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.

That's nice warboss, and certainly well converted, but lets be honest, it is not marine aesthetic. It is Imperial aesthetic. Marine has much more limited range of angles, inset panels, etc.

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.

Maybe its a deliberate GW slipup to let the public see "a" picture that no one can confirm is the real deal to gauge the publics reaction to it on various forums.
If it was a wip then this would be the perfect way of getting feedback on what is needed to be altered in order to make it more aesthetically pleasing (selling more) without loosing face.

Pyriel- wrote:

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.

Maybe its a deliberate GW slipup to let the public see "a" picture that no one can confirm is the real deal to gauge the publics reaction to it on various forums.
If it was a wip then this would be the perfect way of getting feedback on what is needed to be altered in order to make it more aesthetically pleasing (selling more) without loosing face.

Which is exactly what I said way at the beginning. (Unless it was the other identical Stormraven 'OMG PICS IT SUX LOL' thread....)

ph34r wrote:That's nice warboss, and certainly well converted, but lets be honest, it is not marine aesthetic. It is Imperial aesthetic. Marine has much more limited range of angles, inset panels, etc.

Whhattt? It is basically a little Thunderhawk. What could be more Space Marine then a Thunderhawk?

To be clear, I think the people who are not overly fond of the design's main issue is not one of physics or aerodynamics. EVERYTHING in the marine range is functionally slowed in terms of that.

But, the problem lies in the (subjective) view that it simply looks off. That in turn, makes you look and pick on all kinds of things that would not normally be picked on so heavily. It's a case of 'Thunderhawk would never fly? So what it looks AWESOME!' as opposed to 'Stormraven looks whack. You know what it wouldn't fly either on top of it!'

But, the problem lies in the (subjective) view that it simply looks off. That in turn, makes you look and pick on all kinds of things that would not normally be picked on so heavily. It's a case of 'Thunderhawk would never fly? So what it looks AWESOME!' as opposed to 'Stormraven looks whack. You know what it wouldn't fly either on top of it!'

I never thought Thunderhawk looked awesome. It looks just as slowed as this Stormraven, if not more so.

MajorTom11 wrote:But, the problem lies in the (subjective) view that it simply looks off. That in turn, makes you look and pick on all kinds of things that would not normally be picked on so heavily. It's a case of 'Thunderhawk would never fly? So what it looks AWESOME!' as opposed to 'Stormraven looks whack. You know what it wouldn't fly either on top of it!'

It is a proportional dilemma. That even in the context of other vehicles of the imperium and space marine vehicles its proportions seem to be imbalanced.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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

Look again, it does, actually.

I am aware of the Storm Ravens missile pods. Context of the conversation was that the two wings that of the Caestus and Storm Raven are not the same. I see no importance in pointing out something that contextually is still true. Pointing out a prepositional ambiguity serves little point. Given the context the preposition "on" is not the same as "under" or "on the bottom." Since it is a missile pod clearly mounted to the underside as opposed incorporated into the leading edge as it is on the Caestus, the two things are not the same. My point is still valid.

But, the problem lies in the (subjective) view that it simply looks off. That in turn, makes you look and pick on all kinds of things that would not normally be picked on so heavily. It's a case of 'Thunderhawk would never fly? So what it looks AWESOME!' as opposed to 'Stormraven looks whack. You know what it wouldn't fly either on top of it!'

This seems to pretty much cover it.

Therion wrote:I never thought Thunderhawk looked awesome. It looks just as slowed as this Stormraven, if not more so.

I always think it looks awesome unless I'm looking at it, then the front wings seem kind of off.

Therion wrote:

But, the problem lies in the (subjective) view that it simply looks off. That in turn, makes you look and pick on all kinds of things that would not normally be picked on so heavily. It's a case of 'Thunderhawk would never fly? So what it looks AWESOME!' as opposed to 'Stormraven looks whack. You know what it wouldn't fly either on top of it!'

I never thought Thunderhawk looked awesome. It looks just as slowed as this Stormraven, if not more so.

