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.

Why would the Black Templars need a transport vehicle of any sort?

I was under the impression that the Black Templars walk from planet-to-planet?

And, that the more you shoot at them, the faster they get there.

ah the thunderhawk is to small for me i want a plastic version of this !!!!

Heavier version off the landspeeder storm perhaps that can take marines in power armour?

I'm not a fan of the Chibi-hawk, but I've been considering buying a couple to Chapterhouse-up. (at which point I think it looks quite decent, with reasonably proportions). Now wondering if I may as well hold off in case GW puts out a better flyer model - especially given my slow production schedule and the $80+post cost of getting 4 CH kits...

Here's to hoping chaos gets a lil' bit of the action!

Believe Ghost mentioned something about a flyer that WASN'T the hellblade, which is cool, but doesn't have the makings of a good codex entry.

Personally I can see GW going for the T-hawk. Orks have the Stompa, IG have the banblade and shadowsword. It is many many Space Marine players dream to have an Apoc sized army not doing one would be letting a lot down that couldn't possibly afford the £400 price tag to get the forgeworld one.

I seriously doubt they would do a chibi hawk variant.
Why bother when chibi already exists and would be a really easy include in the codex tbh. If people want to convert it then let them. It may get a recut in years to come to make it more appealing but only after GW knows you have bought it to have one, then forcing you to buy a seconds one once it has fixed all the issues people continually bring up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:If this is true I feel for all the vanilla players who bought Chibi Hawks for their chapters.

Weren't there stories about GW managers telling people OF COURSE vanilla marines will get Chibi Hawks next edition?

I'm sure the owners of all the genestealer, squat, lost and damned and every-bloody-novelty-codex-now-deceased armies will be there ready with the kleenex for em...

Yeah I was told that Chibi would be in the next dex and that there would be no problems getting it in my imperial fist army. Glad I held off. But saying that I still believe chibi will be in the next dex, just makes sense to me.

thevirus wrote:

Horst wrote:Codex: Space Marines is going on what, 4 years old?

BA and SW codex are new, true enough, but the base codex is aging.

CSM is going on 5 and TAU EMPIRE is on 6,,and SMURFS get a NEW one,,joke.

And Templars is goning on 7, but they're loyalist Marines and thus doesn't count... right?

No, really, it pisses me off whenever people whine about how old some codices are and leave out the oldest one. I get it, it's cool to hate loyalist Marine Chapters and their Codices, but really, the most assaulty army in the entire friggin' game, along Orks and Tyranids, is reduced to a gunline to have a fair shot at competing.

ceorron wrote:Personally I can see GW going for the T-hawk. Orks have the Stompa, IG have the banblade and shadowsword. It is many many Space Marine players dream to have an Apoc sized army not doing one would be letting a lot down that couldn't possibly afford the £400 price tag to get the forgeworld one..

But that's the rub...£400 is ~$600-$700. Plastic is not that far behind. In talking with designers at GDs, they said there were plastic prototypes of T-Hawks (conversation was two years ago). The issue was retail pricing not feasibility, desire, etc. The plastic T-Hawk (prototypes) required 18-20 baneblade sized sprues. So it's minimum cost would be $300+...more likely $350-$400. They did not believe they could sell enough kits at that price to justify plastic. The appropriate price point would need to be close to $200 max. So it was a great idea that will be left in resin.

Sidstyler wrote:

TCWarRoom wrote:Dont kid yourself about the Stormraven. It has sold really well. There are definitely a lot of them out there.

You know, I find it odd how people can just throw statements like this out there with nothing to really back them up. I see people say this or that "sold well" all the time but I can't for the life of me figure out how the hell they would possibly know that. Someone said this about Dark Eldar the other day in one of the other rumor threads, and believe me I'd love to think that was true, but I can't help but think how the hell do you know?

When did GW post the last detailed breakdown of the sales of individual models? Because I must have missed the last one that showed us the sales figures for the stormraven since its release. My only other guess is that it's completely anecdotal evidence ("My store sold a bunch, they're really popular!") or just hearsay from a know-nothing staff member, who is likely going to tell you that any model you inquire about has high sales and is really popular and awesome and you should buy three of them.

