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.

Ledabot wrote:

Lysenis wrote:

insaniak wrote:You know what else is fun? Taking the tactics discussion to the tactics forum

I said that last page but they did not listen. I was ignored, not a good thing to do.

Sadly I am with Luna. . . I would LOVE to run 2 Talons in an V SM army. . . sad thing is, I HATED that book. . .

Its such a pitty that that book's fluff was so BAD. Thanks Ward!

That is what turned me off the most from the book. I got into this whole hobby right after boot camp where I bought the 4th ed Marine Codex and the Ultramarine Omnibus. I did not buy my first models for about a year later now mind you I got out of Boot in July of 2008.

http://www.thehogsofwar.com/2011/04/leaked-sisters-of-battle-flyer.html

I am sorely tempted to get a Doomscythe.....

AethyrKnight wrote:*Picture Omitted*

http://www.thehogsofwar.com/2011/04/leaked-sisters-of-battle-flyer.html

Easily the second worst April Fools joke I've ever seen.

The Dark Angels rock from this year was the worst.

AethyrKnight wrote:

http://www.thehogsofwar.com/2011/04/leaked-sisters-of-battle-flyer.html

You'd have to be blind not to see the kit bashing going on there.

Aaaaaaaaand the site says it is a joke, tee-hee-hee.

Hahaha, the DA rock: hadn't seen that before. Kit-bashed maybe, but still a cool looking flyer.

Ehsteve wrote:It doesn't matter what slot the stormtalon is in if it is attempting to do the exact same job! If something can do the same thing for cheaper, why not go with that option?

In 5th edition rules, you have a point. The stormtalon has a very niche' role. I expect that in 6th edition flyers will get a cover save, or some other advantage that makes them hard to hit -- hence why the stormtalon has a rule that converts it from a flyer to a skimmer for a turn.

GW is pushing flyers. They want them in the game because its more models to sell, and lets face it -- a table filled with infantry, tanks, and planes looks bloody cool. If GW wants to catch more attention than warmachine they need to keep pushing the envelope. As such, I fully expect that there will be rules in the 6th edition book that make flyers very advantageous to have.

AethyrKnight wrote:

Frak, I wish there was a walk-around of that thing - it's brilliant! That is the kind of flying monstrosity I expect from the Imperium of Man.

*ahem*

Stormtalon, I am disappoint... but it is looking less horrid each time I view it.

That is all....

arkhamjack wrote:So can someone that's read the fluff in White Dwarf tell me if the Stormtalon is pre- or post- Heresy?

Does it matter? GW ignores, omits and retcons fluff restrictions as marketing demands...

uuh, some of us PH army owners would like to know, really
I don't think it's explicitly mentioned, sadly.

Scott wrote:

AethyrKnight wrote:

Frak, I wish there was a walk-around of that thing - it's brilliant! That is the kind of flying monstrosity I expect from the Imperium of Man.

*ahem*

Stormtalon, I am disappoint... but it is looking less horrid each time I view it.

That is all....

This is dramatically better than the GW marine flyers. It's got the profile of something that could fly and it's proportions as a transport craft actually make sense.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Scott wrote:

AethyrKnight wrote:

Frak, I wish there was a walk-around of that thing - it's brilliant! That is the kind of flying monstrosity I expect from the Imperium of Man.

*ahem*

Stormtalon, I am disappoint... but it is looking less horrid each time I view it.

That is all....

I am sorry but if anything this looks like it would be a cargo transport that ferries cows. I hate the look of this thing. Rule wise I would have to move what 13" just to get it ON the table? Horrid. LOS is gak as well.

This is dramatically better than the GW marine flyers. It's got the profile of something that could fly and it's proportions as a transport craft actually make sense.

I wouldn't say that it has the profile of something that can fly... unless it was flying under the power of thrust alone and not anything particularly aerodynamic-lift related.

There is a distinct lack of lateral / yaw stability in the design because it lacks a vertical fin...

But I guess it has the same design qualities of many of the other GW fliers.

Inso wrote:There is a distinct lack of lateral / yaw stability in the design because it lacks a vertical fin...

Whilst it may lack lateral / yaw stability, it does not lack vertical fins. There are 2 on each of the forward booms, meaning there are 2 dorsal vertical fins and 2 ventral vertical fins.
OK, even combined, they're not that large considering the bulk of the rest of it, but they are there!