Thanks Therion for adding to that. I don't think I wrote 'Everyone' anywhere or even implied any such thing. But let me amend to make you feel better lol -

Fictional 'Everyone' except Therion.

lol.

Falk over at Warseer made this 3d mock-up pic:

Here's a cheap 3D mock-up I did by placing more or less accurately the picture as a background in my 3D software. If I haven't screwed up everything right from the start, it should be kinda accurate, those that have seen it already should be able to tell.

I didn't try to do the rear, no use in trying to invent something that exists and make something different...
Anyway, it looks better from other angles and without the crowd around it.
Hard to tell without seeing the landing gear, but the landing gear covers (or are those front thruster ?) seem to make the whole shape less towering, much more bulldog-like from the front (I tried to stay true to the design, there would be no point in doing something look better than it actually is).

Lol the 3D mock-up looks better to me than the actual model. But the original model never appeared to me. Not because of how it looks like a rhino thrown into a Thunderhawk but of how much time it looked like GW took to make it. Sure no model is as easy as one day of work, but still i was expecting something like this with the back of it connected with the front and having 2 access doors on each side and off the back could have a door which the dread would drop out of.

See? It does look fine. Now stop whining, marine players.

Well its cool to see it from other views... though the bottom left picture does seem to only compound concerns about the height of portions. A lot of this seems to accentuate height in a needless way.Obviously due to the limits of making a model based on a single picture, we still can't see the backside... lots hangs on how that done.

It looks nice,but,I'd rather go w/ a Thunder Hawk,but ya it looks nice......

Well the 3D pics certainly help but I'm still gonna wait till I walk into a GW store and pick one up before deciding whether or not to buy one.

It is Vile.

I want 6.

Hurrr.

Nice 3 d pic. certainly gives some perspective on it.

Again, I'm going to throw this out there.

For those who are saying "It can't fly!"

Stop thinking 'airplane'... start thinking 'counter-grav VTOL assault gunship'... I'm throwing this out there that the 'thrusters' are prob there more for brakeing and manouvering than for actual lift. Lift would be provided via counter grav, same as the land speeder.

Nearest Real Life Equivlent:


Not exactly a beautiful aircraft.

Fine? It looks like a Land raider being humped by an oversized hang glider.

Klawz wrote:See? It does look fine. Now stop whining, marine players.

The 3d mockup doesn't show the rear and is using almost entirely flattering angles that cover up the fact that it's missing an ass which would cause it, AND I'M SAYING THIS A FIFTH TIME to tumble foreword endlessly if it ever tried to actually fly. The 3d mockup didn't make it any better and if it looks "better" to someone now then they aren't paying particular attention to what their eyes are showing them.

Nice 3 d pic. certainly gives some perspective on it.

Again, I'm going to throw this out there.

For those who are saying "It can't fly!"

Stop thinking 'airplane'... start thinking 'counter-grav VTOL assault gunship'... I'm throwing this out there that the 'thrusters' are prob there more for brakeing and manouvering than for actual lift. Lift would be provided via counter grav, same as the land speeder.

That would work, except this is a spacecraft. With jet engines. So it wouldn't work. Grav plates have a ceiling of functionality, and jets don't work in space. Everything is wrong with this model.

Am I the only one wondering why they are supposedly going straight for a plastic kit rather than test the "popularity waters" of a totally new vehicle with a resin model?

Zuul wrote:Am I the only one wondering why they are supposedly going straight for a plastic kit rather than test the "popularity waters" of a totally new vehicle with a resin model?

Because thats not actually how they do their thing, and never really has been.

ShumaGorath wrote:
That would work, except this is a spacecraft. With jet engines. So it wouldn't work. Grav plates have a ceiling of functionality, and jets don't work in space. Everything is wrong with this model.

So you totally hate the Thunderhawk as well right? Becauses its a spacecraft that uses Jet engines? Or for that matter, EVERY SINGLE imperial space/atmospheric craft?
Or maybe... just maybe... Imperial Tech engines that function both in space and in atmosphere?
And you totally are missing the thrusters @ the front and on the wingtips?

