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.

It just looks odd with the wings high enough up for a marine to get a perm from those wing thrusters.

A friend told me that GW posted it at their site.
They took it off a few hours later.
I'm disappointed, not my taste.

I think its the angle! We just need to adjust this kit angle with a sledgehammer.

It looks like they too the wings off ceastus ram, the tail from an ork fighta, a marauder's turret, some bit6s from a few land raiders... guys, I think this is fake.

I think you don't have a discerning enough eye. The turret though similar to the marauder, has peeked roof with a single window instead of flat one with two windows. The SR turret is flat sided with the 2 lasguns on the side, the marauder has a more hexagonal turret with protrusions. The Caestus has missile pods on the wings, this doesn't. The SR has the large engine pods on the wings the Caestus doesn't. The detail on both wings are completely different the similarities are only the angles. With the tail the details are all wrong and its just a matter of similar angles.

These are relatively superficial aspects of each and appear in a number of real world aircraft. The details do not jive up. If it is a fake its a nearly completely scratchbuilt piece.

BaronIveagh wrote:It looks like they too the wings off ceastus ram, the tail from an ork fighta, a marauder's turret, some bit6s from a few land raiders... guys, I think this is fake.

Yeah, and Dark Eldar surely get squatted
When something is posted on the GW website and GW personnel and major rumour posters who held the model in their hands confirm it to be the right thing, then it is the right thing.

aka_mythos wrote:I think you don't have a discerning enough eye. The turret though similar to the marauder, has peeked roof with a single window instead of flat one with two windows. The SR turret is flat sided with the 2 lasguns on the side, the marauder has a more hexagonal turret with protrusions. The Caestus has missile pods on the wings, this doesn't. The SR has the large engine pods on the wings the Caestus doesn't. The detail on both wings are completely different the similarities are only the angles. With the tail the details are all wrong and its just a matter of similar angles.

These are relatively superficial aspects of each and appear in a number of real world aircraft. The details do not jive up. If it is a fake its a nearly completely scratchbuilt piece.

How to make that turret out of a marauder turret and some bits:

Take a jewel saw, cut the crossbar out of the mid-aft turret, and cut the turret between the last crossbar and the end of the last window. Glue this together. You now have that exact peaked roof. For the guns, I'm not entirely certain, but it looks like the barrels off a Kreig Leman russ hull lascannon attached to a command vehicle bit for apoc.

As far as the wing goes, you're right, I goofed:

To make the wings: cut down a Valkyrie's wings, cluing them to the valk engines, and use some board to make boxes around the vtol thrusters and engine.

As far as the tail goes: the fighta has bery little detail on it's tail. Though as simple as it is, it might just be plastic card that was updetailed.



EDIT: didn't know it was confirmed. Though I trust nothing GW says. They did, after all, say that Blood Angels were not getting a flying land raider.

And after all the work to get what you describe most anyone as dedicated could have scratch built the whole thing for way less cost and as much time.

I think you underestimate the amount of time and effort that some people put into a good hoax. I've seen them where they spent months of time and thousands of dollars just to try and get their fifteen min.

Yes, because Games Workshop totally goes out of their way to post hoaxes on their site for a few minutes then remove them from said site in the hopes that the Internet Peoples have saved the image to spread like a bad case of crabs in a hippy commune.

BaronIveagh wrote:EDIT: didn't know it was confirmed. Though I trust nothing GW says. They did, after all, say that Blood Angels were not getting a flying land raider.

A kinder GW employee might have answered the question "Are BA getting a flying landraider?" with "No, its something else." But as they are not as receptive these days to rumors, they gave as a response to "Are BA getting a flying landraider?"... "no, there is no flying land raider."

Just because it can be equipped similarly and its a transport doesn't make it a "flying land raider." Even if you ignore the literal interpretation of the question... there are enough disimilar aspects that most would not think of it as such unless you started calling it that and they contextually got a grasp... for example, internally GW discussed it as a marine Valkyrie... so the notion of it as a flying 14/14/14 brick capable of carrying terminators clashes with the mental image projected to characterize this new unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:I think you underestimate the amount of time and effort that some people put into a good hoax. I've seen them where they spent months of time and thousands of dollars just to try and get their fifteen min.

No I'm well aware of the effort people put into hoaxes, but thats my point... for an equally believable hoax they wouldn't have needed to spend as much and any one so skilled to perpetrate the hoax in the way you describe would be skilled enough to have just scratchbuilt it... and both would have taken as much time given how you described it "happening."

i found another conversion that is way beyond my kitbash ability and apparently GW's talent for the storm raven design. boxy marine aesthetic? check. turrets and weapons consistent with previous marine designs? check. overall shape consistent with mini-thunderhawk motiff? check. if you digitized this model and then rammed it into a cartoon adamantium wall to get a comical accordion effect, you'd sadly get the official GW version. boxy shape and a flying brick design aren't the problem; it's GW take on a boxy flying brick that is for a bunch of us.



http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?s=32684da7032dff60be6d47afa42f8c31&showtopic=204544&st=25

I like that one.

It looks better at first, but has even more logical flaws:

1.) No adequate landing gear: The front leg is shorter than the turret, no hind legs, so the flyer stands on the turret and the carried Dreadnought.
2.) Roof wings and the air intake on the air intake make no sense, even when they give the model a busy look.

Still a good looking kitbash of the Valkyrie model.

I think it's amazing! Great job whoever you are on BandC!

It may have some logic flaws but it grasps the spirit better.

And it LOOKS better. Aerodynamics be damned.

That looks far too heavy at the front to fly. I've seen some much better conversions around, such as the one warboss posted

Well its alot more proportional than a thunderhawk, in that case.

WINGED METAL BOXES!!!!!!

And I defer to your greater knowledge of crabs in a hippy commune, Kanluwen.

Though, frankly, if you want to spread disinformation, the best way to do it is to make it look like no one is supposed to see it.

If that were the case, then they wouldn't just have kept quiet about it. They would have said "We mistakenly posted photos of the Stormraven", etc.

Personally I like this one best; http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/05/40k-hobby-horn-pattern-storm-raven.html

Now see, that would require GW to admit that a mistake took place...

BaronIveagh wrote:Now see, that would require GW to admit that a mistake took place...

Now you're sounding like a tin hat conspiracy theorist or the JFK assassination nutters.

GW doesn't do misinformation on the Internet. They barely do information on the Internet.

Kanluwen wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Now see, that would require GW to admit that a mistake took place...

Now you're sounding like a tin hat conspiracy theorist or the JFK assassination nutters.

GW doesn't do misinformation on the Internet. They barely do information on the Internet.

LOL In all honesty, I get the feeling they barely do information within their own company.

At times i wonder if they aren't all fitted with cortex bombs set to go off if they think about the wrong subjects...

BaronIveagh wrote:At times i wonder if they aren't all fitted with cortex bombs set to go off if they think about the wrong subjects...

Unfortunately the cortex bomb is one of those subjects, making it somewhat like The Game with more explosions.

warboss wrote:

This is a great build.

Flying bricks seem to be the go to design for for the Imperium I kind of like it sorry folks.

I really like Battlefoam's. That one looks sweet

aka_mythos wrote:The Caestus has missile pods on the wings, this doesn't.

Look again, it does, actually.