Otherwise I could just make up any god-damned bs I wanted to and no one could stop me. Like this: Dark Eldar sales have surpassed Space Marines. How do I know? Pff, I dunno, red shirt told me when I was buying a DE megaforce at the GW store (pay no attention to the fact that my state doesn't have a single GW store in it). Now watch it spread across the internet like wildfire, soon BoLS will be reporting this monumental news and I'll become a hero!

...so anyway...yeah, stormraven's ugly.

Our FLGS has sold out of Storm Ravens on several occasions and they keep at least 3 in stock at a time. I know with the initial 3 weeks they sold 15+. At our tournaments I see between 8 and 14 Storm Ravens played on a regular basis. The kit has sold well, otherwise you would never see them, or at least see them rarely.

That's not to say the kit is beloved. I personally own 2, I used to own 3, and I hate the way it looks but I find it a useful edition to my GK lists. To sum up, it sold just fine but is still a hated model and GW knows it.

edit: spelling fail

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

thevirus wrote:

Horst wrote:Codex: Space Marines is going on what, 4 years old?

BA and SW codex are new, true enough, but the base codex is aging.

CSM is going on 5 and TAU EMPIRE is on 6,,and SMURFS get a NEW one,,joke.

And Templars is goning on 7, but they're loyalist Marines and thus doesn't count... right?

No, really, it pisses me off whenever people whine about how old some codices are and leave out the oldest one. I get it, it's cool to hate loyalist Marine Chapters and their Codices, but really, the most assaulty army in the entire friggin' game, along Orks and Tyranids, is reduced to a gunline to have a fair shot at competing.

not to mention the dark angels

AlmightyWalrus wrote:No, really, it pisses me off whenever people whine about how old some codices are and leave out the oldest one. I get it, it's cool to hate loyalist Marine Chapters and their Codices, but really, the most assaulty army in the entire friggin' game, along Orks and Tyranids, is reduced to a gunline to have a fair shot at competing.

You realize Black Templars are also rumored to be getting an update within the next few months (possibly to be switched with Tau but I don't see GW putting out two xenos in a row), so this huge injustice done to the Marine players will be corrected in a relatively short amount of time compared to the pace at which xenos get updated?

BT have only been "the oldest codex" for about a month, since Necrons were updated. How many years has the oldest codex been a xeno?

Sidstyler wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:No, really, it pisses me off whenever people whine about how old some codices are and leave out the oldest one. I get it, it's cool to hate loyalist Marine Chapters and their Codices, but really, the most assaulty army in the entire friggin' game, along Orks and Tyranids, is reduced to a gunline to have a fair shot at competing.

You realize Black Templars are also rumored to be getting an update within the next few months (possibly to be switched with Tau but I don't see GW putting out two xenos in a row), so this huge injustice done to the Marine players will be corrected in a relatively short amount of time compared to the pace at which xenos get updated?

BT have only been "the oldest codex" for about a month, since Necrons were updated. How many years has the oldest codex been a xeno?

I'm perfectly fine with Xenos players being upset when the oldest Codex on the market is a Xenos Codex.

What I'm NOT fine with is Xenos players that keep whining about how old their books are when there are older marine cocides that appearently don't count because "they're marines". Just as Xenos players are rightfully annoyed at their Codex being outdated, so am I, and I'm sick and tired of getting treated like some sort of second-class citizen just because I play a marine Codex. The reason behind the recent marine Codex "spam" is that Xenos were updated over Marines in 4th edition *shock*. Space Wolves had a 3rd edition Codex before getting their 5th ed, Blood Angels had a WD PDF and Grey Knights were stuck in 3rd as well.

From what I gather from some Xenos players, they would prefer that those damnable Marines would've stayed antiquated and unused, getting their own Codex updated instead. To me, that's just selfish. If you're not one of these then please don't take offense, I'm not trying to jab at you or insult you, I'm just voicing my (frustrated) opinion.

