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.

GreyDeathOne wrote: well I believe if your going to do a "original" model you gotta go 100% original.
Ok I see he did a computer rendering of this model but copying the gas tank back and making slight changes to the seat the backrest and engine is just "easy" and not creative as Kromlech or Maxmini.
Hey just my ¢.02.

... says the guy whose name is a "kitbash" of a long time Dakka moderator/famous converter: Grey Death

Kitbashing needs a kit: No Kit used, no kitbash. And what could be more generic than a square tank and a bike seat.

Its a kit made with aesthetic compatibility in mind. Kromlech and Maxmini may have what some consider more creative jetbikes, but I would never use either in my army because I don't think they aesthtically mesh with my army.

This is meant to be used for kitbashing and not be army specific, so it doesn't have the ton of hood ornaments many have grown accustomed too. Nick wanted it plain so that he could have additional details sculpted on, later on, for other variants.


Some people feel entitled to their opinions... and thats fine... others feel additionally entitled spite. I know how much time, energy, and effort I put into this... so I know it certainly wasn't churned out.

Everytime I work on a project for CHS, I run a blog in Dakka's P&M Blog's forum, I do so because I'm open to criticism and notes from the people I see as my audience. That said I really feel people have had the opportunity to influence the design or complain about features, but that was then. Trying to do so now just seems silly to me. I don't insist people like it, but at this stage I only expect an appreciation for the effort that went into it.

Kanluwen wrote:I want to like it.

Jetbikes are one of those things covered under "Rule of Cool"(because let's face facts--they're awesome).

But it just looks like a normal Imperial Bike with the wheel slots covered up, a cowcatcher from a locomotive put on the front, and the footrest for the normal bike reversed.

Exactly. What's not to like?

Those look pretty sweet. They might fit perfectly into my new project.

Some of it looks really nice. I like the prow, and the engine. The only part I'm not so hot on is the bolters. They look too small and maybe bland. I get that was partially to ensure compatibility with the combi kit, but at the end of the day that's a pretty weak point. Even just adding longer, heavier barrels would have maybe improved it.

Only the optional controls are for the combi bolters and you can see how much larger those are than these. These are small, because I was instructed to leave room for some sort of an eagle to fit between the guns... which limited how wide the "guns" could be... which was already constrained by the need to have a magazine.

Side note: while less dramatic, at 28mm scale, the barrels are what a .75 cal weapon's would scale to. Working on my 1:1 bolter... a bolters barrel ends up at 1 3/4" diameter while shooting a projectile less than half that.

I prefer a more streamlined and sleek look when it comes to something that flies. Not Eldar-sleek, mind.

More of a motorcycle faring/front cowling -thing.

Also it does look kinda bland. Not anything that a few bits can't help, but I prefer a more ornate look to the pre-heresy stuff.

aka_mythos wrote:


Some people feel entitled to their opinions... and thats fine... others feel additionally entitled spite. I know how much time, energy, and effort I put into this... so I know it certainly wasn't churned out.

Everytime I work on a project for CHS, I run a blog in Dakka's P&M Blog's forum, I do so because I'm open to criticism and notes from the people I see as my audience. That said I really feel people have had the opportunity to influence the design or complain about features, but that was then. Trying to do so now just seems silly to me. I don't insist people like it, but at this stage I only expect an appreciation for the effort that went into it.

So you're only interested in hearing feedback on your work from loyal fans that follow your P&M blog? Why would people comment on a product that they could have dug through the P&M forum months ago to comment on? How silly of them. What a silly thing to do.
That fact that your implying that some of the negative comments are motivated by spite tells me that you're taking them personally. Have you read peoples comments on every new model that gets posted in News and Rumours? They rip peoples work to shreds, sculptors that have been producing quality work for decades. Should you get treated differently because you also post on Dakka?

The bike is...fine. The price makes it acceptable. The grill at the front seems oddly uneven and the "bolters" don't match the aesthetic of anyone's army unless they're equipping all their men with RT beakie needle pistols.
The groin on the legs could use a slight tilt forward IMO. If the arms etc are all lined up properly in the preview pics the torso looks like it's sits over the ball joint instead of snugly on top of it.

plastictrees wrote:
So you're only interested in hearing feedback on your work from loyal fans that follow your P&M blog? Why would people comment on a product that they could have dug through the P&M forum months ago to comment on? How silly of them. What a silly thing to do.
That fact that your implying that some of the negative comments are motivated by spite tells me that you're taking them personally. Have you read peoples comments on every new model that gets posted in News and Rumours? They rip peoples work to shreds, sculptors that have been producing quality work for decades. Should you get treated differently because you also post on Dakka?

