stormtalon for one of two reasons: increased range (skyhammer) or increased damage (lascannon). Depending on the point level, I would either just change my speeder loadout from 3 squadrons of 2, to 2 squadrons of 3 or just replace one squadron.

I also don't run Khan. I run a normal captain on a bike, so outflanking it is a moot point. I see the escort rule being more of a "hey, that's handy" but not game breaking for me as I don't plan on running this as an in your face unit. It should be sitting in the backfield dropping shots in from far, far away.

Green is Best! wrote:I have been running White Scars as of late and I find this new vehicle interesting. I have a bigger concern for the FA slot (already filled by 3 squads of 2 TML Speeders) than the 130-155 point range.

Now, given cost, if I were to take a TML on the stormtalon vs a land speeder, I find they are near identical. A speeder with a TML and Assault cannon is 130 points. Stormtalon is 155, higher AV, and a few other gimmicks. The only problem is I never assault cannons on my speeders as I prefer to keep them in the 36"to 48" range (i.e. out of harm' way). So, the TL assault cannon seems to fit more of a "just in case someone gets too close" role than a definite need.

My plan is to take the skyhammer missile system, possibly the TL Lascannon. As for the Typhoons, what would be the point? As previously stated, speeders already fill that need better, cheaper, etc. I can see taking the stormtalon for one of two reasons: increased range (skyhammer) or increased damage (lascannon). Depending on the point level, I would either just change my speeder loadout from 3 squadrons of 2, to 2 squadrons of 3 or just replace one squadron.

I also don't run Khan. I run a normal captain on a bike, so outflanking it is a moot point. I see the escort rule being more of a "hey, that's handy" but not game breaking for me as I don't plan on running this as an in your face unit. It should be sitting in the backfield dropping shots in from far, far away.

Sounds like a good plan, and that the Stormtalon fits that kind of army perfectly. It seems aimed at White Scars, Raven Guard and and fast moving SM variant lists. I'll be taking one as part of my Pre-Heresy IW's (I use the SM codex) for giggles, as it just seems the perfect little craft over stormravens or stormeagles. I'd have a stormbird, but considering they don't make it (yet) I'll have to settle on its little baby

Green is Best! wrote:I also don't run Khan. I run a normal captain on a bike, so outflanking it is a moot point. I see the escort rule being more of a "hey, that's handy" but not game breaking for me as I don't plan on running this as an in your face unit. It should be sitting in the backfield dropping shots in from far, far away.

HIstorically I've not run Khan with my bike army in the past. The talon makes me reconsider this.
I stopped reserving my bikes when I shifted to using more fire support with my army. This was to cover a gap I found with the lack of long range anti-transport.
The talon allows for me to outflank my anti-transport, which means that outflanking could be a decent option again.

Reserving gives a few key advantages that I like in a bike army.
* Less turns to be shot means that your less likely to die.
* You get an extra round of shooting if you go second. Since you come in on the bottom of 2, in a 6 turn game, you give your opponent 4 turns of shooting while you get 5.
* You have an advantage on objective grabbing if you go second.
* Reserving can bone a lot of armies, like drop pod armies, DoA armies, or demons.
This is why I like the talon on paper. It allows me to shift back to a reserve-based army and focus on my outflanking.

You bring up some good points. I may have to consider giving Khan a go. And, its not so much that I am against outflanking, it is just that I am very much in favor of combat tactics. Falling back out of assault range is very handy.

But, if I were to outflank with a stormtalon, I am thinking the TL Lascannon would be the way to go.

Only way to find out is to try it out on the battlefield. I am picking mine up on Saturday....

dont know if it has been suggested, but at first glance it appears as if a squad of 3 typhoon/melta speeders and a talon outflanking would be very useful...i may be wrong, but im going to run them that way...
on a side note, does anyone else thing the "hover srike" rule is kind of pointless with half of the options for this unit being twin linked? only sense it would make is if twin linked weapons reroll hit&wound/pen rolls in 6th

Any rule saying you have to place it on base it comes with. I question this because most skimmers hover close to the ground granting an easier cover save. Ie tau eldar,de, etc. Would putting it on a base an inch or two off the table cause an uproar. Considering one for my salamanders.

there's no rules i know which states a vehicle must be based. and it is a vehicle, infantry and so on do however need to be based.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:there's no rules i know which states a vehicle must be based. and it is a vehicle, infantry and so on do however need to be based.