Conrad Turner wrote:

Inso wrote:There is a distinct lack of lateral / yaw stability in the design because it lacks a vertical fin...

Whilst it may lack lateral / yaw stability, it does not lack vertical fins. There are 2 on each of the forward booms, meaning there are 2 dorsal vertical fins and 2 ventral vertical fins.
OK, even combined, they're not that large considering the bulk of the rest of it, but they are there!

For a bulk to turn ration this thing would do a 180 like a semitruck. I would only use this for bombing runs at night, and even then I dont think I would make it home in 1 piece. 4 engines takes up a TON of fuel now if they were prop I would say diffrently.

Back to the turn radius of this thing, a EC2 Hawkeye could EASILY fly 3+ circles around this thing before it finished turn 1.

Kroothawk wrote:

cgage00 wrote:You were right. Stickmonkey still WRONG!!! Calling him a lair no you need to hav half a mind to be a lair. For those that don't remember his "summer of flyers". Here it is

stickmonkey wrote:SM here, I debated posting anything, but some others have persuaded me. I have just a few things for the rumored summer of fliers I first mentioned here.

Still rumored as July wd rule set
Apoc style rules, strafing/bombing runs, rapid insertion/extraction, special missions, dogfighting?
Thunder hawk is NOT likely
Codex based releases...
Dark eldar raven
Eldar night wing?
Ig hydra
Nid harpy
Non codex releases...
Ig thunderbolt
Csm hell blade
Tau remora
No necron release?
Ork fighta/bomma
No SM release?

Suspected non codex releases will only be rules...models already FW...

Necrons may get something with their codex.

Raven/night wing likely to be combined kit.

So that's pretty limited, 3 kits and wd rules. But it sounds like it's in the typical wheelhouse.

Probably disappointing news to many, but in light of some of the other speculation running I decided to put some info out.

So out of the 15 things in that rumor 3 happened

Ork fighter/bommer
No thunder hawk
Codex based release.
Oh and they released skimmers......

But yes Harry you were right and waited till there was real info to post.

Your reasoning is as flawed as your spelling. Let's see:
WD rule set? Check!
Strafing/bombing runs? Check!
Special missions? Check!
Thunder hawk is NOT likely? Check!
Dark eldar raven? Check!
Eldar night wing? Not yet, expected next year.
Nid harpy? Not yet, expected this year.
Necron release? Check!
Ork fighta/bomma? Check!
SM release? Check!
3 kits and wd rules? Check!
Other flyer rules? Not yet, expected for July.

Oh, and he was the first to be spot on with the Necron release date. And yes, predicting things 2-3 years in advance can be difficult, but someone has to do the job

WD rule set? Check! For two skimmers....
Strafing/bombing runs? Check! Not like he said. One unit has strafing and one has bombing... is that really what he was saying....no
Special missions? Check! Not really
Thunder hawk is NOT likely? Check! You can repeat rad huh
Dark eldar raven? Check! Released with summer of flyers huh?
Eldar night wing? Not yet, expected next year. Doubt it
Nid harpy? Not yet, expected this year. Again doubt it
Necron release? Check! He said No necron release
Ork fighta/bomma? Check! Your repeat skills are high huh?
SM release? Check! He said no sm release...
3 kits and wd rules? Check! Well if you want to get technical they only released rules for two "skimmers"
Other flyer rules? Not yet, expected for July. Again that might be so If they put apoc rules in the main rule book. I reserve all judgement on 6th edition till it out.

So anyways there was no flyer rules at all. They are all skimmers. You want to waste your life listening to stickmonkey go ahead. I'd rather him shut up an the real rumor people like Harry and a few select others talk.

Oh and I sorry masta me spelling be bad your reading skill lack anything to brag about. So I'll end it with that he was wrong. Completely wrong. I still have yet to see rules for flyers or flyer models. I have seen skimmers. I have seen three kits of skimmers. I have seen the scramble mission.

I have not seen these rules like planet strike for flyers. We are a year later and Harry was dead on. He waited till he had some real facts or good leads instead of the normal stickmonkey running his mouth.

While I don't hate the stormtalon, I think with a little tweeking it can look pretty good. It still doesn't look like a marine vehicle.

