New Stormraven pic! 11/11

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.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Given how pretty the forgeworld flyers are, this is fairly poor.

Glad my second 40k army is going to be Dark Eldar, I'd pondered Grey Knights, if this model had been better looking, as I'm reading the Eisenhorn trilogy and I'd been getting nostalgic about having an inquisitor and retinue.

It's not 'hideous' in a pumbagor/minotaur/obliterator way, it's just a fairly uninspired looking thing with some bad proportions and a 'nailed on' feel.

I will keep my fingers crossed the fighter bomber will be better, at least if it isn't, I can just loot a valk.

**Sidstyler**

Turalon wrote:Well I think that this model will really show what type of gamer you are. Either you play an army for cool models, or because they are ridiculously op in game terms (and look like hell).

I sense that these will be really popular with people who only play blood angels for the cheese.

If you don't like the model, that's fine. But honestly, "anyone that buys this is a powergamer?"

I'm trying to think of a way to put this that won't get me yet another warning...how about: It takes a very special person to think like that. Instead of just chalking it up to people having weird or different tastes we just jump straight to "IF YOU BUY THIS YOU'RE WAAC LOLOLOL"?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:And yet, upon seeing one in person and actually being able to view the model from every angle it didn't look as atrocious as the promo pics made it look.

...no, the daemon prince is every bit as atrocious in person and from multiple angles as it was in the promo pics.

My knee will never quit jerking on that one, the plastic DP is the worst god-damned kit ever. I will not accept any justification for people wasting their money on that thing, even though I just said "differing tastes" and all that.

Anyway, I saw the leak before I went to work tonight...had all day to think about it...read this thread when I got home and facepalmed at the stupidity raging while I was away...and I still don't know what to think about it. It definitely wasn't what I was expecting, I can say that much...and I'll say MajorTom's photoshop looks way better than the official model, but I don't think it's the worst thing GW has ever done (worst thing for Marines, maybe).

I dunno, I think I'll wait until we see more pics before condemning it. In any case I think it could be easily saved, with a different turret and a chopped top like what was suggested earlier...but it should look good right out of the box, so just because you can make something good out of it doesn't make it a good kit I guess.

**Agamemnon2**

H.B.M.C. wrote:This model had the same build up. Same amount of excitment over it, same amount of people making fantastic and awful scratch builds (best I've seen was a GW staffer at the new North Sydney store here in Oz) but... now this model has been revealed (sorta, even if by mistake) and... people hate it? I wasn't expecting that. Were we spoilt by the Valkyrie kit? I've not seen such a universal reaction to a new GW kit since the Pumbagore, but even that was pretty low key.

It is interesting, especially since this is a plastic vehicle kit. I don't remember any negative backlash against those for as long as I can remember. The "new" Basilisk was something of an outrage, since it went up in price but didn't contain anything new, but besides that, they've not done bad plastic models. The trukk, the battlewagon, the Raider, the new Chimera, the Venerable Dread, etc, etc... These were all met with reactions ranging from joyful to quiet acceptance. Nobody went out and said, "this is a terrible model".

**BrassScorpion**

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ah good! I do so love the part of every rumour thread where BrassScorpion shows up to tell us both how many pages the thread is and also and then to insult everyone (and then posts

And then often shortly after I do that the MODS shut the thread down for exactly the reasons I've mentioned. And I don't believe my post insulted everyone, but for the people who are so hyper-negative in nearly every rumor thread all the time that they feel insulted or they feel the need to attack others personally, maybe they should rethink what they are doing. For a change, try being part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I haven't seen this much negativity toward a GW release since the Beastmen last February. Perhaps a better approach would be waiting for more pictures instead of getting apoplectic over it and turning on other forum members like rabid animals.

**BrookM**

Remember when pics were shown of the WIP Mumakil? Lots and lots of negative feedback then for some reason or the other.

I wonder if that thing is balanced properly, a lot seems to be going to the rear of the thing and not a lot is in front. The prototype they got there could be weighted down in front for all we know.

**Sidstyler**

I really doubt it's a prototype or beta or whatever, considering it's due for release in the next three months this is probably what it's going to look like.

Even if it doesn't come out in the next few months then what are the odds they'd actually change it, after investing all that time into the current design? Remember the DP went unchanged despite the negative reaction to it, and it was delayed for a long-ass time at that.

