Painted Chapterhouse Studios Javelin Jetbike and Sneak-Peak of Magnetic Razorback/SR Kits/Tau Heads

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.

**paulson games**

Well torsos may not currently be available on their site, but weren't they selling complete full scale models for a while? Meaning that you could build a "marine looking army" without using any actual GW parts. They have complete models intended to be used for eldar currently for sale, so while the marine comment might be not 100% technically accurate if you switch out marine for eldar it applies.

As far as mentioning the case there's no issue there as there's no internal details mentioned. What I stated is pretty common public knowledge there's hundreds of pages about it here and on other sites. CH isn't exactly being sued over making lolipops.

**Kroothawk**

It is off topic and kind of sad to see you guy bashing each other.

And no, you can't make an Eldar army either, consisting of Farseers and seated Farseers/Warlocks only.
Sometimes it is better to remain silent and don't make a fool out of yourself.

**GreyDeathOne**

Edit: This is not an acceptable way to post on Dakka. Personal attacks are a violation of the rules you agreed to abide by when you made your account. -Mannahnin

**The Dwarf Wolf**

paulson games wrote:Well torsos may not currently be available on their site, but weren't they selling complete full scale models for a while? Meaning that you could build a "marine looking army" without using any actual GW parts. They have complete models intended to be used for eldar currently for sale, so while the marine comment might be not 100% technically accurate if you switch out marine for eldar it applies.

As far as mentioning the case there's no issue there as there's no internal details mentioned. What I stated is pretty common public knowledge there's hundreds of pages about it here and on other sites. CH isn't exactly being sued over making lolipops.

Sry man. You are wrong... GW dont own "Sci-fi Knights" or "sci-fi elfs", those are free to use concepts. A you said, the said army would be "marine looking", not marine. They have complete models to be used as space elves, or slender mobile suits... if you use them as eldar you should go there and take some "anti-GW" treatment, serious, you are adicted...

Chapter House has been issued because GW lawyers thouth they would not strike back.

And just for you to know, i was not talking about any torso/head/arms made by chapter house... there are other companies around.

**paulson games**

I'd hardly call what I posted as bashing, a bit snide perhaps but hardly bashing. Had it been bashing I would have been ripping on the quality of the sculpt.

I did say that I think the CH model quality is improving with their newer sculpts.

**EmperorsChampion**

That is a pretty damn good jet bike. Great work!

**Pyriel-**

Gitsplitta:
You are right, maybe loose pieces would be better, that or keeping things very generic and with a good theme in mind but these things are for the future to see, if at all.

**kitch102**

Why are certain people (yes, you know that I'm referring to you) trying to turn this thread away from being about CHS' product & in to a playground style back and forth exchange of petty insults & off topic discussion? And then insulting other posters that have a valid point? Grow up and stay professional for christs' sake.

I second the notion of keeping bling separate. I love the idea of buying a blank 'canvas' and then adding the extras and designs that I want, as opposed to what the designer wanted my new found toy to look like. If anything that also makes the product more novel, and makes the business itself more about what the fans want. As long as these extra tiny little details aren't too expensive that is!

Peace.

**Mannahnin**

Cool it. I am pruning the thread. No more personal attacks or fighting, please. Everyone agreed to abide by the Dakka rules when they made accounts here.

**Worglock**

Meh.

**malfred**

Worglock wrote:Meh.

While I agree with you, "meh" rarely adds anything to the discussion.

To me the proportions of the thing are too squatty, which is funny given
that it's a Javelin class bike... I'd expect something sleeker.

**xcasex**

Love the bikes, i'd fatten the tail end up some and maybe add hooked short stabilizer fins to the sides in form of an X but hey. N E A T.
On the "to buy when done with first tactical squad"-list!

**jp400**

I personally feel that the sculpt overall is just plain ugly.

It looks way too klunky and kitbashed from spare GW parts for my tastes. I mean heck, if you are going to make a model "from the ground up", make it something that stands out and is different from the traditional feel of things to add flavor to the table top.

I mean heck, I bet I could build at least 60-70% of this thing using GW spare parts.

My two cents.

**ruyn**

I like the model overall. It still doesn't fit the aesthetic that I'm looking for, but neither does any other jetbike on the market. I'm sorry that I'm not able to fully put into words what it is that I am looking for, but like so many other things, I'll know it if I see it. Sorry I can't be more constructive than that, but out of what is offered on the market thus far, I'm more inclined to buy some of these than the others.

As a side note to all companies posting in any online forum, snide comments really detract from your own product. Critique is fine, but let's not be petty. It's an easy way to lose customers.

**Polonius**

I like the model, but I don't think pretending it's heavily based on the look of SM bikes is going to fool anybody. Kitbash or not, several components are nearly identical to parts from the current bike: the central tank, the rear quarter panels (from the current attack bike), and even the bolters look like the old rhino bolters.

Looks good, and I like the price, but no matter how you slice it, there's a clear aesthetic similarity.

**Worglock**

Please do not spam this thread with off-topic nonsense. Thanks! ~Manchu

**nectarprime**

It's hilarious how many people hate on Chapterhouse for putting out new stuff.

Besides the bolters looking a little plain, I love the jetbike. Can't wait for someone to put together a bike army using just those!

**ruyn**

Let's keep this on-topic and ignore the flamebait please. Thanks! ~Manchu

**Polonius**

Nobody has yet to convince me that more products, even bad ones, actually hurts the hobby.

**aka_mythos**

Polonius wrote:I like the model, but I don't think pretending it's heavily based on the look of SM bikes is going to fool anybody. Kitbash or not, several components are nearly identical to parts from the current bike: the central tank, the rear quarter panels (from the current attack bike), and even the bolters look like the old rhino bolters.