However, having said that, I'd love to take one to escort my drop podding dread in my SW army. Too bad we can't take one.

The ork flyer is just sweet looking, but I'll hold off on getting one until the ork codex gets redone. My Speed freeks list just doesn't have room for it.

" I am sorry but if anything this looks like it would be a cargo transport that ferries cows. I hate the look of this thing. Rule wise I would have to move what 13" just to get it ON the table? Horrid. LOS is gak as well."

You sound concerned.

Epic troll, friendo.

Yeah, I could see that thing being an ok countas for a Caestus (as long as the weapons were changed) but its a bit too much for anything else that currently exits.

Scott wrote:" I am sorry but if anything this looks like it would be a cargo transport that ferries cows. I hate the look of this thing. Rule wise I would have to move what 13" just to get it ON the table? Horrid. LOS is gak as well."

You sound concerned.

Epic troll, friendo.

Cows? No think it was a penguin transport.
Where does the pilot sit?

Scott wrote:" I am sorry but if anything this looks like it would be a cargo transport that ferries cows. I hate the look of this thing. Rule wise I would have to move what 13" just to get it ON the table? Horrid. LOS is gak as well."

You sound concerned.

Epic troll, friendo.

No troll, just annoyed that someone would consider this an actual gunship of ANY sorts

Lysenis wrote:

Scott wrote:" I am sorry but if anything this looks like it would be a cargo transport that ferries cows. I hate the look of this thing. Rule wise I would have to move what 13" just to get it ON the table? Horrid. LOS is gak as well."

You sound concerned.

Epic troll, friendo.

No troll, just annoyed that someone would consider this an actual gunship of ANY sorts

It is a ship with guns. Gunship. I'd go more with gun boat but that's me.

A Land Raider, two Rhinos and a Valkyrie. Someone wasted an awful lot of money on a really weak April Fool's Day joke.

Lysenis wrote:

Conrad Turner wrote:

Inso wrote:There is a distinct lack of lateral / yaw stability in the design because it lacks a vertical fin...

Whilst it may lack lateral / yaw stability, it does not lack vertical fins. There are 2 on each of the forward booms, meaning there are 2 dorsal vertical fins and 2 ventral vertical fins.
OK, even combined, they're not that large considering the bulk of the rest of it, but they are there!

For a bulk to turn ration this thing would do a 180 like a semitruck. I would only use this for bombing runs at night, and even then I dont think I would make it home in 1 piece. 4 engines takes up a TON of fuel now if they were prop I would say diffrently.

Back to the turn radius of this thing, a EC2 Hawkeye could EASILY fly 3+ circles around this thing before it finished turn 1.

Jet engines are more fuel efficient than vtol prop rotors, especially at high speeds when props designed to produce lift no longer function. Also, props are dependent on a consistent atmosphere (as are jet engines, but whatever) and this thing presumably goes into space. It's by no means a realistic design, but it's long, it's flat, it has sizeable relative footage given over to wings and it's weight distribution makes sense. It's a ridiculous sci fi... thing. But the "proportions" are worlds better than the other space marine flyers, thunderhawk included.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lysenis wrote:

Scott wrote:" I am sorry but if anything this looks like it would be a cargo transport that ferries cows. I hate the look of this thing. Rule wise I would have to move what 13" just to get it ON the table? Horrid. LOS is gak as well."

You sound concerned.

Epic troll, friendo.

No troll, just annoyed that someone would consider this an actual gunship of ANY sorts

It's a space ship with guns. A helicopter with a bubble canopy and an m60 was a "gunship" in veitnam, so this damn well better count as a gunship too.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Lysenis wrote:

Conrad Turner wrote:

Inso wrote:There is a distinct lack of lateral / yaw stability in the design because it lacks a vertical fin...

Whilst it may lack lateral / yaw stability, it does not lack vertical fins. There are 2 on each of the forward booms, meaning there are 2 dorsal vertical fins and 2 ventral vertical fins.
OK, even combined, they're not that large considering the bulk of the rest of it, but they are there!

For a bulk to turn ration this thing would do a 180 like a semitruck. I would only use this for bombing runs at night, and even then I dont think I would make it home in 1 piece. 4 engines takes up a TON of fuel now if they were prop I would say diffrently.

