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.

Kroothawk wrote:... if there wasn't a multi ton Cybot hooked to the tail, yes.
The Stealth fighter is also totally imbalanced, but computers take care of that. And machine spirits and AdMech rituals can do similar things, like getting functioning battleship cannons into a tank or making a Cybot actually walk!
Talking about wrong proportions and illogical equipment in a Space Marine army is futile in a world where hands are as big as heads and magic and anti-grav vehicles widespread.

Quite true, but talking about what we find to be aesthetically pleasing is perfectly valid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That Caestus looks a mite big for a switch out, but mebbe not. hard to tell.

MajorTom11 wrote:
Where have you been lol??

Much better!

Conversion fodder? Yes. I've thought of half a dozen things to do from the start including canards and reinforcing the wings.

Sweet model out of the box? Not by a long shot.

I will not be buying this..looks for too ugly :\ too bad i was looking forward to it

The more i look at it the more i like it its weird. this really is a marmite vehicle you either love it or hate it. 2 please

Shame that with marmite, 90% of people hate it.

Including me.

BTW GW delicerately leak it onto these sites to get feedback.

I can see why some Marine players are a bit dissapointed about the model... but I'm still gonna loot the crap out of this thing. Deff Dread with Parachute, here I come!

Oddly enough the poll over @ Warseer has the votes there about 49% like 51% dont like.

Its growing on me, and I'm pretty sure that there are thrusters @ the front.

And for those bitching about aerodynamics... This is a universe with teleporting and counter-grav. Why would it need to be aerodynamic?

Two people who actually have seen the model say that it looks better in reality.
If GW had clever marketing, they would bite the bullet and leak another pic of the Storm Raven. But then again, they are GW and don't believe in marketing

wolfshadow wrote:Oddly enough the poll over @ Warseer has the votes there about 49% like 51% dont like.

On our own poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327513.page it's 45% like and 55% don't like, in my local store it was 100% like.

I like the front part but to me the back/wings looks a little squashed and sorta rushed...

Kroothawk wrote:Two people who actually have seen the model say that it looks better in reality.
If GW had clever marketing, they would bite the bullet and leak another pic of the Storm Raven. But then again, they are GW and don't believe in marketing

wolfshadow wrote:Oddly enough the poll over @ Warseer has the votes there about 49% like 51% dont like.

On our own poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327513.page it's 45% like and 55% don't like, in my local store it was 100% like.

Although drawing conclusions based on internet polls is always more art than science, I think we can agree on one. The model heavily divides opinions. It is not the unmitigated success GW might have hoped for.

A-P wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Two people who actually have seen the model say that it looks better in reality.
If GW had clever marketing, they would bite the bullet and leak another pic of the Storm Raven. But then again, they are GW and don't believe in marketing

wolfshadow wrote:Oddly enough the poll over @ Warseer has the votes there about 49% like 51% dont like.

On our own poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327513.page it's 45% like and 55% don't like, in my local store it was 100% like.

Although drawing conclusions based on internet polls is always more art than science, I think we can agree on one. The model heavily divides opinions. It is not the unmitigated success GW might have hoped for.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

So to speak...

I am officially reserving final judgment until I see more pics, more angles, and just... more!

Jayden63 wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I'm betting the Stormraven will look better balanced with a Dreadnought being carried, but I doubt that's enough to save it.

I'd be willing to bet you can't actually put a dread behind it. The scale will be wrong, or it wont fit due to different weapon options because they are all different sizes. And heaven forbid you have a banner or something on the top. At the very least everyone will have a good laugh at the chunk of ground (dread base) that is somehow attached to the dangling dreads feet.

And even if it does somehow actually fit a dread back there, how long is that dread going to be there? Turn 1, maybe turn 2. Now you have dropped off the dread and have to play the next 2 hours staring at that ugly unbalanced angry goldfish.

What says to you the "scale" would be wrong? As a geometric issue of fitting any dreadnought, I don't think you've considered the dreadnought would stand with its back to the back of the Stormravens hull; at which its only a matter of shoulder space for the "different weapons" while the weapon's barrel stick out and away.

I only said that the aesthetics were likely planned with a dreadnought in tow, but I was also commenting on the fact I didn't think it was entirely practical. The fact is you have to design it with dreadnought in mind, since otherwise form doesn't meet function and you have something aesthetically more worthless.

Jayden63 wrote:

wolfshadow wrote:Oddly enough the poll over @ Warseer has the votes there about 49% like 51% dont like.

On our own poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327513.page it's 45% like and 55% don't like, in my local store it was 100% like.

Not to be too insulting, but it only shows some people have low standards. Or that people learn to love things no matter how bad they are, when they have no other alternative.

Yeah... that's sarcasm.

aka_mythos wrote: Not to be too insulting, but it only shows some people have low standards. Or that people learn to love things no matter how bad they are, when they have no other alternative.

There are people who have the same taste than you and people with low standards. Why should anyone feel insulted by that statement
All hail the man with the absolute taste!

There are people who have the same taste than you and people with low standards. Why should anyone feel insulted by that statement All hail the man with the absolute taste!

I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read that "not to be too insulting" post. You always know it's going to be "good" when someone starts out with what is basically a "no offense, but..." comment.

