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.

shrike wrote:

fire4effekt wrote:Wow, that is dumb looking.

+1.

are you kidding?
+1234567890987654321234567890987654321


watch GW make it like 70$ lol

If it becomes 70$ I blame you!

+1.

Kanluwen wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Seaward wrote:A ground attack aircraft with all of its ground attack turret weaponry on top of the fuselage rather than the bottom? Preposterous!

I one part i really dont like is that manned turret on top... it would of been better under the front... or unmanned, it jsut looks like you wouldent be able to fire at anything

And im really hoping the model has thrusters at the front (cant really see with the marines in the way) that would explain the front heavy look and would make sense (as well as really giving the Stormraven the manuverablity its said to have) If it doesnt, im just going to add some XP

It's a ground attack aircraft with the twin-linked weaponry on top of the fuselage.

Everyone who keeps saying "the turret would have been better under the front", apparently isn't noticing the fact that the whole y'know...ramp for troops?

Yeah. It flips down. Current placement allows that turret to still fire in support of troops while it's landed to drop off its cargo.

And that's fantastic. Impractical and dumb - just as dumb as putting the engines on the underside of the wings rather than above them for better survivability on an air-to-ground platform - but fantastic. There are multi-role assault transports currently active in militaries today, and they solve the problem of having guns pointed at disembarking troops quite easily: they have them disembark elsewhere than in front of the weaponry. Say, out the side of the aircraft. Or the back.

At the end of the day, it's just a dumb-looking model any way you slice it. Aerodynamically impractical, aesthetically unpleasing, and designed to look as dysfunctional as possible.

Kanluwen wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Seaward wrote:A ground attack aircraft with all of its ground attack turret weaponry on top of the fuselage rather than the bottom? Preposterous!

I one part i really dont like is that manned turret on top... it would of been better under the front... or unmanned, it jsut looks like you wouldent be able to fire at anything

And im really hoping the model has thrusters at the front (cant really see with the marines in the way) that would explain the front heavy look and would make sense (as well as really giving the Stormraven the manuverablity its said to have) If it doesnt, im just going to add some XP

It's a ground attack aircraft with the twin-linked weaponry on top of the fuselage.

Everyone who keeps saying "the turret would have been better under the front", apparently isn't noticing the fact that the whole y'know...ramp for troops?

Yeah. It flips down. Current placement allows that turret to still fire in support of troops while it's landed to drop off its cargo.

Uuh, yeah- what model stands tall enough for the turret to shoot from up there?

(Can't find the poster who originally sent this)

Is that a new dread in the back left as well?

Uuh:

shrike wrote:BTW did anyone notice what's lurking begind the assault squad?!

Yes it is the new furioso dread.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:That thing is FUtarded!

I have trouble believing GW is going to produce it.

Gonna have to go with this one for my Nightblood Lordangels army:

While I like that more than the chibihawk, it reminds me of an Homeworld resource collector.

Meh. The dreadnought doesn't look very impressive either...Why could'nt they just leave the metal one? It's a fine model.

its modelled on a thunderhawk (its bigger brother) and has doors on all sides so what choice is there but to go tall. it is perfectly in keeping with space marine design. the thunderhawk is no different with wings at the back but because people think of it flying fowards it makes sense but the thunderhawk is actually designed to fly in like the raven and drop off troops not need a long landing strip/zone. dont forget that 40k has skimmer technology. if we are to believe they can have a vehicle float like skimmers and thunderhawks can VTOL then the raven fits perfectly.
well done GW. i want 3.
i have not seen any better home conversions so rather than complain why not step up and show us the alternative designs that fit the codex description you all have in mind

Samus_aran115 wrote:Meh. The dreadnought doesn't look very impressive either...Why could'nt they just leave the metal one? It's a fine model.

Because now everything must be plastic, i resent that

Torin the Wayfarer wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Meh. The dreadnought doesn't look very impressive either...Why could'nt they just leave the metal one? It's a fine model.

Because now everything must be plastic, i resent that

Yeah,me too. Giant metal models build character, IMO. Especially dreadnoughts. Which is probably why our chaos dreadnought has lasted for over 15 years....

Samus_aran115 wrote:
Yeah,me too. Giant metal models build character, IMO. Especially dreadnoughts. Which is probably why our chaos dreadnought has lasted for over 15 years....