**BrookM**

They can't change the model, not now, not any more, too far into the cycle now and too many coins put into it all.

Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:

**Waaagh_Gonads**

My only problem is that it is so 'front heavy'

Yes I realise that the dread is carried in the back section.
The front is reminisant of the thunderhawk, and that part I like.

But for me the wings are just too far back (hopefully it is just the angle of the shot).

Would I buy one, yes.
ONLY because I'm building BSa.

**Commander Endova**

I actually really like it. I think I'm one of the few there, though. I also think the angle we're seeing it at is throwing us off. I think when we get a full profile stot, it'll look less stubby. Its seems like the tail boom might be a little longer than the awkward angle implies.

Either way, I'll be kitting up some GKs or BA's in these sooner or later.

**carmachu**

As someone said elsewhere, looks like one of the deisgn team ate a valkerie and landraider then went to the bathrrom and pooped this stormraven out.

**Agamemnon2**

BrookM wrote:
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:

Unless I'm mistaken, most GW promo shots of Valkyries are of the old FW resin kit. The easiest way to tell is looking at the cockpit frames. There's also other details, like the fact that the lascannon housing has rivets on its top side, whereas the plastic one does not (casting reasons).

**BrookM**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
BrookM wrote:
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:

Unless I'm mistaken, most GW promo shots of Valkyries are of the old FW resin kit. The easiest way to tell is looking at the cockpit frames. There's also other details, like the fact that the lascannon housing has rivets on its top side, whereas the plastic one does not (casting reasons).

Now that you're mentioning it, you're right! Huh, odd. Why would they do something like that?

**Miraclefish**

24 hours on and I still like it. It looks a bit slapped together though, so I'm gonna continue campaigning to brand it the Chunderhawk*...

(*Chunder being British slang for throwing up)

**yakface**

BrookM wrote:
Agamemnon2 wrote:
BrookM wrote:
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:

Unless I'm mistaken, most GW promo shots of Valkyries are of the old FW resin kit. The easiest way to tell is looking at the cockpit frames. There's also other details, like the fact that the lascannon housing has rivets on its top side, whereas the plastic one does not (casting reasons).
Now that you're mentioning it, you're right! Huh, odd. Why would they do something like that?

Because production schedules for models and codexes take much longer then we want to believe and when it comes time to take promotional pictures they need painted models and that sometimes means they end up using the prototype versions of their models.

**Snord**

yakface wrote:
BrookM wrote:
Because production schedules for models and codexes take much longer then we want to believe and when it comes time to take promotional pictures they need painted models and that sometimes means they end up using the prototype versions of their models.

The first WD photos of the Devilfish definitely show a resin prototype. Not only that, but a former GW manager told me that (during the 3rd Edition era) they would sometimes be so pressed for time that they'd photograph models which had only been only painted on one side.

**aka_mythos**

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:My only problem is that it is so 'front heavy'

Yes I realise that the dread is carried in the back section.
The front is reminisant of the thunderhawk, and that part I like.

But for me the wings are just too far back (hopefully it is just the angle of the shot)....

Thats the thing the bugs me. The wings being that far back aesthetically implies that the Dreadnought is heavier than that big bulky transport section. I imagine it can actually be modeled with the dreadnought held, that it likely will improve the "balance" and make it look less front heavy.... but how many people want to buy extra dreadnoughts just so their transports look right.

**Asherian Command**

Holy crap this thread when I left it was around 198 posts. Now 358? HOLY CRAP!
Anyway it seems this thread has not deevolved into a troll fest good job!

**aka_mythos**

yakface wrote:
BrookM wrote:
Agamemnon2 wrote:
BrookM wrote:
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:

Unless I'm mistaken, most GW promo shots of Valkyries are of the old FW resin kit. The easiest way to tell is looking at the cockpit frames. There's also other details, like the fact that the lascannon housing has rivets on its top side, whereas the plastic one does not (casting reasons).
Now that you're mentioning it, you're right! Huh, odd. Why would they do something like that?

Because production schedules for models and codexes take much longer then we want to believe and when it comes time to take promotional pictures they need painted models and that sometimes means they end up using the prototype versions of their models.

