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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:The Vendetta from Forge World? It's a conversion kit, there's exactly four pieces. That(along with, as you mentioned, Valkyries and their variants not really being aircraft but VTOLs) is why I say "it likely won't get a release".

I just can't see it reasonably being a good investment for GW to set up a whole new sprue for 4 bits when the Valkyrie itself likely hasn't made its cost back yet.

Firstly, one of those 'four' bits is a massive block of resin. The GW version (assuming there ever was one) would be decidedly hollower, and have more bits.

I want to see the actual bits of a Vendetta kit, to be honest. I've never had cause to buy one simply because...well, I hate the Vendetta's execution.

With that out of the way:
I'm not saying that "THERE WILL NEVER EVER EVER BE A GW MADE PLASTIC VALKYRIE WITH THE BITS FOR VENDETTAS!". I just don't see a point to it, especially considering how easy everyone has touted it to be to convert the thing up.

I can see it being done with the next IG codex, when Vulture Gunships are added in as Troops and Creed rides a pair of Baneblades like they're roller skates!
Or if they add in new Valkyrie variants.

Secondly, the Vulture doesn't exactly come with weapons. Again, the GW version (assuming there ever was one blah blah blah...) would have lots of different weapon options. It would be far, far, far more than 'four pieces'.

Actually, the Vulture kit from Forge World does come with weapons. Hellstrikes and Rocket Pods. I never said they were good weapons!
Basically, it includes what can be made from the bits of the Valkyrie sprues they include.

If GW came out with a thunderbolt kit I would buy a pair.

I need to replace my crappy scratch-build.

Kanluwen wrote:I want to see the actual bits of a Vendetta kit, to be honest. I've never had cause to buy one simply because...well, I hate the Vendetta's execution.

Are you talking about the Valk kit, or the Vendetta conversion kit specifically? I've got 2 Vendettas using the actual FW kit. They're really very simple. It's just a different front, two wing TL-Lascannons and a TL-Lascannon replacement for the regular hull-mounted gun. Works really well, went together really easily. Minimal warpage (for a FW kit, that is).

Kanluwen wrote:I'm not saying that "THERE WILL NEVER EVER EVER BE A GW MADE PLASTIC VALKYRIE WITH THE BITS FOR VENDETTAS!". I just don't see a point to it, especially considering how easy everyone has touted it to be to convert the thing up.

I don't see a point to it either, but "Because FW already makes one" isn't the reason.

Kanluwen wrote:I can see it being done with the next IG codex, when Vulture Gunships are added in as Troops and Creed rides a pair of Baneblades like they're roller skates! Or if they add in new Valkyrie variants.

Nah. Don't expect a new plastic kit to be recut for it's second run round. Try 7th Ed Guard.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, the Vulture kit from Forge World does come with weapons. Hellstrikes and Rocket Pods.

Yeah, the plastic ones from its parent kit.

Plastic Vulture kit would be ace, I have a hybrid and an old all-resin right now, but all plastic would most certainly be the way to go. Maybe they can fix the shallow flight stand hole while they're at it.

Flyers might be good for a Christmas release...

For those wanting a plastic Vendetta conversion kit, couldn't you just use this?

It's unlikely that anything will be released for my army, but I'd still like to see a Thunderbolt kit. On the rules front, giving the Exorcist an AA mount and maybe having rules for an Inquisitorial gun-cutter is about as much as I can hope for.

I woudl love to see plastic kits for the Hellblade and Helltalon. I have a FW blade which is nice but they need to be deployed in squadrons really.


Regarding Flyer rules. My friends and i cam up with a rule for when they are destroyed. When it suffers a Pen hit, roll as normal. If you get a Destroyed-Explosion result, the planes blows up in mid air. If you get an Immobilised or Desrtoyed-Wecked then the plan spirals out of control and hits the deck. Roll 3D6 and a scatter dice. Where ever the plan hits suffers a S8 AP4 Large Blast as the flyer plows into the ground, with anything under the dot being hti with S8 AP2 as the flyer essentially lands on their head.

Obviously scale it up to the 10" pie plate for thunderhawks etc.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:The Vendetta from Forge World? It's a conversion kit, there's exactly four pieces. That(along with, as you mentioned, Valkyries and their variants not really being aircraft but VTOLs) is why I say "it likely won't get a release".

I just can't see it reasonably being a good investment for GW to set up a whole new sprue for 4 bits when the Valkyrie itself likely hasn't made its cost back yet.

Firstly, one of those 'four' bits is a massive block of resin. The GW version (assuming there ever was one) would be decidedly hollower, and have more bits. Secondly, the Vulture doesn't exactly come with weapons. Again, the GW version (assuming there ever was one blah blah blah...) would have lots of different weapon options. It would be far, far, far more than 'four pieces'.

Dude, I don't think he means what you think he means. He's talking about this. I'm pretty sure no bit of resin is "massive."

Vulture is this. This has a massive resin piece.

The vendetta was thrown into the codex largely to make up to FW the fact GW took one of FW most successful kits. That said, I really think GW should do something about the availability of FW kits that are pretty much necessities, like the vendetta. There aren't too many such kits, which I think would make it easy enough for GW make them available through their normal storefront.

I think if GW does this Flyer expansion, I think we'll see the rules within this expansion treat them more like the "old" flyers and less like really fast skimmers.

