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.

Kanluwen wrote:

Flashman wrote:Our enthusiasm for new toys notwithstanding, what do people think fliers will bring to the game dynamic? (serious question)

The ability to let me field my Vulture with Punisher Gatling Cannons, without people whining it's "unnecessarily complicated".



All seriousness, d-usa is right. Until we see what 6th brings to the game dynamic, we can not really predict what flyers will bring to the table.

A friend of mine is actually trialling this in a friendly tourney next month. i think he is playign it as twin-linked rather than 2 separate cannons. can't remember what points he costd it up as though...





Flyers could add an interetsing dynamic, depending on what rules they end up with. If they get the same as flyer in apoc (only hit on a 6 unless it's an AA or pintle mount) they will rule the table. I can only speak for armeis i have used (SM, CSM and Necron) btu there are nto alot of pintle/AA weapons of decent strength going around:

CSM - pintle can have combi-meltas...that's it
SM - pintle mounted multi-melta on Crusaders.
Necron - i think the Pylon counts as being an AA mount.



Obviously IG have Hydras.

Redemption wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You can make a fairly accurate sketch of what a Space Marine vehicle will look like based upon a previously established aesthetic.

And also just happen to get details of the model right that aren't in the codex art (RE: Necron Stalker)? That's a lot of assumptions.

Sure it is, but so is the assumption that GW is giving them information to leak.

Flashman wrote:I guess I'm curious why there's been no rules for fliers until now (assuming 6th will indeed accomodate them) if they could add much to the game.

The best I can see is that they will be heavily armed, difficult to hit, lightly armoured vehicles... kind of like skimmers... which already exist

Because normal Warhammer games imo are too small for fliers. Now Fast Skimmers are one thing but vehicles that barrel around at mach 2? No way to realistically depict them unless you go the Forge World route in which half the time the aircraft go veering off board

Kanluwen wrote:

Slinky wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
You don't need an "inside track" to be able to predict that there will likely be a Space Marine Gunship called the Stormtalon either, since Games Workshop has rather predictable naming trends and will likely not miss an opportunity to make a vehicle using the Stormraven parts as the basis--especially considering that the Storm Eagle is doing exceedingly well for Forge World.

But you do need to know something to produce a picture of said gunship, surely?

Not necessarily.

You can make a fairly accurate sketch of what a Space Marine vehicle will look like based upon a previously established aesthetic.

Okay - you have a bash, and we'll see which is closer to the end result

I'm not quite sure what your issue is with this?

Slinky wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Slinky wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
You don't need an "inside track" to be able to predict that there will likely be a Space Marine Gunship called the Stormtalon either, since Games Workshop has rather predictable naming trends and will likely not miss an opportunity to make a vehicle using the Stormraven parts as the basis--especially considering that the Storm Eagle is doing exceedingly well for Forge World.

But you do need to know something to produce a picture of said gunship, surely?

Not necessarily.

You can make a fairly accurate sketch of what a Space Marine vehicle will look like based upon a previously established aesthetic.

Okay - you have a bash, and we'll see which is closer to the end result

I would, but my skills at drawing are limited to stickfigures.

I'm not quite sure what your issue is with this?

My issue is that they are being treated as some prophetic entity, with people citing their reliability based upon sketches that, to me, look as though they were made lifting the Codex art almost wholesale.

kenshin620 wrote:

Flashman wrote:I guess I'm curious why there's been no rules for fliers until now (assuming 6th will indeed accomodate them) if they could add much to the game.

The best I can see is that they will be heavily armed, difficult to hit, lightly armoured vehicles... kind of like skimmers... which already exist

Because normal Warhammer games imo are too small for fliers. Now Fast Skimmers are one thing but vehicles that barrel around at mach 2? No way to realistically depict them unless you go the Forge World route in which half the time the aircraft go veering off board

I said the same earlier.

Isn't that also how FOW handles them? Draw two pints on two table edge then imagine a straight line between them that represents the flight path with attacks based off of this line, etc?

I would i would imagine some similar mechanic to account for their speed/size of the table. I can't see a bunch of aircraft circling around a small piece of real-estate lime what a 6'x4' table depicts.

Then again maybe flyers will only be allowed on larger table surfaces such as 8'x4' or larger

Kanluwen wrote:

Redemption wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You can make a fairly accurate sketch of what a Space Marine vehicle will look like based upon a previously established aesthetic.

And also just happen to get details of the model right that aren't in the codex art (RE: Necron Stalker)? That's a lot of assumptions.

Sure it is, but so is the assumption that GW is giving them information to leak.

