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.

Bloodwin wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Bjorn the fell handed? Apparently, GW still hasn't caught on that Dreads *should*not*be*made*of*metal.
Sheesh.

You do realise this is a very old classic model they've reissued?

Yes. So?
My point still stands.

Eric

I like the storm raven, its out I guess so that is a 'good thing'.

But that turret and the gubbins behind it is what is making the whole thing look a mess.

'Jenkins! Those red 'arsestarts' need more guns, get to it!'
'But'
'Just do it!'
'They also need a pointless air intake thingy'.

Alpharius wrote:Yeah, which doesn't appear to show ANY mechanism whatsoever for holding a Dreadnought, hence my question...

Mechanism?

The Dread got claws.....


he can hang on there!





Imo, 2 access ramps and 2 side hatches are the correct loadout.
The lack of any Dread transport cage was to be expected. Thats why we need proper T-hawks, dreads inside FTW.

This SR still needs a lot of redesign

1hadhq wrote:Imo, 2 access ramps and 2 side hatches are the correct loadout.

Im still waiting to see what people say about exiting side hatches when hurricane bolters are attached

Few notes,

Magna Grapple: Absolutely love the idea that there are two winches attached to these so you can really invision those things shooting like a taze gun at a tank then winding it back in.

DC Dread: The nut protector and the bracer type arm plates absolutely look awesome and really buff up the model. Love it.

SR: No hooks is sigh. But I will come up with a way to cleverly do it, or I'll have a dandy time pretending my dreadnaught drops off when i deploy him from off the table. Either way i'm happy, but I guess i'm one of those easy to please customers that just really enjoys playing to play.

Alpharius wrote:That DC dread is going to make an awesome Chaplain dread!

A nice Chaos dread too, probably.

TBD wrote:

Alpharius wrote:That DC dread is going to make an awesome Chaplain dread!

A nice Chaos dread too, probably.

Chaos players still take those things?

Mr. Burning wrote:But that turret and the gubbins behind it is what is making the whole thing look a mess.

1hadhq wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Yeah, which doesn't appear to show ANY mechanism whatsoever for holding a Dreadnought, hence my question...

Mechanism? you are 100% right IMO mr. burning. I saw a photoshopped one without these and it looked decent.

The Dread got claws.....
he can hang on there!

what if it's a rifleman?

Alpharius wrote:That DC dread is going to make an awesome Chaplain dread!

That is exactly what I thought! I'm gonna buy one as a libby (but redesign the head) and one as a chaplain.

MagickalMemories wrote:

Bloodwin wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Bjorn the fell handed? Apparently, GW still hasn't caught on that Dreads *should*not*be*made*of*metal.
Sheesh.

You do realise this is a very old classic model they've reissued?

Yes. So?
My point still stands.

Eric

Bloodwin's point was that back then almost EVERYTHING was made of metal ( I think only a select few Space Marines and Genestealers were actually made of plastic). To make your point valid GW would have had to jump through time for about 20 years to satisfy that.

Now to contribute to the thread: I just noticed that the DC dread featured in the BA codex shares some design elements with the plastic one we have now. Was that a prototype or something?

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Was that a prototype or something?

Probably. Notice in the 5th ed. rulebook- the section on buildings and flamers IIRC. They have the prototype bastion there.

shrike wrote:
what if it's a rifleman?

You don't hold a rifleman back ( ie throw in per Stormraven aka chibihawk ) don't you?

Or magnetic clamps in his feet could solve this...

Alpharius wrote:
I wish there were a few less blood drops on some of the bits, but it is plastic, so converting will be somewhat easy!

How so Alpharius? If you look at the sprues on the GW website you will note that all the blood angels iconography on the chibi is all completely seperate. No need to stick it on if you don't want it.
You will also note that there is for each of the blood drop wing icons the "book with a sword in it" icon with is of course the icon of the Grey Knights.

Edit: Realised you were talking about the dreads. Point taken.

I don't mind the look of the bird now, as it has grown a bit on me.

Although I had pushed my BA to the side and started orks and SW, I LOVE the new dread kit. I may have to go get one.. Or three.

THe bird was growing on me, then GW hired a photographer that took a picture in the absolute worst angle ever. Feels like someone took the thunderhawk and cropped the rear off.

I can't wait to put these new models together, paint them up nice, and blow things up with them.

Mephiston and a dread, taking a ride in a flying dumpster is gonna be hilarious at the next GT I go to! lol!

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:

Bloodwin wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Bjorn the fell handed? Apparently, GW still hasn't caught on that Dreads *should*not*be*made*of*metal.
Sheesh.

You do realise this is a very old classic model they've reissued?

Yes. So?
My point still stands.

Eric

Bloodwin's point was that back then almost EVERYTHING was made of metal ( I think only a select few Space Marines and Genestealers were actually made of plastic). To make your point valid GW would have had to jump through time for about 20 years to satisfy that.

Or, to make my point valid, they could just create a new model (which is my point).
Really, all they need is a "Bjorn" accessory sprue for an existing Dread, package them together at the same inflated price and *blammo* New Bjorn.

They need to retire that antiquated monstrosity, stop trying to milk money off of a humdrum brick of metal and make a "new shiny" plastic one.

Eric

Now that I have gotten a good look at them, they look like massive sky whales.

Is this just me?

MajorTom11 wrote:Chibi- hawk go!

YAY

Every time I see Chibihawk getting closer to common useage my heart sings a little more! Ha ha ha!

I just pre-ordered myself the Stormraven, and plastic furioso/libby/Death Co dread. Because I want to make sure I get what I want for my birthday.

