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.

No beggar I. I'm choosing to start playing Warmachine/Hordes. That's what I'm choosing.

The top of that looks boss. I think it just needs some more junk n dat trunk and it will look a lot better.

Tailgunner wrote:That may be because it's, y'know, a 3-D mock-up. As in someone's attempt to depict the model based on a single photo which doesn't show the rear. Not a strong basis for definitive judgments, but don't let that stop you

Hypocrite much?

Someone makes a 3D mockup and we have a cavalcade of people saying "It makes it look so much better", yet I say "No it doesn't..." and your reply to me is "Well it's a mock up! It doesn't show everything!". So the people who like it better due to the 3D angle showing it from 'better' angles are fine, but those who still don't see it... well we're just criticising a poor 3D mockup, aren't we?

I know it's a mockup - I know the 'hole' in the model isn't going to really be a hole in the actual model. I just don't see how this mockup makes the model any better (or worse). The (missing) rear is this vehicle's biggest problem (next is the aesthetically incorrect turret). It feels incomplete.

Tailgunner wrote:The mock-up actually suggests that the design is better proportioned than it seems in the leaked photo. It would be nice to know what is going on with the rear - I'm guessing some kind of grapple for the Dreadnought (as per the codex entry), which may fill some of the space under the tail.

Ah! I see you've answered my question already. The mock-up highlights all the good parts of the design, or confirms that the proportions are fine. So, as long as you like the Chibi-Hawk, the mockup is great and 'proves' that it's not a bad model. But if you don't like it, then you can't judge really because it's just a mock up.


Honest to God...

terribletrygon wrote:Didn't half of the people in that 40-50% think it was 'Okay'? 'Okay' doesn't sound much like 'Rather Liked'.

I am not saying it will sell bad, but this whole 40-50% of people liking it in the polls thing is rubbish.

I pointed that falsehood where the results were seeming lumped together in ways that didn't make sense and got cries of foul... the results last I saw were:
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%

Or about 21% like it well enough to want one. 22% who think its "okay" or are rather impartial. While 58% think its rather bad or worse. I would separate "okay" from the rest because thats what I selected and I don't like it but I don't think its "bad" though I probably won't buy it but others in this category might. Since people are trying to discern who will or won't buy it I think those are where the lines are drawn, that generally a person who thinks its "bad" will not be buying it.

aka_mythos wrote:Or about 21% like it well enough to want one. 22% who think its "okay" or are rather impartial. While 58% think its rather bad or worse. I would separate "okay" from the rest because thats what I selected and I don't like it but I don't think its "bad" though I probably won't buy it but others in this category might. Since people are trying to discern who will or won't buy it I think those are where the lines are drawn, that generally a person who thinks its "bad" will not be buying it.

not the greatest poll choices. while "okay" can be construed as a mild like, there is no option for someone who mildly dislikes it. an ideal poll would have a strong like, mild like, neutral/no opinion, mild dislike, and strong dislike as choices instead of what is offered.

The polling is irrelevant, all that matters is my opinion. My opinion is that this is rubbish. Thread over.

Reserved and reasonable as ever Shummy...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Reserved and reasonable as ever Shummy...

(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞

My computer translates that as simple squares, indicating that whatever font or symbols you used, I can't read them.

So I'll just go ahead and assume it was aggressive and/or insulting and say 'Back at'cha big guy!'.

I'll repeat my point:

If you don't like it becuase you dont like the asthetics of it...
Cool. Don't use it, or don't buy it and convert your own.

If you dont like it becasue you dont think it can fly: Neither can a raider, SM Speeder, Thunderhawk, Most eldar vehicles, any lander/lighter I've see.... and most of the 'aircraft' except for the Eldar stuff would burn up if they even twitched toward atmosphere.

Suspension of disbelief is necessary in a hobby such as ours. Its Sci Fi folks... relax and have some fun. :-).

I personally don't mind it, and will pick up at least one when the Grey Knights are released for my GK force.

H.B.M.C. wrote:My computer translates that as simple squares, indicating that whatever font or symbols you used, I can't read them.

So I'll just go ahead and assume it was aggressive and/or insulting and say 'Back at'cha big guy!'.

You need to update your language packs big guy.

ShumaGorath wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:My computer translates that as simple squares, indicating that whatever font or symbols you used, I can't read them.

So I'll just go ahead and assume it was aggressive and/or insulting and say 'Back at'cha big guy!'.

You need to update your language packs big guy.

Oh snap!

I dunno, I think it's starting to grow on me a little bit. Still not in a big hurry to go out and buy a Spess Mahreen army though, but if I did I'd just leave off the intake on the roof and call it good.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ah! I see you've answered my question already. The mock-up highlights all the good parts of the design, or confirms that the proportions are fine. So, as long as you like the Chibi-Hawk, the mockup is great and 'proves' that it's not a bad model. But if you don't like it, then you can't judge really because it's just a mock up.