You don't think it's easier to assume they just have an inside source/leak instead of a 'underground leak partnership' with GW? :p Occam's razor and all.

Redemption wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Redemption wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You can make a fairly accurate sketch of what a Space Marine vehicle will look like based upon a previously established aesthetic.

And also just happen to get details of the model right that aren't in the codex art (RE: Necron Stalker)? That's a lot of assumptions.

Sure it is, but so is the assumption that GW is giving them information to leak.

You don't think it's easier to assume they just have an inside source/leak instead of a 'underground leak partnership' with GW? :p Occam's razor and all.

Oh I'm sure they're getting information from somewhere. We have Harry and the like who get information from inside sources.

I doubt, however, that individuals as blatantly obvious about their intentions as BoW would be able to have an inside source/leak at the company and keep it quiet.

Actually I think all of these have potential the only real aesthetic that jumps out as me wrong is the size of the twin linked assault cannons. Another thing is the rather sleek look of the ork craft. If any of the craft could get around looking really sleek it would be the ork one but appears to be far more stripped back than the SM one. Still could just be the drawings.

Apart from that to me these look good and will likely be a fun and effective addition.

Kanluwen wrote:

Slinky wrote:
I'm not quite sure what your issue is with this?

My issue is that they are being treated as some prophetic entity, with people citing their reliability based upon sketches that, to me, look as though they were made lifting the Codex art almost wholesale.

Yeah, that position works somewhat for the Necron flyer, but I for one haven't seen any other "StormTalon" pictures around, certainly not in my SM codex...

What seems obvious to me, anyway, and I've seen no one else mention -- BoW has most likely some advance copies of White Dwarf (or pages thereof) either shown to them or delivered in a secret yellow envelope. It's this advance copy that gave them the leak pics of necrons and where their 'concept artist' was able to draw pics of the triarch, talon, bomma, etc. In addition they had points costs and rules for the aforementioned models, which will appear in a white dwarf article. Also Warren dropped the bomb that July 7 will be the street date for 6th edition BRB. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a blurb in June's White Dwarf that alluded to such a thing happening.

So i'm excited - I hope Blood Angels can take these Storm Talons as fast because if so i'll own 2 red ones. Then a few weeks after this release comes out i get to spend $$ again on a big hardback book full of (hopefully) new rules and for God's Sake give us some good standard missions! (6th ed). All in all it's a well paced couple of months as far as i'm concerned with 40K releases.


Edit - As far as game balance goes I believe that flyers will give a -2 penalty to BS of shooters firing at them. Suddenly a 100 point night scythe equals the survivability of a 90 point annihilation barge, even with the drastic difference in AV (11 to 13). Also look at void raven bombers and the other DE flyer - way more points than ravagers, which is why no DE players use them. If they became harder to hit, the points would make sense. I don't have a leak WD telling me any of this but my intution says that whatever the penalty, fliers will be harder to hit than skimmers, justifying their points costs (and making Vendettas way more broken than they already are. They might exclude storm ravens and vendettas for that reason)

Slinky wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Slinky wrote:
I'm not quite sure what your issue is with this?

My issue is that they are being treated as some prophetic entity, with people citing their reliability based upon sketches that, to me, look as though they were made lifting the Codex art almost wholesale.

Yeah, that position works somewhat for the Necron flyer, but I for one haven't seen any other "StormTalon" pictures around, certainly not in my SM codex...

Well, to be fair I'm referring more to the Necron flyer, Stalker, and the Tomb Blades.

The only notable deviation of codex art->production model I can think of is the Manticore. They used the artwork for the FW model and then released a hideous version.

CT GAMER wrote:

kenshin620 wrote:

Flashman wrote:I guess I'm curious why there's been no rules for fliers until now (assuming 6th will indeed accomodate them) if they could add much to the game.

The best I can see is that they will be heavily armed, difficult to hit, lightly armoured vehicles... kind of like skimmers... which already exist

Because normal Warhammer games imo are too small for fliers. Now Fast Skimmers are one thing but vehicles that barrel around at mach 2? No way to realistically depict them unless you go the Forge World route in which half the time the aircraft go veering off board

I said the same earlier.

Isn't that also how FOW handles them? Draw two pints on two table edge then imagine a straight line between them that represents the flight path with attacks based off of this line, etc?

I would i would imagine some similar mechanic to account for their speed/size of the table. I can't see a bunch of aircraft circling around a small piece of real-estate lime what a 6'x4' table depicts.

