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 want to paint/convert this Cylon Raider model. I play Eldar, Orks, and Space Marines. My friend plays Necron, and we also have Chaos, Nids, and a Tau player. We are using off the shelf models in place of Forge World models for super heavys and flyers in our Apocalypse games.

I want to create an assault vehicle for my Eldar, but I don't know if this model fits the bill. It kinda looks like a Necron flyer. What do you think?

I allowed multiple choice answers, not sure if that allows you to pick more than one answer.

Edit: Forgot the stupid picture!

I think you're right, it fits more with the Necrons than with any other army.

I voted for giving it up to Toys for tots as it doesn't really fit any army in the 40k cannon.

Call me a fan-boy, but I dislike using 'toys' to represent units in game.

In my hobby world GW and FW products don't qualify as 'toys'. They are models. Using 'toys' discredits the hobby and makes its players look immature.

Sure thing fan boi


In all seriousness I mostly agree with him though. It looks more like something the Necrons would have. I see your point though, FW stuff is rather pricey.

oni wrote:Call me a fan-boy, but I dislike using 'toys' to represent units in game.

In my hobby world GW and FW products don't qualify as 'toys'. They are models. Using 'toys' discredits the hobby and makes its players look immature.

That raider is not a toy. It's a model. It's a re-release of the old kit from the late 70s when the original BG was aired.

That is right. It is in fact a model and not a toy. It is 8.5 in. across, so I think the scale is ok.

I understand the sanctity of authentic GW, FW models. Saving for, buying, assembling, and painting these cherished items is a big part of the hobby. I have done that plenty, but hey, I want to spice up some of our apocalypse games, and I am willing to convert/paint these items to make them fit with 40k. That is part of the hobby too.

This was a toy, but now it is 500 points of Space Marine Whoopasss !

That actually looks awesome, ArmyC, I have to do that now!

Necron makes the most sense. Imperial Guard would be the most playable choice. I'd think it would almost be best to simply keep it as is and use it as a cylon raider model.

ArmyC- That is really cool. Reminds me of a vehicle from Rogue Trader except yours is in my opinion much cooler!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/101535-.html?m=2

oni wrote:Call me a fan-boy, but I dislike using 'toys' to represent units in game.

In my hobby world GW and FW products don't qualify as 'toys'. They are models. Using 'toys' discredits the hobby and makes its players look immature.

I'm sorry, but they are toys. They're little plastic/metal figurines that we (mostly grown men) play a game with. It's a hobby with a large investment of money, time, effort, and skill, but in the end, they're toys. Simple toys.

Don't forget, oni, that the game started by using deodorant sticks with bits glued to them as vehicles. Besides, for apocalypse, who cares? Apoc is about rolling stupid amounts of dice and having fun, not about "My forgeworld model is more grimdarkly-accurate than your toy".

And what is mature about pushing around "models" all day to play a game? About quibbling over petty rules in RAW battles? I think using the word Mature to describe a game of 40k is a bit of an oxymoron.

I think it looks a lot like an Eldar vehicle, oddly.

Necron for me would be weirdly geometric like the monolith.

I voted imperial guard - seems like something that would skim over water or a desert in a hot climate - designed for long term scouting or spying. Almost reminds me of a hovercraft.

Imperial Guard - Arvus Lighter.

I'd say Necron. The smooth saucer thing would work for Tau, but only if the entire craft was smooth. For 'crons, you get the smooth, hovercraft feel of a destroyer body (those are destroyers, right? I don't have too much experience with necrons...), plus the angles and techno-doohickies you'd expect from a bunch of robots. Makes sense, as the necrons are the closest thing 40k has to cylons.

it is totally a giant t'au drone ship.

smoth lines fit the T'au more then anything else.


necrons? i am not seeing how its necron. its too smoth for necrons. necrons would have insectoid/stone appearing armor.

that Gunship is awsome BTW. Stormraven prehaps?

ArmyC wrote:It is in fact a model and not a toy. It is 8.5 in. across, so I think the scale is ok.

This was a toy, but now it is 500 points of Space Marine Whoopasss !

I have trouble seeing it as a SM whatnot, but as the basis for an IG gunship, no problem!

If they go clearance, I might just get one.