Back to the turn radius of this thing, a EC2 Hawkeye could EASILY fly 3+ circles around this thing before it finished turn 1.

Jet engines are more fuel efficient than vtol prop rotors, especially at high speeds when props designed to produce lift no longer function. Also, props are dependent on a consistent atmosphere (as are jet engines, but whatever) and this thing presumably goes into space. It's by no means a realistic design, but it's long, it's flat, it has sizeable relative footage given over to wings and it's weight distribution makes sense. It's a ridiculous sci fi... thing. But the "proportions" are worlds better than the other space marine flyers, thunderhawk included.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lysenis wrote:

Scott wrote:" I am sorry but if anything this looks like it would be a cargo transport that ferries cows. I hate the look of this thing. Rule wise I would have to move what 13" just to get it ON the table? Horrid. LOS is gak as well."

You sound concerned.

Epic troll, friendo.

No troll, just annoyed that someone would consider this an actual gunship of ANY sorts

It's a space ship with guns. A helicopter with a bubble canopy and an m60 was a "gunship" in veitnam, so this damn well better count as a gunship too.

Yes if you want the gunship to look like someone took excess useless parts mashed them together. Do I really have to mention the useless lascannons on the back wings? What about the drag that this "thing" creates? Now dont make me go back to why this would be useless in any real game. What about the amount of ailerons and such on this? There is no way that a HUMAN could pilot something like that. The human would make a turn and instead tumble out of the sky. If you think you know so much please prove me wrong on his point.

If it is a gunship how is it a spaceship as well?

NOW if we go into spaceships, this would be so-so at breaching and assaulting since it does look like Assault ram.

Lysenis wrote:Yes if you want the gunship to look like someone took excess useless parts mashed them together. Do I really have to mention the useless lascannons on the back wings? What about the drag that this "thing" creates? Now dont make me go back to why this would be useless in any real game. What about the amount of ailerons and such on this? There is no way that a HUMAN could pilot something like that. The human would make a turn and instead tumble out of the sky. If you think you know so much please prove me wrong on his point.

Hve you seen GW's other flyers?

Lysenis I'm going to go down your silly little rant line by line.

Yes if you want the gunship to look like someone took excess useless parts mashed them together.

The majority of gunships throughout history have been exactly that.

Do I really have to mention the useless lascannons on the back wings?

No more useless than on the vendetta. Craft meant to sit and fire in a fashion similar to helicopters shouldn't have fixed non explosive ordnance. GW doesn't understand that though.

What about the drag that this "thing" creates?

It appears more aerodynamic than either the stormraven or stormtalon. Every frontal surface is heavily sloped and it doesn't suddenly terminate at the rear with a giant flat ass (creation incredible drag).

Now dont make me go back to why this would be useless in any real game.

Kind of like how useless the vendetta was since it was over six inches long. It's a kitbash, calm down.

What about the amount of ailerons and such on this?

8 horizantal 4 vertical. They're all small and redundant though, with only a little bit of conflicting positioning (it's a kitbash).

There is no way that a HUMAN could pilot something like that.

Humans don't even pilot modern aircraft now. Pilot control is hydraulic with electronic control assistance on almost everything. This thing couldn't fly because it's method of motivation is illogical and idiotic, but that's the same for every imperial aircraft. None of them make sense.

The human would make a turn and instead tumble out of the sky.

I don't think you actually understand all that much about aviation or engineering. But you're right, the design is ridiculous. you'll note in my posts that I say that repeatedly myself. I was commenting on it's profile and weight distribution.

If you think you know so much please prove me wrong on his point.

Sure why not, I'll blue skidoo into that tiny model and go all gangbusters in your living room. You'll be sorry then.

If it is a gunship how is it a spaceship as well?

Those terms aren't mutually exclusive?

NOW if we go into spaceships, this would be so-so at breaching and assaulting since it does look like Assault ram.

Assault rams don't make any sense and this would be an awful assault ram. It would destroy itself running into anything due to it's distributed hull. It's a giant crumple zone.

AethyrKnight wrote:
http://www.thehogsofwar.com/2011/04/leaked-sisters-of-battle-flyer.html

Haaahhaahhahahhaaa.... Funniest April fool i've heard in a while, come on he isn't fooling anyone. No way is GW supporting Sisters.

So... Moderate amounts of aggression about something that was a joke? Brilliant.