More possible alternate models, obviously they're meant for more standard human infantry but you could easily marine them up a bit;
http://www.oldcrowmodels.co.uk/25vtol.htm

Gargskull wrote:More possible alternate models, obviously they're meant for more standard human infantry but you could easily marine them up a bit;
http://www.oldcrowmodels.co.uk/25vtol.htm

I had taken a look at these day before yesterday but disregarded them as too generic looking without actually clicking on them first. Thank you for posting this link up here, I actually took a look and think they are a really good find. Too bad they are on the far side of the pond from me, but hey.

lots of space marine sholder pands left over from true scales and now this, looks like I'll be making a chibi blood angel army after all

the new pic looks better but the valk/whirlwind conversion looks much better. and cheeper

dont know about you guys but I'm sticking with DSing land raiders

aka_mythos wrote: Not to be too insulting, but it only shows some people have low standards. Or that people learn to love things no matter how bad they are, when they have no other alternative.

Not to be too insulting, but saying "no offense" or "not to be insulting" before your post does not make you look like any less of a dick when you post elitist bs.

I wish GW would burn for this transgression! has anyone told GW about this or no?

I imagine if anyone tried the GW employees would just cock their head to the side and go "Wot?", and pretend you're crazy and have no idea what you're talking about, like their corporate masters likely told them to if anyone brought it up.

Sidstyler wrote:I imagine if anyone tried the GW employees would just cock their head to the side and go "Wot?", and pretend you're crazy and have no idea what you're talking about, like their corporate masters likely told them to if anyone brought it up.

Just like S--ats?
See they censored me OH MY GAWD THEY FOUND ME! Oh wait thats just a word filter nevermind!

Sidstyler wrote:I imagine if anyone tried the GW employees would just cock their head to the side and go "Wot?", and pretend you're crazy and have no idea what you're talking about, like their corporate masters likely told them to if anyone brought it up.

No, I was chatting with a redshirt in the NY GW and he mentioned it (we were discussing new models).

An Atlantis puddle-jumper, grimdarked

Kroothawk wrote:

aka_mythos wrote: Not to be too insulting, but it only shows some people have low standards. Or that people learn to love things no matter how bad they are, when they have no other alternative.

There are people who have the same taste than you and people with low standards. Why should anyone feel insulted by that statement
All hail the man with the absolute taste!

My statement was meant to be taken more neutrally as a statement against people reading to much into a poll. That the poll they linked to was relatively subjective, that what they were reading into it was equally as subjective as the examples I gave. That they were taking a poll with 6 different possible answers and distilling it down to 2 answers, interpolating 6 subjective answers to a subjective question and then re-categorizing the percentiles in a subjective way, that didn't convey what they were trying to say it did. That contextually if people had read their link would have been made clear.

The poll they linked to simply asked: "What's your take on it?"
With answers and results...
Sweet model! 9%
I'll probably get one. 12%
it's okay. 22%
Pretty bad. 19%
Ghah! WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?! 16%
BURN IT! BURN! 23%

Saying the top 3 are "like it" and the bottom 3 are dislike it, is subjective. Since as many people would take "Its okay" to mean impartiality rather than an affirmation of like.

The statement was meant to be taken as so blatantly overblown that people could immediately see I wasn't saying the literal interpretation.... like saying "drug dealers are such good people, we should have them in every school."

BrassScorpion wrote:I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read that "not to be too insulting" post. You always know it's going to be "good" when someone starts out with what is basically a "no offense, but..." comment.

That part of the statement was meant to be read literally because I knew some people who wouldn't bother looking at the thread the linked to would read it literally rather than contextually. So when I said "not to be..." I was acknowledging the fact that I thought it might be misread by people... as it was by 3 or more.

It was sarcastic hyperbole.

Sidstyler wrote:Not to be too insulting, but saying "no offense" or "not to be insulting" before your post does not make you look like any less of a dick when you post elitist bs.

Not to be a dick, but it wasn't meant to be read that way. It was intended for people who had bother going to the linked thread and think for themselves and see that what was stated didn't match what he linked to. If I prescribe to any elite group, that would be the literate. By that I mean, I really don't prescribe to a high level of elitism but one of reasonable expectations from the average person, but I thought I should say that in case anyone else wanted to try to read too much into that.

I still reported the post, because it is a flaming/trolling post, and while you might be able to weasel-word your way into trying to explain it, that's still what it was.

Let us move on.

I wonder if I should get one of these for my Orks...

I can say they stole it from the Ultramarines off of Macragge, in "da great fighta-bomma raid!".

Well take it which ever way you want. If you knew me, you wouldn't feel that way. I am sincerely hurt that people would think that was my intent. I make little distinction between how people take what I say here and how my friends would. I am not a weaselly person just an often ill spoken one.

That said I think the model has a lot of potential for conversions and an Ork version that takes advantage of that large open rear space to turn it into a flying truk bristling with guns.

vorpalhit wrote:



An Atlantis puddle-jumper, grimdarked

Shhhhh

ChrisCP wrote:

vorpalhit wrote:



An Atlantis puddle-jumper, grimdarked

Shhhhh

My god I just noticed that XD

I love the look of the new model. I think the angle of the photo and the rear wing of the model make it look strange in the picture. I like that it has a bulky look to it though...to me it makes sense. I love the fact however, that the consensus from most players is that it looks like a brick and has no areodynamics to it.....yet people convert their own Stormravens using the Landraider kit as a base and somehow that looks ok to everyone. I cant wait for the release or more pics to do some further judging!