Praxiss wrote:I woudl love to see plastic kits for the Hellblade and Helltalon. I have a FW blade which is nice but they need to be deployed in squadrons really.


Regarding Flyer rules. My friends and i cam up with a rule for when they are destroyed. When it suffers a Pen hit, roll as normal. If you get a Destroyed-Explosion result, the planes blows up in mid air. If you get an Immobilised or Desrtoyed-Wecked then the plan spirals out of control and hits the deck. Roll 3D6 and a scatter dice. Where ever the plan hits suffers a S8 AP4 Large Blast as the flyer plows into the ground, with anything under the dot being hti with S8 AP2 as the flyer essentially lands on their head.

Obviously scale it up to the 10" pie plate for thunderhawks etc.

There's actually some rules like this in one of the Imperial Armour Apocolypse books. Or is it in Apoc Reload. Nope Imperial Armour - has to be. I think the second one. They have a bunch of extra special rules for apoc that you can include or build off of. I believe they use the hellstorm template for debris landing all over the place anytime a flyer is destroyed.

oh nice. I dont have any of the IA books.

Here is a pic of one of the new flyers, the Stormraven!

Not too sure about its look though...might make a good fightbomma...

That is not how I imagined it. At all.

Got a red X here (where you hosting that?) here's another for those also work blocked.





edit - Oh and should note my opinion, odd looking, like someone chopped the front off a Thunderhawk, not sure I like it.

I was hosting it at photobucket. Sorry it was blocked, (its blocked at my workplace too. Luckily I had today off1)

This was found in place of the second page to the 40K FAQs. Seems like GW fixed it rather quickly though.

I must say that is not the direction I expected that to go in at all.
I disslike it.

Yeah Photobucket seems to be a quick target for work blocking, I tend to use Tinypic, it seems to have slipped under the radar.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Yeah Photobucket seems to be a quick target for work blocking, I tend to use Tinypic, it seems to have slipped under the radar.

Thanks for the info. Next time I "work" (cough cough) I will be sure to try it out.

As for the model, definitely not what i was expecting. It is almost 100% unanimous that people hate this thing...

wow...I agree with the thought, "not what I imagined...??" Although ork players do have a great fighter/bomber model!!

This 'stormraven' cannot even remotely compete with the scratchbuilt ones.

Its possibly useful as bits to built another model but I would not build this 'out of the box'.

It's the turret on top. Maybe if that is left off it might be salvaged.

BrookM wrote:It's the turret on top. Maybe if that is left off it might be salvaged.

I can see that. Interesting. Could anyone who is good at photoshop or something repost it without the turret? please?

I can see some of the arguments against GW releasing a plastic Vulture, but to be honest I don't think it being similar to the Vakyrie would deter GW at all. Quite the opposite in fact. Picture a GW number cruncher examining the 6 beautiful new flyers, whatever they may turn out to be:

No. Cruncher: "Wow, these are really good. Beautiful. Lot's of lovely revenue for us!"
Model designer: "Thank you sir."
No. Cruncher: "Hmmm, but hang on. We've already got the Valkyrie out right?"
Model designer: "Umm, yes?"
No. Cruncher: "Don't those guys at FW make that other model that kind of looks like it and uses lots of its bits?"
Model Designer: "The Vulture Gunship, sir?"
No. Cruncher: "Thats the badger! Steal their idea, make it plastic, and then our release goes up from 6, to 7! 7! Thats, a whole 1 more! And that equals REVENUE!!11!1one!"

Seems unfortunately likely to me.

It is a little squat/smooshed looking, but still better than anything I could kitbash!

Anyone know if there's a dreadnought hookup on the other side? (er, yeah...)

VikingScott wrote:

BrookM wrote:It's the turret on top. Maybe if that is left off it might be salvaged.

I can see that. Interesting. Could anyone who is good at photoshop or something repost it without the turret? please?

Since you said please...



Though I wouldn't say it was a good photoshop, just a quick one to make a point.

It does continue in the grand GW tradition of "Ain't no way 10 marines can fit in it" too!

VikingScott wrote:

BrookM wrote:It's the turret on top. Maybe if that is left off it might be salvaged.

I can see that. Interesting.

But that turret is one of better parts of this model
IMHO, its too short and high.
Only "4x standard bases length" from nose to wings isn't enough.

1hadhq wrote:

VikingScott wrote:

BrookM wrote:It's the turret on top. Maybe if that is left off it might be salvaged.

I can see that. Interesting.

But that turret is one of better parts of this model
IMHO, its too short and high.
Only "4x standard bases length" from nose to wings isn't enough.

Yeah I see that it is too short but I am not a great modeler of tanks. I could manage leaving off the turret more than I could extending it. The turret to me looks a bit out of place.

@VS: then you should get rid of the air intakes too. Flatten its top. Still feel a broader chassis ( at least rhino sized ) neccessary to salvage this design.

VikingScott wrote:

1hadhq wrote:

VikingScott wrote:

BrookM wrote:It's the turret on top. Maybe if that is left off it might be salvaged.

I can see that. Interesting.

But that turret is one of better parts of this model
IMHO, its too short and high.
Only "4x standard bases length" from nose to wings isn't enough.

Yeah I see that it is too short but I am not a great modeler of tanks. I could manage leaving off the turret more than I could extending it. The turret to me looks a bit out of place.

So what did you think of the photoshopped picture above? Do you think the removal of the turret looks better in the pic?