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.

insaniak wrote:A more ramshackle starting appearance also makes it easier for modellers to modify the base kit without it looking out of place.

You're determined not to like the Ork Bommer, aren't you! Your example of the Venerable Dread isn't really helpful, as it's relatively small compared to this flyer, so it's not difficult for them to provide enough alternative parts to change the model's appearance. Also, making a model look more ramshackle is easy. It would be no more than a couple of hours' work to add some repairs, battle damage and extra gubbins from other Ork vehicles. And not all Ork players want their models to look like mobile junkyards - as a number of the comments in this thread indicate.

Tailgunner wrote:You're determined not to like the Ork Bommer, aren't you!

I would love to like it. I have no particular agenda here... I just don't agree that it's well designed for what it is supposed to be.

Yes, I can convert it into something that looks more Orky. That doesn't change the fact that the starting model is a little boring. Exactly the opposite, really.

The fact that they're not shown on the promotional pictures is a clue.

Not a particularly strong one.

If you want it to look Orky, it kind of does.

No, it really doesn't. In fact theres quite a bit of precedent that ork aircraft don't need to look like they're held together with hopes and dreams.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Orks/ORK-FIGHTA.html
It's an older aesthetic, but the ork flyers are still better held together then the vehicles that have saving throws due to having useless parts. they should be better held together, their atmospheric fighter craft, if they looked like three garbage cans and a bomb strapped together they'd look stupid.

I curious as to which pics you're looking at, because I'm not seeing them.

No, you're looking at the necron one. The ork ones are colored yellow and red.

ShumaGorath wrote:[No, it really doesn't. In fact theres quite a bit of precedent that ork aircraft don't need to look like they're held together with hopes and dreams.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Orks/ORK-FIGHTA.html

You mean this?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/Orkfighta1.jpg

No aerofoil. Chunky body. All metal.

Ork 'inventions' are literally held together and function on their hopes and dreams and especially their belief. If they think it works, it'll work.

Absolutionis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:[No, it really doesn't. In fact theres quite a bit of precedent that ork aircraft don't need to look like they're held together with hopes and dreams.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Orks/ORK-FIGHTA.html

You mean this?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/Orkfighta1.jpg

No aerofoil. Chunky body. All metal.

Ork 'inventions' are literally held together and function on their hopes and dreams and especially their belief. If they think it works, it'll work.

No, ork guns work that way. The vagueries of ork fuel systems work that way. If theres enough orks power supplies work that way. Orks don't get in bathtubs and take down enemy bombers and that thing is hardly any more orky then the one being presented by the white dwarf. If anything it's less so thanks to a lack of giant pointless exterior exhaust systems attached to the cockpit.

I haven't even pulled my Orks out of their sterilite space hulk for nearly a year, and I want to run out and buy a couple of those bommers right now. I hope they're a fast attack choice, not heavy support.

All Ork fliers are fast attack choices.

Seriously though guys, are 9-18 twinlinked bs4 s6 ap4 30" range shots worth 130 points?

Amaya wrote:All Ork fliers are fast attack choices.

Seriously though guys, are 9-18 twinlinked bs4 s6 ap4 30" range shots worth 130 points?

Thats like two chimeras except with wings. I'd say not, but thats set against the precedent of vendetta, long fangs, psyflemen, and the other gods of long range fire support in 40k. It doesn't seem to be a bad unit, but it's very vulnerable and lootas do its job better.

Right now?

I'd give the slight nod to the buggies right now. The Dakkajet is just a tad bit more expensive than a unit of big shoota buggies. It has a better BS, and has the possibility of being more suvivable because its not open topped. This of course does not factor in its much easier to KFF buggies (since the jet will probably be off doing its own thing). Also on that same flip sides, the opponent has to wreck 3 buggies as opposed to one jet. On the other other other flip side, the jets get cover saves while turbo boosting into position to get those side shots on metal boxes.