No I don't expect special treatment. In fairness what you quoted was in response to something someone posted that got deleted. It was in response to HBMC calling someone out for saying "CHS is churning out crap," and him saying that the comment was unnecessary. There are plenty of posts that were made that were not in favor of my design choices and I really am fine with those but someone crossed a line and I felt I should comment on that specific instance. If you go back a page you can even see where Reds8n mod-ed the post.

I make a distiniction between feedback from criticism and critique. To me feedback is made when I'm still empowered to do something about it, based on whats said; at this point I am not. So you can like the model or not and I will take the criticisms into consideration for future endeavors, but one crosses a line from constructive critism into "spite" when a comment isn't constructive at all... such as calling it "crap"... it serves no purpose but to beleager either the work or those who did the work.

I try to reflect my philosophy when I post. I don't just say something is junk, I say what I personally would have done differently. I try to analyize what the sculptor tried to accomplish and see where they ran afoul of their concept. I try to be a consistent voice in giving designers a fair shake and I don't like it when people are unfair in their criticism. I hold them to simple metric, "do I believe I could have done better?" In this case, even with my own work I think I could have, but there was the impact of dictated design considerations.

plastictrees wrote:
The bike is...fine. The price makes it acceptable. The grill at the front seems oddly uneven and the "bolters" don't match the aesthetic of anyone's army unless they're equipping all their men with RT beakie needle pistols.
The groin on the legs could use a slight tilt forward IMO. If the arms etc are all lined up properly in the preview pics the torso looks like it's sits over the ball joint instead of snugly on top of it.

The grill if its uneven it'd have to be something with the casting or printing process... because the digital model is consistent out to 3 decimal points.
The groin I agree could use a tilt forward to make the rider lean forward more, which was what I intended, but I didn't sculpt that part. The torso is probably held on with sticky-tack so its probably why its sitting high.

aka_mythos wrote:

I make a distiniction between feedback from criticism and critique. To me feedback is made when I'm still empowered to do something about it, based on whats said; at this point I am not. So you can like the model or not and I will take the criticisms into consideration for future endeavors, but one crosses a line from constructive critism into "spite" when a comment isn't constructive at all... such as calling it "crap"... it serves no purpose but to beleager either the work or those who did the work.

I try to reflect my philosophy when I post. I don't just say something is junk, I say what I personally would have done differently. I try to analyize what the sculptor tried to accomplish and see where they ran afoul of their concept. I try to be a consistent voice in giving designers a fair shake and I don't like it when people are unfair in their criticism. I hold them to simple metric, "do I believe I could have done better?" In this case, even with my own work I think I could have, but there was the impact of dictated design considerations.

Which is fine, and your prerogative, but the "could you do better?" threshold would prevent 99% of potential customers who aren't sculptors from ever commenting on product. Actual constructive criticism should be a nice surprise, not the expected standard. "Hurray, I love it!" might feel nicer but it isn't really any more constructive than "This is the worst thing I've ever seen!".

aka_mythos wrote:
The grill if its uneven it'd have to be something with the casting or printing process... because the digital model is consistent out to 3 decimal points.

I think I'm seeing the distance between the front of each "vane" as being irregular. I'm guessing it's because the curve of each line is slightly deeper.
I'm a little surprised you weren't told to go with an armour plated prow, that would seem more open to future add-ons.

I really like it me, i am looking forward to an attack bike alternative too.
I prefer it to the Kromlech jetbike, i just think it looks more imperial.
I much prefered it when Marines travelled on these things, i think i will be adding a few to my collection.

Kroothawk wrote:

GreyDeathOne wrote: well I believe if your going to do a "original" model you gotta go 100% original.
Ok I see he did a computer rendering of this model but copying the gas tank back and making slight changes to the seat the backrest and engine is just "easy" and not creative as Kromlech or Maxmini.
Hey just my ¢.02.

... says the guy whose name is a "kitbash" of a long time Dakka moderator/famous converter: Grey Death

Kitbashing needs a kit: No Kit used, no kitbash. And what could be more generic than a square tank and a bike seat.