It may seem that way because it's less of a problem for a Marine codex to be outdated, since it's stupidly easy to just sub one Marine army for another. You don't have to deal with a whole lot of counts-as bs, because a Marine is a Marine, a rhino is a rhino, etc. There's no real headache or serious confusion involved, like there would be if I tried to use the Dark Eldar codex to represent Tau so I could play them competitively. Hell, even trying to use the DE codex for an Eldar army wouldn't be all that easy.

I mean yeah, your Black Templars would still lack the BT "flavor", but if all you're interested in is staying competitive and using your BT models then it's entirely possible to play with a more competitive book until the new one comes out (which like I pointed out is rumored to be coming early next year, or if not Q1 then soon after that). Xenos can't often do that, and the ones that try get scolded for it and told to use their own book and just "deal with" being gak.

Honestly though what I hate more than anything is GW's business model, which causes this fething problem in the first place. I'm getting tired of half the armies in the game being outdated for every edition.

I am in the middle of reading nemesis from the horus heresy series and around page 375 it describes the vessels of the sons of horus fleet. Amongst these it lists the raven interceptor and stormbird which are arstares vehicles, not the tag a long imperial (chaos) vehicles, perhaps this could be what we will get.

Sidstyler wrote:It may seem that way because it's less of a problem for a Marine codex to be outdated, since it's stupidly easy to just sub one Marine army for another. You don't have to deal with a whole lot of counts-as bs, because a Marine is a Marine, a rhino is a rhino, etc. There's no real headache or serious confusion involved, like there would be if I tried to use the Dark Eldar codex to represent Tau so I could play them competitively. Hell, even trying to use the DE codex for an Eldar army wouldn't be all that easy.

I mean yeah, your Black Templars would still lack the BT "flavor", but if all you're interested in is staying competitive and using your BT models then it's entirely possible to play with a more competitive book until the new one comes out (which like I pointed out is rumored to be coming early next year, or if not Q1 then soon after that). Xenos can't often do that, and the ones that try get scolded for it and told to use their own book and just "deal with" being gak.

Honestly though what I hate more than anything is GW's business model, which causes this fething problem in the first place. I'm getting tired of half the armies in the game being outdated for every edition.

This is pretty ignorant, honestly....

a black templar army would require SIGNIFICANT restructuring to work as any other marine army... especially if you use a lot of initiate/neophite squads, a lot of crusaders, or whatever. I went from Codex SM to Codex BA... I basically had to buy an entirely new army. There is a huge amount of conversion and headache going from one SM force to another, because they are all pretty different honestly. The templars MIGHT be able to be used as space wolves, because grey hunters have 2x CCW stock, but again, if he has a lot of neophytes they are all now useless. He could probably use them as BA, but BA are sub-optimal unless you use razor spam or jump marines... 10 man ASM in rhinos kinda sucks.

The point is, that while you can often change rules to go from one marine codex to another, your not going to be taking advantage of what makes that new codex any good, so your going to be 1) Labeled as a power gaming dick for switching codex, and 2) Not at any real advantage because your army isn't built for your codex.

Whatever this flyer is, I can already predict the usual hate it will get, because you can bet it will be the same blocky design as the rest of the Marine vehicles.

Maybe everyone who hated on the Storm Raven can repeat all their ish now, so we can get that out of the way and don't need to read the same old boring stuff again when the first pictures of this thing pop up

Horst wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:It may seem that way because it's less of a problem for a Marine codex to be outdated, since it's stupidly easy to just sub one Marine army for another. You don't have to deal with a whole lot of counts-as bs, because a Marine is a Marine, a rhino is a rhino, etc. There's no real headache or serious confusion involved, like there would be if I tried to use the Dark Eldar codex to represent Tau so I could play them competitively. Hell, even trying to use the DE codex for an Eldar army wouldn't be all that easy.