In 6th edition? We'll just have to see the rules for honest to god flyers.

If they do what I hope they do, the Dakka jet will be an interceptor, which will allow it special rules designed specifically to kill other fighters... namely those slap in the face vendetas.

I actually like the ork bomber thing. The space marine flier looks like a bad conversion.... like someone wanted to mix and match a land speeder and a chibihawk, and then decided to add more dakka to it

The more I look at the stormtalon I wonder what it's exact function is. Is it supposed to be like a really fast predator? Ie, zoom around and brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtt everything? Or is it kind of stationary? We'll see.

Why do i have a feeling fliers will have extremely buff rules which makes them relatively safe from ground fire.
And then we'll see flier vs flier dogfights all the time.

pew pew

Supersonic and Aerial Assault... Think they may do just help to do that.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Amaya wrote:All Ork fliers are fast attack choices.

Seriously though guys, are 9-18 twinlinked bs4 s6 ap4 30" range shots worth 130 points?

Thats like two chimeras except with wings. I'd say not, but thats set against the precedent of vendetta, long fangs, psyflemen, and the other gods of long range fire support in 40k. It doesn't seem to be a bad unit, but it's very vulnerable and lootas do its job better.

Also I would argue lootaz do NOT do the job better.

When you put it that way, damn, I LOVE the Dakka Jet. I think I want three! Not because they're better than buggies, but because they're better than lootaz!

1, Dependability - Lootaz are highly erratic in their performance and are highly dice reliant. Number of shots and ability to hit are up to the dice gods. Dakka jet is a high BS (for an ork), and possibly twin linked (is that what the buzz is)? Sure it doesn't have the shots of 15 lootaz MAY have, but way more will actually hit.

2. Maneuverability - Lootaz are a static element. They do not play well with battlewagon lists. They will pretty much always be along the back line hitting squads or plinking off front armor. Dakka Jetz will be right up in the presenting a potential threat. Also side shots with Str 6 is nice. I'd much rather get side armor than have the STR 7 the lootaz have.

3. Not Elite - Taking Dakka Jetz allows more nobz, burnaz, hell... kommandoz. All those elite choices you weren't able to take before open up before you.


Depending on seeing the full on rules... I really am warming up to the Dakka jet.

ShumaGorath wrote:No, it really doesn't. In fact theres quite a bit of precedent that ork aircraft don't need to look like they're held together with hopes and dreams.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Orks/ORK-FIGHTA.html
It's an older aesthetic, but the ork flyers are still better held together then the vehicles that have saving throws due to having useless parts. they should be better held together, their atmospheric fighter craft, if they looked like three garbage cans and a bomb strapped together they'd look stupid.

And yet when you look closer at the Forgeworld one, it does have the trademark ill-fitting panels, panels clearly made from different materials and tacked on every which way, exposed cabling... It's still not perfect, but it's closer to what I see as the Ork aesthetic than these new plastics.

No, you're looking at the necron one. The ork ones are colored yellow and red.

Hilarious. But dodging it won't change it.

Goresaw wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Amaya wrote:All Ork fliers are fast attack choices.

Seriously though guys, are 9-18 twinlinked bs4 s6 ap4 30" range shots worth 130 points?

Thats like two chimeras except with wings. I'd say not, but thats set against the precedent of vendetta, long fangs, psyflemen, and the other gods of long range fire support in 40k. It doesn't seem to be a bad unit, but it's very vulnerable and lootas do its job better.

Also I would argue lootaz do NOT do the job better.

When you put it that way, damn, I LOVE the Dakka Jet. I think I want three! Not because they're better than buggies, but because they're better than lootaz!

1, Dependability - Lootaz are highly erratic in their performance and are highly dice reliant. Number of shots and ability to hit are up to the dice gods. Dakka jet is a high BS (for an ork), and possibly twin linked (is that what the buzz is)? Sure it doesn't have the shots of 15 lootaz MAY have, but way more will actually hit.