Meh. Haters gonna hate, and the hate based on it not looking like it could fly is more than a little silly in a sci-fi game.
Most drop ship models dont look like they could 'fly' worth a crap.

So you totally hate the Thunderhawk as well right? Becauses its a spacecraft that uses Jet engines? Or for that matter, EVERY SINGLE imperial space/atmospheric craft?

I hate the jet engines. But then I'm in the camp that wants to punch the imperial vehicle designer in the gut and then have him replaced with someone who can do the job.

Or maybe... just maybe... Imperial Tech engines that function both in space and in atmosphere?

Nah, it's just an awful design from the era when the tanks had tracks six inches wide and they were putting silencers on laser guns. GWs design team used to be worst in class at this.

And you totally are missing the thrusters @ the front and on the wingtips?

If there are thrusters in front I can accept this as a poor design, rather then the worst vehicle yet debuted. They aren't shown in the pictures though and the wheel well placement of them doesn't make me very hopeful. That could just be a landing strut. And yes, I'm aware of the little wing jets. For the sixth time they would result in it tumbling foreward endlessly.

Meh. Haters gonna hate, and the hate based on it not looking like it could fly is more than a little silly in a sci-fi game.
Most drop ship models dont look like they could 'fly' worth a crap.

With standards that low, let me direct you this way.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So you totally hate the Thunderhawk as well right? Becauses its a spacecraft that uses Jet engines? Or for that matter, EVERY SINGLE imperial space/atmospheric craft?

I hate the jet engines. But then I'm in the camp that wants to punch the imperial vehicle designer in the gut and then have him replaced with someone who can do the job.

Or maybe... just maybe... Imperial Tech engines that function both in space and in atmosphere?

Nah, it's just an awful design from the era when the tanks had tracks six inches wide and they were putting silencers on laser guns. GWs design team used to be worst in class at this.

And you totally are missing the thrusters @ the front and on the wingtips?

If there are thrusters in front I can accept this as a poor design, rather then the worst vehicle yet debuted. They aren't shown in the pictures though and the wheel well placement of them doesn't make me very hopeful. That could just be a landing strut. And yes, I'm aware of the little wing jets. For the sixth time they would result in it tumbling foreward endlessly.

Meh. Haters gonna hate, and the hate based on it not looking like it could fly is more than a little silly in a sci-fi game.
Most drop ship models dont look like they could 'fly' worth a crap.

With standards that low, let me direct you this way.

Those actually look pretty cool. Wouldn't mind getting those for my daughter to play with... but alas they aren't 28mm Heroic, so wouldn't make a good SR replacement.

If you don't like it because it's UGLY, well thats an asthetic choice.
If you don't like it becuase it doesnt look like it can fly... sorry. I think you're being a little silly considering the hobby that we have. Counter grav, teleporting, flying bricks of all sorts. Jump packs, drop troopers.... for that matter you dont get much more like a flying brick than a SM Speeder. If you dont like the imperial asthetic at all... Well, I hope you dont play space marines then

That thing is hideous!

The 3D mock up pic looks exactly the same as the original GW model , i dont see how it "looked better"

LunaHound wrote:The 3D mock up pic looks exactly the same as the original GW model , i dont see how it "looked better"

It shows it at better angles.

I dunno, personally I think the mock-up helps a bit...I still think it's just "okay" though.

Really need to see what the rear looks like, though. (That's what she said.)

My stormraven goes swas swas swas (its a roflcopter)

It looks funny (I do mean ha ha funny).

But with a dreadnought on the back it will look balanced i think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:I dunno, personally I think the mock-up helps a bit...I still think it's just "okay" though.

Really need to see what the rear looks like, though. (That's what she said.)

Wouldn't that be what he said?

The 3D mockup highlights even further how the wings/engine join to nothing, and how the model has no back. Hell, the 3D mockup even has holes in it because there's nothing for the whole rear assembly to connect to.