I mean yeah, your Black Templars would still lack the BT "flavor", but if all you're interested in is staying competitive and using your BT models then it's entirely possible to play with a more competitive book until the new one comes out (which like I pointed out is rumored to be coming early next year, or if not Q1 then soon after that). Xenos can't often do that, and the ones that try get scolded for it and told to use their own book and just "deal with" being gak.

Honestly though what I hate more than anything is GW's business model, which causes this fething problem in the first place. I'm getting tired of half the armies in the game being outdated for every edition.

This is pretty ignorant, honestly....

a black templar army would require SIGNIFICANT restructuring to work as any other marine army... especially if you use a lot of initiate/neophite squads, a lot of crusaders, or whatever. I went from Codex SM to Codex BA... I basically had to buy an entirely new army. There is a huge amount of conversion and headache going from one SM force to another, because they are all pretty different honestly. The templars MIGHT be able to be used as space wolves, because grey hunters have 2x CCW stock, but again, if he has a lot of neophytes they are all now useless. He could probably use them as BA, but BA are sub-optimal unless you use razor spam or jump marines... 10 man ASM in rhinos kinda sucks.

The point is, that while you can often change rules to go from one marine codex to another, your not going to be taking advantage of what makes that new codex any good, so your going to be 1) Labeled as a power gaming dick for switching codex, and 2) Not at any real advantage because your army isn't built for your codex.

very well said, to sum up, Each of the codex army is different, If i build a GK army I can't proxy them as a space marine because I will have all the different weapons, blood angel is all about razorback spam and assualt troops, while SW are about grey hunter and long fang (possiable swith with SM) Dark angel have deathwing and ravenwing (ravenwing might be possiable with SM but deathwing), Black templar like the above person said are all about initiate/neophite squads and its much more outdated so most of the squad set up are different to newer codex so you will have to proxy everything.

I hate people who generalise marine as a marine, they are not all the same, that's like me saying Dark eldar and eldar are the same, they all have lance weapons, Each army plays completely differently.

People should stop complainning about old codex, I am sure everyone have more than 1 army so just play with the one that is indate if you want to win and play with the outdated one if you just want some fun.

About the flyer it could be simmilar to the stromraven but one of those Older version of the strom raven, It will definatly carry troops I think because all the flyers do right now (sorry to point out the obvious), but I hope it probably one of those prehereasy design of the stormraven.

I don't even really see the point in continuing to argue about this crap, especially seeing as how it's all off-topic in the first place. After this I suggest we all drop the hell out of it and just move on.

Okay, so the stupid xenos players made a mistake and forgot all about BT being the most outdated, sorry, our bad. Perhaps it would have been easier to chalk that up to being the most outdated for so god-damned long we just forgot all about the BT in the first place, an honest mistake if you ask me.

Maybe my "Just run them as another SM codex" comment was made in ignorance, even though personally I still think it wouldn't be that hard, I've seen people make lists with the BT codex that look so similar to the competitive razor/rhino spam for BA that I don't think you'd have much trouble porting most of it over to the BA codex (though apparently Stelek even seems to think the BT codex can still be somewhat competitive, so maybe they are more well off than people are giving them credit for?). Yeah, you'd have to leave behind stuff like neophytes and land raiders, although to be fair land raider spam hasn't really been that competitive in 5th edition anyway, and I never tried to argue that it would be a perfect "counts-as" in the first place (because I do realize every SM codex plays differently, they aren't literally all the same), the whole point was that you could make more of a case for subbing Marines than you could subbing any xeno codex, IF for no other reason than the models are similar enough. Case in point, raiders don't make really good wave serpents (and vice versa) because the vehicle profiles are so completely different, whereas the only way rhinos really differ are the rules. Obviously not EVERY weapon and wargear option will be represented in every book, but that's when you say "feth it" and use proxies, and just decline to play games with people who have a problem with it. It's better than trying to play with an outdated book that's not fun anymore, or not playing at all, in my opinion.