Looks good, and I like the price, but no matter how you slice it, there's a clear aesthetic similarity.

Aesthetics are skin deep... I didn't have any bikes on hand when I made it. The proportions and general size were largely dictated by the size of the pill shaped base and the other constraints I was given... such as the ability for later ornamentation to be sculpted on and the need for variants to support both heavily and lightly armored drivers. It is only supperficially similar, if you held both in your hand for a side by side comparison, the differences are very apparent.

When you make something to look like it soundly belongs along side something else you're working off aesthetics. By eye this jetbike overall is longer and thinner. The rear is thicker but doesn't stick up as high. The gas tank wider. When aesthetic similarities are the goal, why is it a surprise they end up aesthetically similar, even when dimensionally distinguishable?

**Polonius**

I don't think it's a surprise. I assumed that was the intent.

And, not to be snide, but telling me how different they look in my hand doesn't help me.

Maybe when compared side by side the similarities won't be so extreme. I can see that.

And when somebody is saying "x looks like y," saying "but they're only superficially similar," actually confirms it. My point is that they are superficially similar.

I had simply assumed that this similarity was intentional.

**aka_mythos**

Polonius wrote:I don't think it's a surprise. I assumed that was the intent.

And, not to be snide, but telling me how different they look in my hand doesn't help me.

Maybe when compared side by side the similarities won't be so extreme. I can see that.

And when somebody is saying "x looks like y," saying "but they're only superficially similar," actually confirms it. My point is that they are superficially similar.

I had simply assumed that this similarity was intentional.

I think you took that the wrong way. I was attempting to address the same conversation you had been by adding to what you were saying. I wasn't trying to qualify or contradict. It was more to say comparing it in a picture the way it is allows a judgement on aesthetics, as you made. Thats fair. I was just getting at the fact that calling it a kit bash, something you were addressing from another poster in your post, ignores aspects of the model you can't really grasp just from a picture. Then I just simply expanded on a description of those elements that emphasize its not a kit bash and its not copied. The last chunk of what I said was just an untargeted statement, stating intent, and to convey my surprise at the fact others are seemingly surprised.

**Spacemanvic**

aka_mythos wrote: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.

I like it alot. Will have to place some on order. Dont worry about the spite, trolls (old hags) will be trolls

**ruyn**

I had an acquaintance who was making his own jetbikes. I was about to ask him if I could post a pic as a design suggestion for the front-end of future variants, but he seems to have disappeared. His facebook account has been closed and I can't get in touch with him.

Anyway, the point I was going to make with my pic is that there is a way to be both sleek and still maintain the classic blocky, brick-like aesthetic for which the Space Marines are known. Alas, I can't find my copy of the pic either (i fear it may be locked up in a dead laptop...).

If a future variant with an armored front is released, I may be up for 10 or so, depending on the design.

**jp400**

nectarprime wrote:It's hilarious how many people hate on Chapterhouse for putting out new stuff....

So what are you saying/suggesting? That people should blindly love a product despite their own personal views of it just because CHS put it out?

I disagree with you're viewpoint.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spacemanvic wrote:
aka_mythos wrote: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.

I like it alot. Will have to place some on order. Dont worry about the spite, trolls (old hags) will be trolls

So just because someone doesn't like the product they are now automatically a troll acting out of spite?

Please...

**nectarprime**

No, if someone is being a huge dick, like some people in this thread have been doing, that's uncalled for trolling.

Constructive criticism is great and I know CH appreciates it. Folks just being mean for the sake of being mean don't help anyone.

Hope that simplified it enough for you.

**jp400**

nectarprime wrote:No, if someone is being a huge dick, like some people in this thread have been doing, that's uncalled for trolling.

Constructive criticism is great and I know CH appreciates it. Folks just being mean for the sake of being mean don't help anyone.

Hope that simplified it enough for you.

"Dumb" it down all you want bro, I still disagree with you're viewpoint on the subject and think you are wrong.

**Polonius**

jp400 wrote:
So just because someone doesn't like the product they are now automatically a troll acting out of spite?

Please...

At least one poster said that they wished that CHS would go out of business for the good of the hobby. (this may have been modded). That's pretty spiteful.

Critique is usually a bit more nuanced than "I hate it and want the creator to stop making things."

**nectarprime**

jp400 wrote:
nectarprime wrote:No, if someone is being a huge dick, like some people in this thread have been doing, that's uncalled for trolling.

Constructive criticism is great and I know CH appreciates it. Folks just being mean for the sake of being mean don't help anyone.

Hope that simplified it enough for you.

"Dumb" it down all you want bro, I still disagree with you're viewpoint on the subject and think you are wrong.

Oh no, someone on the internet thinks I'm wrong!

I'm kind of confused with what you're disagreeing with. You think that being a jerk to CH is better than constructive criticism?

**Polonius**

nectarprime wrote:
jp400 wrote:
nectarprime wrote:No, if someone is being a huge dick, like some people in this thread have been doing, that's uncalled for trolling.

Constructive criticism is great and I know CH appreciates it. Folks just being mean for the sake of being mean don't help anyone.

Hope that simplified it enough for you.

"Dumb" it down all you want bro, I still disagree with you're viewpoint on the subject and think you are wrong.

Oh no, someone on the internet thinks I'm wrong!

I'm interested in parsing what exactly he disagrees with.

Does he think the opposite of everything? Some key point?

Maybe he feels that being a huge dick is perfectly called for, constructive criticism is bad and CH hates it, and being mean helps people.

It's a fascinating, if likely pathological, perspective.