Wow someone got offended . Look you may not like my name cause it is close to a great hobbiest Grey_Death, he may have had this name first on this great forum first bit I had this nickname when I was in the military in the early 90's so why should I change mine? There are tons of John's should they change it for you?!? GW Kroot + hawk =kitbash

So to your kitbash answer look at it any way you like but the gas tank, engine, seat (modified to be more square and shave off backrest) and rear fender are exact copy. Take a look at a GW model before you type your sensitive response . Even though CH did everything on a computer they did copy/duplicate the basic foundation of this jetbike. So kitbash/Hong Kong garage kit what ever you call it if you do it on a pc and bash your design on a GW design its still kit bashing but they did it and not the customer.

Poster: It's a kitbash!
Person who's selling the kit: No, it's not.
Person who designed the model: No, it's not.
Poster: You're both wrong! It's a kitbash.


I love the Internet.

And if we post pics of green masters etc it will be called photoshopped

Which is fine, and your prerogative, but the "could you do better?" threshold would prevent 99% of potential customers who aren't sculptors from ever commenting on product. Actual constructive criticism should be a nice surprise

The best things are in fact constructive criticisms, saying this is good but that is crap AND why plus what ought to be made better is really valuable.
What is not helpful nor wanted are jerk trolls coming in with personal insults, I am cerain that you agree.

Not all people will think it's a good model since people have different tastes and calling things "crap", "sucks" etc is perfectly fine as long as there is something constructive added also. Remember, no genuine input (both positive and/or negative) equals no better future products.

I'm a little surprised you weren't told to go with an armour plated prow, that would seem more open to future add-ons.

Because an armoured prow is far easier to sculpt up afterwards then to do a grille from an armoured prow.
Let me know what you would like to see changed and if enough people want it there might be changes of that nature made in the future.

Pyriel- wrote:

I'm a little surprised you weren't told to go with an armour plated prow, that would seem more open to future add-ons.

Because an armoured prow is far easier to sculpt up afterwards then to do a grille from an armoured prow.
Let me know what you would like to see changed and if enough people want it there might be changes of that nature made in the future.

Just to add to that, I always imagined some variant that clipped all or some number of those vanes to mount extra weapons or sensors or just some army specific detail.

I think it's awesome that Chapterhouse do what they do and I like the Jetbike, even though some parts do look like taken straight from the Marine Bike.

This model is making me consider an all biker army. Are the alternate weapon options included as well? (Flamers, plasma guns, meltas)

That's a very good price for the jetbike, and will help all the pre-heresy armies out there. I like CH kits, especially the Storm Raven kit. The fact that GW has been unable to close them down must also be an inspiration to other start-up companies and I'm looking forward to seeing what fan-made kits will be coming out in the future for all the models us gamers wish we had.

aka_mythos wrote:
I try to reflect my philosophy when I post. I don't just say something is junk, I say what I personally would have done differently. I try to analyize what the sculptor tried to accomplish and see where they ran afoul of their concept. I try to be a consistent voice in giving designers a fair shake and I don't like it when people are unfair in their criticism. I hold them to simple metric, "do I believe I could have done better?" In this case, even with my own work I think I could have, but there was the impact of dictated design considerations.

I generally agree with your points right up till this one. (my bold above). We pretty much all have skills. They typically fall in different areas. Disallowing people's criticism of aesthetics because they lack the specific skills to create the same product is BS. I can think Britney Spears' music is crap, even though I can't do better. I can think your model is crap even though I can't digitally sculpt better. I can call Rogue Warrior a crap game even though I'm unable to program or design digital art assets. etc, etc.

FWIW, your model is fine. It's not entirely to my personal aesthetic tastes, and it clearly draws direct copy-level inspiration from GW's bike, (as all CH stuff does) but that's fine as well, and it was obviously part of the CH brief - as with all of their product. I think it's priced fairly, and may/will probably pick up a couple to add variation to my Crusade forces if I go with Jetbikes - along with the alternatives.

i rather like it, i'm just bummed it looks a touch to large to incorporate into my goblin guard army

I juat realized one thing: chapter house now let us make an entire army of space marines, without spending a penny with GW...

I like this bike... it looks like I might have a viable option for finally converting a Master of the Ravenwing model of my own!

Pyriel- wrote:

Which is fine, and your prerogative, but the "could you do better?" threshold would prevent 99% of potential customers who aren't sculptors from ever commenting on product. Actual constructive criticism should be a nice surprise

The best things are in fact constructive criticisms, saying this is good but that is crap AND why plus what ought to be made better is really valuable.
What is not helpful nor wanted are jerk trolls coming in with personal insults, I am cerain that you agree.