As for complaining about having to buy new models, so what? You don't think you're going to need to replace half your army anyway when they get updated? Okay, if you don't want to bite the bullet now and make your army playable, then just wait another 4-5 months (not that I really know when BT are coming out, just going by what the rumor threads are posting) and spend all your money then. I don't know what else to say, this was kind of a dumb tangent to go on in the first place since we have reason to believe that BT won't be waiting that much longer for an update anyway, so pointing out that they're the oldest and are therefore in greater need than any xenos codex was kinda pointless. You're getting exactly what you want, no need to go on a crusade putting the uppity xenos players back in their rightful places.

TBD wrote:Maybe everyone who hated on the Storm Raven can repeat all their ish now, so we can get that out of the way and don't need to read the same old boring stuff again when the first pictures of this thing pop up

Fine. It's ugly and I hate it. Worst model yet.

Now watch, it's probably going to be so awesome that even I'm going to want to buy one. Hell, I very nearly bought a storm raven*, so if they've got a better design then that then I might get one for sure.

*The only thing stopping me from buying the storm raven was the $66 price tag...isn't it funny, GW, how that kinda thing makes you stop and think about what you're doing, maybe even making you reconsider a purchase? Just food for thought I guess.

-The term "Space Marine Gunship" has been mentioned.
-It's NOT the Stormraven
-It's NOT the Caestus Assault Ram
-Its NOT an "assault themed" vehicle
-There are whispers of that ancient bit of fluff regarding the "missing link transport" Astartes vehicle.

Missing link denotes either something that connects two different 'branches' of vehicles or something which, as the next paragraph of quote denotes, fills a hole in the army. Looking at the vehicle listing, the rhino chassis is a 'missing link' when you consider all of the tanks based on that chassis. ITS NOT an assault flier, which immediately discounts any rumblings of Sbirds of Thawks. Its a gunship that transports things in a way that is 'old' strategy wise whilst being novel in a gameplay sort of way. Look at the Stormraven, that kit has VERY unusual weapon options compared to standard C:SM vehicle options, something more typical would be a motley collection of autocannons, lascannons, and heavy bolters. Thinking of it that way the following comes to mind (but not literally, rearrange the bits of the kits mentioned):

>Flying razorback with better transport capacity and an additional weapon system
>Flying predator with razor back transport capacity
>Flying I-frame with vehicle transport capabilities and alternative gunboat build option (fulfilling the 'missing link transport' part of the rumor in a weird way)
>Flying rhino with very special multi-squad transport capabilites and a variety of weapons

C:SM is primarily a 'shooty' codex, so a non-assault transport that shoots while throwing a lot of shooty units into rapid-fire range would make sense. A lot of sense.

If SM get another aerial vehicle, so should IG! They are the flyers compared to SM, you can build IG armies around the Valkyrie rather than using flying vehicles as support, SM shouldn't have that ability in my opinion.

Well your opinion isn't going to sell expensive plastic kits on stupidly-tall flying stands, that's the problem.

Squidmanlolz wrote:If SM get another aerial vehicle, so should IG! They are the flyers compared to SM, you can build IG armies around the Valkyrie rather than using flying vehicles as support, SM shouldn't have that ability in my opinion.

If anything, Space Marines should have aerial vehicles and the Imperial Guard should not. The Imperial Guard does, after all, have a grand total of 0 aircraft in the fluff...

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:If SM get another aerial vehicle, so should IG! They are the flyers compared to SM, you can build IG armies around the Valkyrie rather than using flying vehicles as support, SM shouldn't have that ability in my opinion.

If anything, Space Marines should have aerial vehicles and the Imperial Guard should not. The Imperial Guard does, after all, have a grand total of 0 aircraft in the fluff...

The Guard are lent every vehicle in the Imperial Navy's arsenal (Vultures, lightnings, Thunderbolts, and marauders)

Sidstyler wrote:

TCWarRoom wrote:Dont kid yourself about the Stormraven. It has sold really well. There are definitely a lot of them out there.

You know, I find it odd how people can just throw statements like this out there with nothing to really back them up. I see people say this or that "sold well" all the time but I can't for the life of me figure out how the hell they would possibly know that. Someone said this about Dark Eldar the other day in one of the other rumor threads, and believe me I'd love to think that was true, but I can't help but think how the hell do you know?