Issues of White Dwarf are made 3 or more months prior to their release. That means photos taken have to be done almost 4 months prior to a publication. Producing models, they don't generally have huge lead times between starting production and releasing, since it costs a lot to just to store the surge in product. They then have to prep and paint it and if its a prototype it could be nightmare compared even to FW models. So the publication photos have to either be made using prototypes or the very first production pieces depending on how much time they have. They are effectively trying to take a high quality photo of something that doesn't fully "exist."

**Asherian Command**

aka_mythos wrote:
yakface wrote:
BrookM wrote:
Agamemnon2 wrote:
BrookM wrote:
Some of the Valkyries GW shows off in the store are prototypes or earlier versions. For example, the cockpit window frames are different and it misses the small piece in between both cockpits:

Unless I'm mistaken, most GW promo shots of Valkyries are of the old FW resin kit. The easiest way to tell is looking at the cockpit frames. There's also other details, like the fact that the lascannon housing has rivets on its top side, whereas the plastic one does not (casting reasons).
Now that you're mentioning it, you're right! Huh, odd. Why would they do something like that?

Because production schedules for models and codexes take much longer then we want to believe and when it comes time to take promotional pictures they need painted models and that sometimes means they end up using the prototype versions of their models.

Issues of White Dwarf are made 3 or more months prior to their release. That means photos taken have to be done almost 4 months prior to a publication. Producing models, they don't generally have huge lead times between starting production and releasing, since it costs a lot to just to store the surge in product. They then have to prep and paint it and if its a prototype it could be nightmare compared even to FW models. So the publication photos have to either be made using prototypes or the very first production pieces depending on how much time they have. They are effectively trying to take a high quality photo of something that doesn't fully "exist."

yeah and not only that but their customer service for sending letters fails..

**OnTheEdge**

This is a sad model. This front-heavy deal ruins the model. So sad GW could have made it so much better

When the time comes to do one I will look at all the beautiful conversions by my fellow dakka brother and sisters

//Edge

**yakface**

I'm definitely in the 'meh' camp when it comes to this model.

Although we'll never know from the studio, I would bet any amount of money that the production cost of the model had a large part to do with its design. My guess is that it uses the same amount of plastic frames as the Valkyrie/Vendetta and adding any more frames into the kit would have ended up pushing it into the cost/price range of the Super-Heavy vehicles, which is likely somewhere GW didn't want to go with this type of unit.

So they were stuck with a very real limitation on what could be done with the given size and those limitations likely ended up producing a truncated version of what was (hopefully) a much better original design.

But as pointed out by a variety of photoshops in this thread, even with the size restriction on the kit I still think they could have done a much better job at making the proportions seem less awkward.

**youthminister40k**

I like the weirdness. Boxy is Space Marine -ish right? This looks like it could be cool.

**Asherian Command**

youthminister40k wrote:I like the weirdness. Boxy is Space Marine -ish right? This looks like it could be cool.

Most of the people I have sent messages to via aol. Have said "WTF IS THAT! THATS CRAP!"
But apart from that it looks nice if I could take a file and file it down alot and destroy top part.
But I am concerned about the price. If it is 65$ i will go broke. *shakes head in shame*
People do not have that money anymore!

**BrassScorpion**

But I am concerned about the price. If it is 65$ i will go broke.

Unfortunately, with Land Raiders, Valkyries and Defilers at $62 I don't see how the Stormraven could possibly be cheaper. At an absolute minimum it would be $49.50 like many of the tank kits. That would seem like a pleasant surprise at this point.

The friends to whom I emailed the picture have so far been fairly positive about the look of the model. I will admit I was a little surprised by the actual appearance, but I can see things about the model that look like fun and I'm sure if there's a place for it in at least one of my armies I'll happily get at least one.

**H.B.M.C.**

Yeah, even the guy in our group who sits on the fence with everything wasn't too keen on it. I'd like to prop up my own ego and say it's not everyone and that it's just me and a few others being (typically) negative, but so many long-time posters have come into this thread and said the same thing.

I'm a big believer in consensus... and I think we have one here. This is a near-universal dud.

**OoieGoie**

Some extra "stuff". Sorry if seen already. I didnt see it in this thread.

EDIT: Just noticed this info on Warseer page 1. Sorry.

From the page that got taken off the GW site (which had the Stormraven pic). No page 2 was posted apparently so this is all I have.

Over the next few pages, we will be taking a look at how to paint the Blood Angels Stormraven Gunship, including how to weather the vehicle and paint the interior detail. A great addition and centrepiece model for any Blood Angels army, this will be an invaluable guide to help you get the most from this fantastic kit.