Not all people will think it's a good model since people have different tastes and calling things "crap", "sucks" etc is perfectly fine as long as there is something constructive added also. Remember, no genuine input (both positive and/or negative) equals no better future products.

Agreed 100%. I had to finish up my last post a bit prematurely (lunch break finished) but you're absolutely correct.

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:I juat realized one thing: chapter house now let us make an entire army of space marines, without spending a penny with GW...

And that is why they are being sued...


Outside of that I rather like the bike, their sculpt quality is improving of late.

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:I juat realized one thing: chapter house now let us make an entire army of space marines, without spending a penny with GW...

do they have armsets, torsos and legs on sale? I can recall one torso, and maybe a fair amount of "not CSM heads" but not a lot of torsos and arms.. and the only legs are on this bike, and their old not-salamander hero..

paulson games wrote:

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:I juat realized one thing: chapter house now let us make an entire army of space marines, without spending a penny with GW...

And that is why they are being sued...


Outside of that I rather like the bike, their sculpt quality is improving of late.

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:I juat realized one thing: chapter house now let us make an entire army of space marines, without spending a penny with GW...

porkuslime wrote:

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:I juat realized one thing: chapter house now let us make an entire army of space marines, without spending a penny with GW...

do they have armsets, torsos and legs on sale? I can recall one torso, and maybe a fair amount of "not CSM heads" but not a lot of torsos and arms.. and the only legs are on this bike, and their old not-salamander hero..

There are NO torsos on the site, nor are there non-rider legs or arms on the site..

I am honestly surprised at Paulson Game's post as he is involved in the same lawsuit (seems petty or just a snide comment and I am sure his attorneys are noting not to talk about the lawsuit as well)..

Nick - Chapterhouse Studios

plastictrees wrote:

Which is fine, and your prerogative, but the "could you do better?" threshold would prevent 99% of potential customers who aren't sculptors from ever commenting on product. Actual constructive criticism should be a nice surprise, not the expected standard. "Hurray, I love it!" might feel nicer but it isn't really any more constructive than "This is the worst thing I've ever seen!".

On the other hand, I think most people will only post if they like something. A compliment will make someone feel good, I think that alone is enough of a reason for a lot of people.

I try to only post a negative comment with something if I can offer a constructive criticism, and a reason for that dislike. Otherwise, what is the purpose?

stormboy wrote:The fact that I can identify the GW bits, that make up the majority of the bike, bothers me.

Edited because of 3 pages that got to it before me. : )

I run RT era jet bikes as my scout bikes... they look great (I think). I just mount them on regular bike bases rather than flying bases and then there's no question about what they represent. No one's ever complained about modeling for advantage (because there is no advantage gained) and most people really like the concept.

The old bikes are far too small for anything except scout though... so it's nice to see some viable options for normal marines. They seem to fit the model size well and be consistent with the "feel" of the universe.

They are somewhat plain, but as an avid kitbasher and customizer... they're more useful to me that way than if they were overly detailed.

I think the price is good too.

Chapterhouse wrote:

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:I juat realized one thing: chapter house now let us make an entire army of space marines, without spending a penny with GW...

There are NO torsos on the site, nor are there non-rider legs or arms on the site.

Maybe he is thinking of these

I am honestly surprised at Paulson Game's post as he is involved in the same lawsuit (seems petty or just a snide comment and I am sure his attorneys are noting not to talk about the lawsuit as well)..

I did not know we were sued because of that reason, at least GW didnt say that neither to us or the court for almost a year now. Maybe Paulson knows something nobody else does or maybe he's just nervous, maybe he just had a bad day who knows. I'm sure he is mature enough not to barge in with petty snyde comments in the future.

Regarding the non ornamented jetbike areas, if there is need and want enough for specific bling being added it will be done. I might be obnoxious from time to time but at least I try to listen to the wishes of the player community.

I dunno Pyriel- , I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have separately molded bling or panels that can be added at the whim of the purchaser rather than built-in bling that might limit the creative potential of the model. Let's face it... it's not the dad tossing cash for his pre-teen son's new hobby who are going to be buying these. Your target are probably veteran gamers & hobbyists... those more interested perhaps in being able to pimp their own rides.