When did GW post the last detailed breakdown of the sales of individual models? Because I must have missed the last one that showed us the sales figures for the stormraven since its release. My only other guess is that it's completely anecdotal evidence ("My store sold a bunch, they're really popular!") or just hearsay from a know-nothing staff member, who is likely going to tell you that any model you inquire about has high sales and is really popular and awesome and you should buy three of them.

Otherwise I could just make up any god-damned bs I wanted to and no one could stop me. Like this: Dark Eldar sales have surpassed Space Marines. How do I know? Pff, I dunno, red shirt told me when I was buying a DE megaforce at the GW store (pay no attention to the fact that my state doesn't have a single GW store in it). Now watch it spread across the internet like wildfire, soon BoLS will be reporting this monumental news and I'll become a hero!

...so anyway...yeah, stormraven's ugly.

I own a game store and have sold over 100. I only own one store in Northern Michigan. If I have had those results I can reasonably assume it has done well everywhere.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:If SM get another aerial vehicle, so should IG! They are the flyers compared to SM, you can build IG armies around the Valkyrie rather than using flying vehicles as support, SM shouldn't have that ability in my opinion.

If anything, Space Marines should have aerial vehicles and the Imperial Guard should not. The Imperial Guard does, after all, have a grand total of 0 aircraft in the fluff...

If anything Space Marines should get more deep strike options and no fliers. More drop pod variants and more rhino based armour types like a vindicator with a different main weapon or different versions of the pred and razorback. Marine armies should be versatile. The thunderfire canon really doesn't fit the way marines fight and shouldn't be there on its tracks, it should be on a razorback, give the IG the little cart thing; makes more sense as they already have crew served heavy weapons.

Okay, one store in America reporting in. Just about a thousand more and we should have some data to work with!

Sidstyler wrote:Okay, one store in America reporting in. Just about a thousand more and we should have some data to work with!

Like I said, reasonable assumption. I also communicate with my sales rep. who keeps us up to date on sales trends.

Not sure why you would assume it sold poorly only because you think its ugly. I will take my odds, you take yours.

Squidmanlolz wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:If SM get another aerial vehicle, so should IG! They are the flyers compared to SM, you can build IG armies around the Valkyrie rather than using flying vehicles as support, SM shouldn't have that ability in my opinion.

If anything, Space Marines should have aerial vehicles and the Imperial Guard should not. The Imperial Guard does, after all, have a grand total of 0 aircraft in the fluff...

The Guard are lent every vehicle in the Imperial Navy's arsenal (Vultures, lightnings, Thunderbolts, and marauders)

Exactly. The Imperial Guard proper has no air presence anywhere. Claiming that the IG are more of an aerial insertion army than Space Marines fluffwise is just silly. Why you feel that an army built around rapid insertion doesn't deserve aircraft over an army that doesn't even have it's own dedicated flyers are beyond me.

TCWarRoom wrote: Not sure why you would assume it sold poorly only because you think its ugly. I will take my odds, you take yours.

Oh apparently I'm the only one now, guess you weren't around for the gigantic Dakka hate thread that got posted when it was first spoiled.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:If SM get another aerial vehicle, so should IG! They are the flyers compared to SM, you can build IG armies around the Valkyrie rather than using flying vehicles as support, SM shouldn't have that ability in my opinion.

If anything, Space Marines should have aerial vehicles and the Imperial Guard should not. The Imperial Guard does, after all, have a grand total of 0 aircraft in the fluff...

The Guard are lent every vehicle in the Imperial Navy's arsenal (Vultures, lightnings, Thunderbolts, and marauders)

Exactly. The Imperial Guard proper has no air presence anywhere. Claiming that the IG are more of an aerial insertion army than Space Marines fluffwise is just silly. Why you feel that an army built around rapid insertion doesn't deserve aircraft over an army that doesn't even have it's own dedicated flyers are beyond me.

Aren't Elysian's a drop army?
But yeah, IG get valkyries already. No need to give them another flying like thing.