Then again maybe flyers will only be allowed on larger table surfaces such as 8'x4' or larger

If memory serves the apoc rules for flyers are that they have to move a minimum of 36", they can use that movement to leave the tabel and come back on again next turn if they want to as well. I think they can also move and fire everything. I have only used one fo the chaos Hell Talon fighter once. it was decidedly Meh, although in squadrons they would be awesome (2 Reaper autocannons each). This might be a bit overpowered for smaller 40k games though.

I would imagine that, assumign flyers came in, they woudl have "advanced" versions of the Fast Skimmer rules (longer movement and altered firing rules). but other than that the rules for Fast Skimmers woudl probably trnaslte pretty well (immobilised=wrecked etc)

Well, they basically have a proven track record. Take the Triach Stalker sketch they made, before the model was released:



Codex art on the left, the BoW sketch on the right. Now let's take the official model:



Things that are in the sketch and in the model, but are not in the codex art:
- Front legs have 4 segments in stead of 3.
- No 'crown' on the pilot's head.
- No panels behind the pilot.
- Shape of weapon, down to location of the power orbs and the nozzle shape.
- Clasps on the green orb of the front of the cockpit.

Yes, the sketch is badly out of proportion, but do you really think they just happen to get all those details right based on their interpretation of the codex art?

kenshin620 wrote:Because normal Warhammer games imo are too small for fliers. Now Fast Skimmers are one thing but vehicles that barrel around at mach 2? No way to realistically depict them unless you go the Forge World route in which half the time the aircraft go veering off board

You forget the tech level of the setting. There's no reason why even "fixed-wing" craft wouldn't mount a basic grav drive at least as a backup system, allowing them to perform much like today's helicopters. Super-science jets really cease to be their own category and are really just grav tanks that can fly really really fast if they have to.

To see how fliers might be implemented, I think a good place to start might be the leaked book . I know, I know...it's all a fake and a bunch of complete CRAZINESS that will never see the light of day. Still, some of the stuff mentioned for these sound like 5th edition patches for things that appear to be 6th edition mechanics.

And the deathstrike. Because they used the chimera chassis that is way smaller than it should be. tbh if I wanted a deathstrike in my army I would have to convert it to be proportional to the Epic one.

Praxiss wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Flashman wrote:Our enthusiasm for new toys notwithstanding, what do people think fliers will bring to the game dynamic? (serious question)

The ability to let me field my Vulture with Punisher Gatling Cannons, without people whining it's "unnecessarily complicated".



All seriousness, d-usa is right. Until we see what 6th brings to the game dynamic, we can not really predict what flyers will bring to the table.

A friend of mine is actually trialling this in a friendly tourney next month. i think he is playign it as twin-linked rather than 2 separate cannons. can't remember what points he costd it up as though...





Flyers coudl add an interetsign dynamic, depending on what rules they end up with. If they get the same as flyer in apoc (only hit on a 6 unless it's an AA or pintle mount) they will rule the table. I can only speak for armeis i have used (SM, CSM and Necron) btu there are nto alot of pintle/AA weapons of decent strength going around:

CSM - pintle can have combi-meltas...that's it
SM - pintle mounted multi-melta on Crusaders.
Necron - i think the Pylon counts as being an AA mount.



Obviously IG have Hydras.

Too bad my favorite pintle mount is the heavy stubber.
The IA armored company has the Vulture as a heavy support choice with the treat it has a fast skimmer rule for regular 40k games.
All these flyers just cut into the Elders game, vehicles zipping around the table have been a staple of the star engined Eldar for years now.
Still, I like the Stormtalon enough I will get one. The Ork flyers too.
I have a vision. Red bull air race the Waugh way!
The Red Ork Waugh Race!

Redemption wrote:Well, they basically have a proven track record. Take the Triach Stalker sketch they made, before the model was released:

Spoiler:

Codex art on the left, the BoW sketch on the right. Now let's take the official model:

Things that are in the sketch and in the model, but are not in the codex art:
- Front legs have 4 segments in stead of 3.
- No 'crown' on the pilot's head.
- No panels behind the pilot.
- Shape of weapon, down to location of the power orbs and the nozzle shape.
- Clasps on the green orb of the front of the cockpit.

Yes, the sketch is badly out of proportion, but do you really think they just happen to get all those details right based on their interpretation of the codex art?

The model is far closer to the artwork than it is to BoW's sketch.
-The front legs in their sketch are far too "articulated".
-There's actually not a crown on the pilot's head from how the artwork in the Codex appears. He has something behind him, which appears to be attached to the "throne" panels.
-I think this is a shame, because it looks a little bit cooler. They did, however, miss the "arch" that the Praetorian has extending above him.
-I will hand you this one.
-The front of the "cockpit" is reaaaaaaally wrong. They had the "orb" you mentioned in the center, surrounded by smaller orbs in a symmetric pattern on each side.