2. Maneuverability - Lootaz are a static element. They do not play well with battlewagon lists. They will pretty much always be along the back line hitting squads or plinking off front armor. Dakka Jetz will be right up in the presenting a potential threat. Also side shots with Str 6 is nice. I'd much rather get side armor than have the STR 7 the lootaz have.

3. Not Elite - Taking Dakka Jetz allows more nobz, burnaz, hell... kommandoz. All those elite choices you weren't able to take before open up before you.


Depending on seeing the full on rules... I really am warming up to the Dakka jet.

You run into problems with point cost comparisons between the two units, especially if you start factoring in upgrades like the ace pilot. Lootas do their thing cheap and can be fairly resilient when in cover, it'll be hard to keep the dakkajet alive. That said, I don't think the dakka jet is bad. Lootas are just darn good and I'd give them a nod in most lists. A battlewagon spam army could probably do well with more armor in another slot though, as could kan wall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And yet when you look closer at the Forgeworld one, it does have the trademark ill-fitting panels, panels clearly made from different materials and tacked on every which way, exposed cabling... It's still not perfect, but it's closer to what I see as the Ork aesthetic than these new plastics.

I don't think we're looking at the same models, I still think you're looking at the necron one.

Hilarious. But dodging it won't change it.

Nor will blind insistence that your patented cynicism 100% reflects reality (usually it's about three quarters there). You're taking issue with the "molded metal" form of the tail. It's not about paneling, lack of gubbinz, or scrappyness (the new jet has a hemi engine sticking out from it's jet intake, a manhole cover on its wing, and a giant exaust system with holes in it to make it louder). It's just got curved lines, which is unusual for an ork creation. Just be real with it, that's the big issue and it's the only issue. It's not boxy enough for you.

Lootas, Dakkajets....
Why don't we have both?

ShumaGorath wrote:Nor will blind insistence that your patented cynicism 100% reflects reality

My what...?

You're taking issue with the "molded metal" form of the tail.

I am...? News to me.

It's not about paneling, lack of gubbinz, or scrappyness (the new jet has a hemi engine sticking out from it's jet intake). It's just got curved lines, which is unusual for an ork creation. Just be real with it, that's the big issue and it's the only issue. It's not boxy enough for you.

It has nothing to with with it not being boxy. The Stompa isn't boxy, and I still think it's perfectly Orky. It's just too clean-looking.

Frankly, I like this shape better than the Forgeworld design. But the Forgeworld one is a more Orky execution. Not because of the overall shape, but because of all those little details.

I've never had good games with lootaz.

They always dribble out a sad amount of shots and inevitably run off the board because they have poor leadership. Don't let the warboss hear this.. but I want some dependability in my list!

Frankly, I like this shape better than the Forgeworld design. But the Forgeworld one is a more Orky execution. Not because of the overall shape, but because of all those little details.

Which the new design has. Hell, it has holes in its airfoils. That doesn't even make sense.

Real Ork players do their own kustomizations and detailing.

I welcome this kit and all the modelling/converting opportunities it brings...

insaniak wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Nor will blind insistence that your patented cynicism 100% reflects reality

My what...?

Yes, that's unfair. Insaniak has never been one of the haters. He has a long record of providing balanced comments and constructive criticism.

insaniak wrote:Frankly, I like this shape better than the Forgeworld design. But the Forgeworld one is a more Orky execution. Not because of the overall shape, but because of all those little details.

Okay, but (as I'm sure you know) that kind of detail is much easier to execute in a resin kit than an injection-moulded kit. It really requires a lot more parts; I'd be fine with that, but then a lot of players would complain that the kit is too fiddly and takes to long to assemble. Also, there's only so much room on the sprues, and they've clearly provided a lot of options.

Goresaw wrote:I've never had good games with lootaz.