That's because that is one mighty fine model,

If we do the puddlejumper that Tom made I think I will be happy as then it will be awesome

Reminds me of the 'Beluga whale' Airbus cargo carrier, to be honest. And a little wimpy for such a powerful model.

Stop thinking 'airplane'... start thinking VTOL Assault Gunship.

Go look @ the MI-8 HIP and Mi-24 HIND, the 2 closest approximations to this things function in RL.

They both look like FUGLY as hell too.

Huh, about the same logic as watching Porn with average girls in it though. Sure they're more accurate to real life but...

shrike wrote:

Grief_Bringer wrote:This, IMO, looks soo much better:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/154621-storm-raven%20redesign.html

i have not seen any better home conversions so rather than complain why not step up and show us the alternative designs that fit the codex description you all have in mind

Uuh, that.
It would be so much better.

Looks like a modified Land Raider with wings attached. No thanks. Completely unappealing aesthetically. Marines = big armored supersoldiers. This = flying rock.

Now that i really look at it i find that it looks too small for a troop carrier, it doesn't look like it would even hold 10 marines.. I think the rhino is more bulkier then this crap. It looks like a fish IMO

it looks like a smaller thunderhawk.
do people not like the thunderhawk?
do they think the thunderhawk is not in keeping with marines?

fox40 wrote:it looks like a smaller thunderhawk.
do people not like the thunderhawk?
do they think the thunderhawk is not in keeping with marines?

I think that's the problem. It looks as if someone took a Thunderhawk and chopped off the middle third and glued the front and the back together. It's just sillily (is that even a word? 0.o) boxy.

but thats what its supposed to be a small thunderhawk with the ability to carry a dread in a grapple under the back and doors on all 4 sides for troops. this model fits all its criteria.
id like to see anyone do better and keep to the codex description
not everything can look super sleek etc.

shrike wrote:

Grief_Bringer wrote:
This, IMO, looks soo much better:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/154621-storm-raven%20redesign.html

fox40 wrote:but thats what its supposed to be a small thunderhawk with the ability to carry a dread in a grapple under the back and doors on all 4 sides for troops. this model fits all its criteria.
id like to see anyone do better and keep to the codex description
not everything can look super sleek etc.

We aren't expecting it to be sleek, just not a pelican/fish like. all the weight is at the front, all the engines are at the back, the turret is too high up to shoot anything, the height is too tall compared to the width, and the back end is completely non-existent.
that photoshopped version is what they should have done.

the photoshoped version looks good if you dont need to carry a dread, but you do. alot of people seem to forget that when they complain of height (dreads are tall)
with the guns moved down they have less los than up high. the high turret will give better line of sight over units and gives it a larger arc of fire. if people want to change there raven to look like the photoshoped one do it and lose the arc and los of the top gun and lets see how crap it will look with a dread perched out the back.
the front trusters are a good touch though

Yeah, as I mentioned (and will do until i get some feedback) earlier in the thread- I will use the turret on a razorback, glue the razorback lascannons either side of the nose, and make a plasticard rear, leaving the back panel not there, so a dread can stand in the back.

Nod?

Or

No-no?

Nod!!! I really like that idea, and if i ever do get it i would do the same thing.

lunarghost wrote:Nod!!! I really like that idea, and if i ever do get it i would do the same thing.

Correction:

lunarghost wrote: I really like that idea, and if i ever do get it i would do the same thing.

i have already said about using the turrets on razorbacks but ill magnetise them so can still use on stormraven when playing air cav cos with the turrets arc of fire and potms chances are you will need that arc to get los on 2 targets. drop the raven close to one tank so the squad or dread can take that on, shoot melta at another target and the turret on a target somewhere else. thats 3 or 4 targets with one move. your fixed las will limit your los to targets

fox40 wrote:i have already said about using the turrets on razorbacks but ill magnetise them so can still use on stormraven when playing air cav cos with the turrets arc of fire and potms chances are you will need that arc to get los on 2 targets. drop the raven close to one tank so the squad or dread can take that on, shoot melta at another target and the turret on a target somewhere else. thats 3 or 4 targets with one move. your fixed las will limit your los to targets

'suppose, but still...the turret does'nt fit with it. would look better on the nose. I'd rather have a good-looking not-as-good in games model, than a crap-looking, better-in-game model.