So they were 2.5 or 3 for 5.

I know everyone expects the durability of fliers to increase due to making them harder to hit, but the problem with the ork ones isn't so much durability, its the fact that this is a game designed around killing things (unless you're a vieltek necron army or a mechdar force )

With the pathetic armament on those ork planes... you won't be killing things. Sorry if I'm spoiled by IG vendetta gunships, machine spirit multimelta stormravens, monoscythe missles, etc... but twin link dakka guns? Really? Really?

I know theses rumors might not be entirely accurate... but still that super disheartening.


If you can spam the fighters (at like 40 points a model) then yes, I might pick up a few (but I'm sure this will require a second mortgage on your house monetary wise). But right now, a warbike squad is a more versatile and I'm ashamed to say, survivable way of getting dakkaguns on the table. Even if you make flyers harder to hit, I'd still go with the warbikers because a) they come with their own cover save, b) you can actually hide them from... you know... every heavy weapon in the opponents army.

Kanluwen wrote:

Redemption wrote:

Yes, the sketch is badly out of proportion, but do you really think they just happen to get all those details right based on their interpretation of the codex art?

The model is far closer to the artwork than it is to BoW's sketch.
-The front legs in their sketch are far too "articulated".
-There's actually not a crown on the pilot's head from how the artwork in the Codex appears. He has something behind him, which appears to be attached to the "throne" panels.
-I think this is a shame, because it looks a little bit cooler. They did, however, miss the "arch" that the Praetorian has extending above him.
-I will hand you this one.
-The front of the "cockpit" is reaaaaaaally wrong. They had the "orb" you mentioned in the center, surrounded by smaller orbs in a symmetric pattern on each side.

So they were 2.5 or 3 for 5.

I think it's pretty obvious that the sketch was taken from that exact picture of the model, look at the positioning of all the limbs etc.

You are clinging on to a position that makes no sense to me.

Slinky wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that the sketch was taken from that exact picture of the model, look at the positioning of all the limbs etc.

You are clinging on to a position that makes no sense to me.

I'm not "clinging" to any position. I'm simply saying that this idea that their predictions are not necessarily that accurate. They're getting things in general right, but specifics are not necessarily there. The likelihood of them getting access to advanced material is about on par with a chimp building his own rocket ship and colonizing Mars.

And yet they clearly have had access to pics of various models before anyone else (anyone else who's willing to share sketches based on them, anyway).

I believe that the BoW folks have seen the actual models and made these drawings based on it.

I believe that the kits will come out on June 2, just as they said.

I believe that the BoW tactica videos are questionable.

yeah,
The point is no one wants these gak sketches.
If they dont have the photo they have nothing I want to see.

at the moment;
BOW=BOLs=BullGak

Panic...

Slinky wrote:And yet they clearly have had access to pics of various models before anyone else (anyone else who's willing to share sketches based on them, anyway).

Did you ever think that there's likely a reason people aren't "sharing sketches"?

It's not sharing something really useful, it's just an attempt to be "first" in sharing that information.

Can my GK take the Stormtalon or no? I need fighter escorts for my Stormravens...

Why would I take a Stormtalon over a Landspeeder Squadron in a SM list? Seems redundant tactically to me.

Panic wrote:yeah,
The point is no one wants these gak sketches.
If they dont have the photo they have nothing I want to see.

at the moment;
BOW=BOLs=BullGak

Panic...

And Panic has just articulated my point better than I have. Thank you Panic.

BladeWalker wrote:Can my GK take the Stormtalon or no? I need fighter escorts for my Stormravens...

No one knows that, actually. We'll have to wait and see the rules.

BladeWalker wrote:
Why would I take a Stormtalon over a Landspeeder Squadron in a SM list? Seems redundant tactically to me.

Can the Stormtalon take troops? If so, there's your reason. We don't know the rules for them, so I'm guessing we'll have to wait and see a reason to take them. Perhaps it will be cheaper than 3 Landspeeders? If it has PotMS, it can fire and 2 things, unlike a squadron of speeders.

kronk wrote:

Can the Stormtalon take troops? If so, there's your reason. We don't know the rules for them, so I'm guessing we'll have to wait and see a reason to take them. Perhaps it will be cheaper than 3 Landspeeders? If it has PotMS, it can fire and 2 things, unlike a squadron of speeders.

True, plus 12 armor and ceramite most likely. Thanks.