The rules simply require that models be based on the bases with which they come. As the Stormtalon will likely come with the same base as the Stormraven/Valkyrie/etc., the rules require that you mount it on the base.

Janthkin wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:there's no rules i know which states a vehicle must be based. and it is a vehicle, infantry and so on do however need to be based.

The rules simply require that models be based on the bases with which they come. As the Stormtalon will likely come with the same base as the Stormraven/Valkyrie/etc., the rules require that you mount it on the base.

I was only aware that models should be based appropriately, and considering both the stormraven and stormtalon have landing gear they don't need to be mounted on any form of base and/or their flying stand.

The basic rule book specifically says that models must be based on the bases the model comes with.

Of course, I have some older terminators that came with 25mm bases back in the day...

kronk wrote:The basic rule book specifically says that models must be based on the bases the model comes with.

Of course, I have some older terminators that came with 25mm bases back in the day...

Well I guess that means you don't need to mount it on the flying stand then

yeah same about the termies, that made life so much easier lols

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:there's no rules i know which states a vehicle must be based. and it is a vehicle, infantry and so on do however need to be based.

The rules simply require that models be based on the bases with which they come. As the Stormtalon will likely come with the same base as the Stormraven/Valkyrie/etc., the rules require that you mount it on the base.

I was only aware that models should be based appropriately, and considering both the stormraven and stormtalon have landing gear they don't need to be mounted on any form of base and/or their flying stand.

It is a rule that models need to be on their bases if they are supplied with one. Page 3.

Well I hope they omit that in 6th ed

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Well I hope they omit that in 6th ed

I doubt they will. It'd basicly be allowing people to MFA.

hmmmm true, I meant omit it for vehicles, as I just find it odd that certain ones now have to have their bases, whilst ones that don't have bases remain the same.

Well it is a skimmer, it kinda has to have a base. Regular vehicles don't need bases.

Given the role of these vehicles as gunboats it makes sense for them to be higher up.


Of course it would be nice if GW made some sort of tiered base where they could be at different heights. Like you skimmer could choose a height to hover at at the end of its movement phase but its stuck at that height for the turn.

Thats why I cut the flying stems, as I find the hight of them too big as to never give them suitable cover.

Maybe thats the point.

6th edition will most likely change them to the Flyer rules for Appocalypse, which will be better then getting cover saves.

if thats the point it makes some skimmers amazingly vulnerable, and takes modelling potential of of your hands... which to me anyways defeats half the point of this hobby. thats probably true for 6th ed, but I guess we'll wait and see.

I think all of the vehicles on the LOB would look very bad if they were closer to the ground. They don't look right if they arn't high above the battlefield. The Stormtalon doesn't look right at any height but thats not the point

lmfao, I see what you mean, but tbh imo I think it depends on the flier really. as with the Razorwing-jetfighter, I like the idea of it jinking close to the ground, as thats what their pilots do in the death arenas of comorragh. with the Stormtalon, its a close support unit, and in my eyes it should be able to be high or low in profile. the stormraven should be high due to its nature as a transport/gunship. the same goes for the Valkyrie/Vendetta too. The Necron Scythes I'm unsure of tbh. I guess any position is good for them

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Thats why I cut the flying stems, as I find the hight of them too big as to never give them suitable cover.

This is the textbook definition of Modelling For Advantage. It is disallowed for a good reason.

Erm considering no one I have faced in a tourney has ever complained as well as emailing GW to ask about it as a rules queary, I don't see how...

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Erm considering no one I have faced in a tourney has ever complained as well as emailing GW to ask about it as a rules queary, I don't see how...

They probably didn't notice if your modification was discreet. This doesn't change the fact that, as stated before, you have modeled for advantage per the definition present in the 40k rulebook. Getting away with something does not absolve the guilty of the infraction.

And before you ask why it is wrong to do this, I'm going to pre-emptively quote one of your other posts.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Thats why I cut the flying stems, as I find the hight of them too big as to never give them suitable cover.

Anyways, back on topic, I will be picking up my Stormtalon tomorrow and trying it out with my previously stated tactic of outflanking it via Shrike and some Assault Marines. I'm sacrificing some weapon upgrades and a Thunderfire Cannon to fit the bird in my list but the added firepower in my enemy's backfield may well be worth it. I'll be sure to post my experiences.

Well, I'm planning to buy one Stormtalon on Saturday. I guess one is nothing, two are mean and three are overkill.