MajorTom11 wrote:

fox40 wrote:that turret that people keep moaning about will look so good as a razorback turret, i have ordered one already but plan on getting 3.

as for the brick/aerodynamics criticism - its fantasy, based in the very distant future where there are hovering tanks, jet bikes, jump packs etc. they dont need to worry about aerodynamics. how aerodynamic is a borg cube? or the tardis? aerodynamics mean nothing when you have cheap abundant power and anti grav capability.

People are willing to forgive a lot if they think it looks cool. Those that do or don't like it don't need to justify themselves either way as far as their attempts to articulate what the problem is. For me, your examples are bad, as they as none of them are meant to be in-atmostphere aircraft. Would a land-speeder fly either? No... but it's sillouette looks balanced evenly distributed, hopefully if you agree on that point I think you will see what people really mean when they say 'aerodynamic' in this context. It's just a question of visual balance and opinions thereof.


how about the landing craft from starship troopers then, same as the stormraven, boxy and designed to fly from space to landing with plenty of storage hence boxy.

MagickalMemories wrote:
Or, to make my point valid, they could just create a new model (which is my point).
Really, all they need is a "Bjorn" accessory sprue for an existing Dread, package them together at the same inflated price and *blammo* New Bjorn.

They need to retire that antiquated monstrosity, stop trying to milk money off of a humdrum brick of metal and make a "new shiny" plastic one.

Eric

They've never produced a dedicated plastic set for any character to date, and I doubt they ever will. Besides, do you really want them to spend money and time making ANOTHER Space Marine set?

Well, the new pics actually look much better. But, I still wish they'd do something with that empty space under the tail.. I think that's my whole problem with it .. just makes it feel incomplete to me, like something needs to be there or the troop transport area just need to be longer or something...

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
Or, to make my point valid, they could just create a new model (which is my point).
Really, all they need is a "Bjorn" accessory sprue for an existing Dread, package them together at the same inflated price and *blammo* New Bjorn.

They've never produced a dedicated plastic set for any character to date, and I doubt they ever will. Besides, do you really want them to spend money and time making ANOTHER Space Marine set?

How about a plastic Space Wolf Dreadnought kit which happens to also make a Bjorn-like Dread?

I'd be OK with that.

Without exagerration I can say the the Ravenwing is the ugliest model released by GW in several editions. It is a brick. An ugly squat brick with an unattractive, impractical design. Load your blood angels onto the Space Marine Shortbus everyone!

MajorTom11 wrote:

fox40 wrote:that turret that people keep moaning about will look so good as a razorback turret, i have ordered one already but plan on getting 3.

as for the brick/aerodynamics criticism - its fantasy, based in the very distant future where there are hovering tanks, jet bikes, jump packs etc. they dont need to worry about aerodynamics. how aerodynamic is a borg cube? or the tardis? aerodynamics mean nothing when you have cheap abundant power and anti grav capability.

People are willing to forgive a lot if they think it looks cool. Those that do or don't like it don't need to justify themselves either way as far as their attempts to articulate what the problem is. For me, your examples are bad, as they as none of them are meant to be in-atmostphere aircraft. Would a land-speeder fly either? No... but it's sillouette looks balanced evenly distributed, hopefully if you agree on that point I think you will see what people really mean when they say 'aerodynamic' in this context. It's just a question of visual balance and opinions thereof.

fox40 wrote:how about the landing craft from starship troopers then, same as the stormraven, boxy and designed to fly from space to landing with plenty of storage hence boxy.

That's actually a perfect example, good one! Despite it literally being as boxy as possible, the ST dropship still has distributed weight and a solid look to it. Again, I think it is more about how you are interpreting the words 'aerodynamic' and 'boxy'... just replace them with 'front-heavy' and 'unstylishly out of proportion'. Again, it will just be the individuals opinion in the end.



This was my re-design that made the rounds a month or 2 ago, I actually didn't do much other than extend the body to disribute the weight further back, add some solidity to the engine and wing attachment zones, and of course, cut down the height by getting rid of the turret and lowering the vents to give it a sleeker more 'aerodynamic ' profile. The thrusters I added to the front as we now see were actually on the model as we can now see, so really, it's just the 1st 2 items that fix it for me personally. I called it boxy and front-heavy, but as you can see the reasons why were not some all-reaching condemnation based on physics and engineering principals, just a few things that unbalance it for me.

MagickalMemories wrote:They need to retire that antiquated monstrosity, stop trying to milk money off of a humdrum brick of metal and make a "new shiny" plastic one.

It WAS retired, why else do you think they're rereleasing it? And who cares if it's metal, it's represents a famous character, whether or not it's a Dreadnought.

Not sure if this has been said, but thats the most expensive battle force available. (I might buy one, its still a good deal)

haters are gonna hate. I think the new stuff looks good.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
They've never produced a dedicated plastic set for any character to date, and I doubt they ever will. Besides, do you really want them to spend money and time making ANOTHER Space Marine set?

To your comment: Because they *haven't* doesn't necessarily mean they *shouldn't*. The thing about creating a Bjorn sprue for a basic Dread is that it could be used as a really cool SW Dread. It wouldn't HAVE to be used as Bjorn. KWIM?

To your question: Yes, actually. Especially when the other choice is metallibrick.

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bhsman wrote:It WAS retired, why else do you think they're rereleasing it? And who cares if it's metal, it's represents a famous character, whether or not it's a Dreadnought.

Yeah. It's the Brett Favre of models. It needs to actually STAY retired.
Who cares? Me. I'm not alone, either. There are a lot of people who don't like metal models.

Plus... you ever tried to assemble a metal Dread? If the pull isn't PERFECT, it's a HUGE PITA to assemble.

Eric

Finally they released it! Can't wait to give it all a go!
Oh wait my empty wallet says otherwise :(