Death from Above
The Stormraven Gunship is an incredibly versatile craft, able to fulfil the roll of orbital dropship, armoured transport and strike aircraft in a way that few, or indeed any, ships could hope to match. The Stormraven ensures that the Blood Angels remain undisputed masters of the skies, as dominant in the air as their troops are on the ground. Smaller and nimbler than the more cumbersome Thunderhawk Gunships, the Stormraven's compact hull and vectored thrusters enable it to operate at maximum efficiency in all but the densest terrain. A Stormraven can often be seen hurtling straight into the heart of the enemy forces, unleashing its considerable arsenal in a terrifying display of firepower, before disgorging a squad, Dreadnought, or even both, into the thick of the fighting.

On the tabletop
With its potent firepower, speed and transport capacity, the uses of a Stormraven on the battlefield are myriad, but its role of choice is as an unparalleled assault vehicle. With a huge variety of weapon options, and no less than four tank-busting Bloodstrike Missiles, both enemy infantry and vehicles alike fear drawing the attention of its guns. A transport capacity of 12 combined with the ability to safely carry a Dreadnought to battle as well certainly proves the Stormraven to be a transport vehicle of the very finest quality. This unique combination of speed, firepower and transport capacity means that a Stormraven can support any tactical preference, so there is always a place for it in any Blood Angels army.

Nick: A Stormraven will be the focal point of your army, so it's well worth giving it a lot of attention when painting it. These techniques can effectively be applied to any other vehicles in your Blood Angels army too, so keep this in mind and you will have a great looking fleet of vehicles in no time. I painted this Stormraven to match the battleforce that I painted for the Blood Angels army workshop in February 2011's White Dwarf; it's part of the 3rd Company, in keeping with the rest of the models. As a personal touch, I've weathered the model to appear heavily battle worn, but if you wish to keep your vehicle in pristine condition, skip page 6 and you'll have an immaculate vehicle, fresh as if at the beginning of a campaign.....

The links to the subsequent pages weren't working.

My internal marketing cynic has made its own assessment as to how likely it is that GW would 'accidentally' internally redirect their 40k FAQ page to a teaser article on the Stormraven before going 'whoops, lets pretend nothing happened'....... Noting the section in bold, I'd guess we'd be talking about a Feb/March release of the model with this article likely in the Mar 2011 White Dwarf.

**MeanGreenStompa**

I always liked the star wars republic gunship, perhaps I might use one of those instead...

**Kilkrazy**

Made in au wrote:My internal marketing cynic has made its own assessment as to how likely it is that GW would 'accidentally' internally redirect their 40k FAQ page to a teaser article on the Stormraven before going 'whoops, lets pretend nothing happened'...

It has happened to Sony PlayStation several times.

I think the model looks very "Imperial" -- square and clunky like a Land Raider. The proportions around the rear fuselage, tail and wings are not fully evident and may save it.

**Manchu**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I always liked the star wars republic gunship, perhaps I might use one of those instead...

Thanks for bringing that thing up. When I first saw it in the movies (among so much else that was disappointing), I thought "that is the ugliest piece of gak they've dared to put on the screen yet." Now that several years have gone by, I totally accept it even if I still think it looks clunky, unfliable, and front-heavy.

**Zefig**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I always liked the star wars republic gunship, perhaps I might use one of those instead...

Stompa, you beat me to it by about 15 minutes. I was thinking this new Stormraven model really does look a decent amount like the republic gunship. The proportions are pretty similar, the role is pretty similar. The chibihawk just looks like a heavily Space Marined version. If you squint real hard.

All the issues of aerodynamics and weight distribution seem kind of laughable to me though in an army with relatively commonplace antigrav. The landspeeder isn't exactly the most aerodynamic of things, and those wings certainly wouldn't support one, especially placed as they are. It's the antigrav system that keeps it up, everything else is for thrust and maneuvering. Looking at this from that perspective, you've got a transport/gunship with some beefy engines and some huge maneuvering thrusters, which would certainly help is weave through the hive cities, eh?

That said, I'm kind of ambivalent about the model itself. I like parts of it, and I'm certainly not too fond of others. I'm looking forward to actually seeing some other angles of it, especially the dreadnought enclosure. A profile shot would certainly help too.