Honest to God...

Nice try, but in attempting to paraphrase what I said, you've twisted the meaning. Thus, you appear to have misread 'the mock-up actually suggests that the design is better proportioned than it seems in the leaked photo' as 'wow, I now think this model is wonderful'. I'm sure that was inadvertent

Rage? Against an innocent Stormpelican? They couldn't call it a Blood raven because that wouldn't make any sense. Oh, I meant to say in other codexes. That would totally make sense in the Blood Angels Blood Codex of Blood.

I find myself liking it more and more because of the Hind analogy. I loved that butt-ugly gunship to death. I wonder what a stormpelican would look like with the skyblue underside and tan and brown camouflaged fuselage.

Yeah, it does look like it should be packaged by LEGO. The Lego Stormpelican.

No comparison to the Hind- that is a sleek gunship. The Stormraven is almost a self parody of absurdity in GW design. Strange, too , considering that the Valk looks pretty darn sweet (and no more capable of 'real' flight).

The last two marine flyers are complete gak. Admittedly I thought the Ironclad Dred was awful until I saw it in real life, though I still think the underslung weapons are too close to the ground, but I don't see the flyers being better up close.

I realise you can get away with a lot in a sci-fi universe, but at some point a nod to science (the sci part of sci-fi) needs to be made.

As for the flying brick concept, if that is so then why bother with the silly (and flimsy looking) wings at the back, missile pods could have been on fold out "wings" and the whole thing could have just been a block with a dred at the back.

cadbren wrote:
As for the flying brick concept, if that is so then why bother with the silly (and flimsy looking) wings at the back, missile pods could have been on fold out "wings" and the whole thing could have just been a block with a dred at the back.

Don't know why but now I have a mental image of an winged 18-wheeler crashing through the sky, a trucker cap-wearing BA at the wheel and an angry Furioso Dread tied to the grill.

ok just got newsletter saying new wave of BA also is that a new furioso dreadnought in the background? also in the link the copyed info on it says "I painted this Stormraven to match the battleforce that I painted for the Blood Angels army workshop in February 2011's White Dwarf" so there could be a battleforce on the way?

It's growing on me.

Like a polyp.

My first reaction when I saw it was to recoil in horror.

When I stopped and spent a bit of time looking at it and noticed it should be as wide, if not wider than a Rhino chassis vehicle I squealed like a bitch.

I've decided it has a face only a Techmarine could love.

I'm a little dissapointed about the rumor everybody else will be getting it. I can understand why (GW profits) but I don't like it because Blood Angels seem to be getting excluded from a lot of Forgeworld stuff, like the Caestus and the Achilles.

IT's reallllllllllllllllllllllly ugly. Lacks any elegance.

terribletrygon wrote:Someone actually made that? Give that man a medal.

I demand my medal.


The new one isnt all that bad.

BobMakenzie wrote:

terribletrygon wrote:Someone actually made that? Give that man a medal.

I demand my medal.


The new one isnt all that bad.

Pics or it didn't happen.

wolfshadow wrote:

BobMakenzie wrote:

terribletrygon wrote:Someone actually made that? Give that man a medal.

I demand my medal.


The new one isnt all that bad.

Pics or it didn't happen.

How about my whole build thread?

Really like this one, http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/uploads/1269920931/gallery_11639_3674_58929.jpg

If a new model (typically a vehicle) does not make you want to start a new army, then they are losing out on sales. The Valk made me want to start a Cadian army, that is for sure.

That being said, I really like the model, even from our limited angle. I will be buying one for sure, but I was already a BA player...

*ehem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring *ehem*

As long as there are turbines at the front aswell as on the wings then there is no reason for the model to "tumble forward". Sure it wont fly like a conventional aircraft but personally i think vertical take off and landing is far better, the wings are only there for stabalization and some lift. Engines at the back for fast forward motion and thrusters for easy manuvering / vertical take off and landing.

Plus isnt the stormraven meant to drop down from orbit? thats pretty much why it looks like a brick.

Can someone show me a Storm Raven using the Valkrie or the Vulture kits? And give me a tutorial. Because i need Storm Ravens for my Chapter.

If there are turbines in front naturally on the model I will be a lot less critical of it. I always imagined Imperial flying boxes as having 'grav plating' or some such nullifying their mass, which meant as long as they had thrust from reasonably sensical locations I would be ok with it. If there are no vtol turbines in front, I just cant picture the thing doing anything but flipping end over end like a vertical hockey stick with rockets attached horizontally only on one end lol. Hence my redesign.

If it does in face have thrusters in front, all the better, everything else I want to do would be very easy!