Stormraven built with pics!

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.

**Shepherd23**

Ouze wrote:
BrassScorpion wrote:
nearly all of Warhammer Fantasy is a shameless ripoff of World of Warcraft.
That completely ridiculous and fallacious statement has come up many times over the years. Warhammer was created in the mid-1980's, long before MMORPG or even the original Warcraft computer game. Warcraft from its beginning was a blatant rip-off of Warhammer, albeit a really well-done one, that is, if you liked chopping wood. A friend let me try the original Warcraft once, I was not into chopping and collecting wood and didn't buy it. I still buy Warhammer models though.

All fantasy games owe a debt to Lord of the Rings, including the first popular one, Dungeons & Dragons. All games after D&D owe a debt to it, it was highly influential on every fantasy game to come after it, including Warhammer.

Lowering the flying stand for the Stormraven may lower it's visibility to others, but the reverse is also true, thereby reducing it's ability to see and target enemy models. Funny how that usually gets overlooked. The laws of physics are out the window in most of 40K, but not so much in the line of sight rules.

1.) Successful troll is successful, with regards to GWS ripping off wow

2.) Altering the flying stand to lower the profile of a model is modelling for advantage. Period. it's cheating. The fact that it also has some drawbacks don't change the fact, at all, that as-altered, it will be able to gain cover that it is not entitled to. The fact that it can't target as well it irrelevant in it's transport role.

What about modeling my guard to kneel or be firing from a prone position? Is this also cheating? If I model my chibihawk lower to the ground because I want to make it look like it is landing or taking off? Or if I put jump marines on plumes of smoke that are 2 inches tall so they look like they are flying?

My point with all of this is that this is a hobby that typically encourages conversions and you are bashing someone and laying out claims of cheating because they want to do the same thing. His reasons may be different and he may get an in game advantage and/or disadvantage, but laying out that modifying the miniatures height for any reason as flat out cheating just isn't cricket.

**kevlar'o**

i 'll get one for my imp guard

**cadbren**

Silly argument given that transport craft are more likely to be shot at as they are landing and thus closer to the ground.

**Noir**

Shepherd23 wrote:
What about modeling my guard to kneel or be firing from a prone position? Is this also cheating? If I model my chibihawk lower to the ground because I want to make it look like it is landing or taking off? Or if I put jump marines on plumes of smoke that are 2 inches tall so they look like they are flying?

Wouldn't lowering the SR be more like cutting a TSM base down to half its size. Or dose a flying base not count for "must use base model comes with." I have no problem with it myself, but altering a base is not the same as converting a model.

**Shepherd23**

I don't think that the stand itself counts as the "base" of the model. If that were the case then I know a lot of DE and Eldar players that are playing with illegal armies because they altered the height of their jetbike stands so it looks like all the bikes are flying at different heights and angles of attack.

**shrike**

Shepherd23 wrote:I don't think that the stand itself counts as the "base" of the model. If that were the case then I know a lot of DE and Eldar players that are playing with illegal armies because they altered the height of their jetbike stands so it looks like all the bikes are flying at different heights and angles of attack.

Noir wrote:
Wouldn't lowering the SR be more like cutting a TSM base down to half its size. Or dose a flying base not count for "must use base model comes with." I have no problem with it myself, but altering a base is not the same as converting a model.

it's definitely illegal. Part of the reason flyers are cheap is that they have sod all cover. It counts as modelling for advantage.

**Grey Templar**

shrike wrote:
cadbren wrote:Can it be modeled with a dred attached?

well, if you magnetise the top of the dread and winch of the SR, and move the DCCW to be "holding" it, then yes. Without any magnetising or conversions? No.

dude, you just gave me a sick idea.

Magnetize the Dreds DCCW and the winch. the Dred then looks to be holding on with his fist. coolist image ever.

**cadbren**

Shepherd23 wrote:I don't think that the stand itself counts as the "base" of the model. If that were the case then I know a lot of DE and Eldar players that are playing with illegal armies because they altered the height of their jetbike stands so it looks like all the bikes are flying at different heights and angles of attack.

The Ork deffkopters, at least the ones from the AOBR set came with two flying stalks each so that the heights could be varied.

**Grey Templar**

yes, all flying bases have 2 different stalks.

**Captain Shrike**

whats the size diff between the SR, and the FW CAESTUS ASSAULT RAM

**shrike**

Captain Shrike wrote:whats the size diff between the SR, and the FW CAESTUS ASSAULT RAM

castus- more pricey
looks better
2 assault ramps
10 TDA models
10 JP models
10 PA models
resin
less guns
can't carry a dread
available to any chapter

SR- less pricey
looks worse
1 assault ramp, 2 side ramps
12 PA models
12 JP models
dread
BA & GK only
more guns

**sonofruss**

You forgot the rear ramp.

**shrike**

sonofruss wrote:You forgot the rear ramp.

yeah, but who's gonna use it? You disembark from the base, not the ramps, so everything will be up front if you're a true BA player.

**whoadirty**

shrike wrote:
sonofruss wrote:You forgot the rear ramp.

yeah, but who's gonna use it? You disembark from the base, not the ramps, so everything will be up front if you're a true BA player.

So does this mean that if I somehow modeled the turret weapons into the nose of the Stormraven (thus removing the front door), that I would still be able to disembark from any point of the base?

**Grey Templar**

yes, all disembarkation is done from the base so the actual location of the access points is irrelevent.

you can drop the Dred 2" from the front of the Raven.

**shrike**

shrike wrote:
Captain Shrike wrote:whats the size diff between the SR, and the FW CAESTUS ASSAULT RAM

castus- more pricey
looks better
2 assault ramps
10 TDA models
10 JP models
10 PA models
resin
less guns
can't carry a dread
available to any chapter

SR- less pricey
looks worse
1 assault ramp, 2 side ramps
12 PA models
12 JP models
dread
BA & GK only
more guns

whoops, I read it as "what's the difference". Sorry.

whoadirty wrote:
shrike wrote:
sonofruss wrote:You forgot the rear ramp.

yeah, but who's gonna use it? You disembark from the base, not the ramps, so everything will be up front if you're a true BA player.

So does this mean that if I somehow modeled the turret weapons into the nose of the Stormraven (thus removing the front door), that I would still be able to disembark from any point of the base?

yes, but having a front ramp looks cool.