They always dribble out a sad amount of shots and inevitably run off the board because they have poor leadership. Don't let the warboss hear this.. but I want some dependability in my list!

Me too. My lootas are usually ignored in favor of taking out more potent threats. (My poor burna boyz, in a battlewagon, with a KFF big mek and cybork bodies thanks to the Mad Dok. Just because they killed half your army last week is no reason to send your whole army against them this time... ) I just might be taking three bommas, and three units of burna boyz in battlewagons just out of spite.

Tailgunner wrote:

insaniak wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Nor will blind insistence that your patented cynicism 100% reflects reality

My what...?

Yes, that's unfair. Insaniak has never been one of the haters. He has a long record of providing balancing comments and constructive criticism.

He always seems to be on the unhappy side of arguments when I see his posts.

Tailgunner wrote:Okay, but (as I'm sure you know) that kind of detail is much easier to execute in a resin kit than an injection-moulded kit. It really requires a lot more parts; I'd be fine with that, but then a lot of players would complain that the kit is too fiddly and takes to long to assemble. Also, there's only so much room on the sprues, and they've clearly provided a lot of options.

Well, they've provided 'a lot' of options because they've provided different parts to differentiate the three different planes. I would probably rather have seen just two variants (an anti-infantry or air-superiority version and a bomber) with the remaining space used to just throw in a bunch of random mechanical gubbins to tack on wherever.

warpcrafter wrote:

Goresaw wrote:I've never had good games with lootaz.

They always dribble out a sad amount of shots and inevitably run off the board because they have poor leadership. Don't let the warboss hear this.. but I want some dependability in my list!

Me too. My lootas are usually ignored in favor of taking out more potent threats. (My poor burna boyz, in a battlewagon, with a KFF big mek and cybork bodies thanks to the Mad Dok. Just because they killed half your army last week is no reason to send your whole army against them this time... ) I just might be taking three bommas, and three units of burna boyz in battlewagons just out of spite.

I rather like the notion of the jet providing additional highly mobile armor in a battlewagon or kan list. It really forces the opponent to make some tough choices. They'll likely always chose the kans or wagons, but they'll get de-mech'd during the interim by the dakkajets blasting at side armor.

I been coming to this thread for the last couple of days and looking at the new flyers. Now as a space marine guy i really want to like the storm talon but i just cant, its the 1st space marine vehicle i can truly say i dont like, i would even go as far to say the storm raven is nicer.

In saying that i really like the necron flyer its the nicest out the lot.

insaniak wrote:

Tailgunner wrote:Okay, but (as I'm sure you know) that kind of detail is much easier to execute in a resin kit than an injection-moulded kit. It really requires a lot more parts; I'd be fine with that, but then a lot of players would complain that the kit is too fiddly and takes to long to assemble. Also, there's only so much room on the sprues, and they've clearly provided a lot of options.

Well, they've provided 'a lot' of options because they've provided different parts to differentiate the three different planes. I would probably rather have seen just two variants (an anti-infantry or air-superiority version and a bomber) with the remaining space used to just throw in a bunch of random mechanical gubbins to tack on wherever.

three nose intakes, optional airfoils, wing insignias, two kinds of exaust, tack on wing fins, optional hull exaust, optional wingtip fuel cannisters, optional iron sights on the guns. I wouldn't call that a minimal amount of random crap on vehicles that are seemingly only differentiated by their rear cockpit weapon and the stuff hanging under their wings. Some of it could be custom by the GW staff, but we can't really know that for sure. None of it's a wrecking ball, but that'd be over the top.

insaniak wrote:Well, they've provided 'a lot' of options because they've provided different parts to differentiate the three different planes. I would probably rather have seen just two variants (an anti-infantry or air-superiority version and a bomber) with the remaining space used to just throw in a bunch of random mechanical gubbins to tack on wherever.

Right, but in the end they're wargaming models, so they've gone for gaming options over modelling options. The FW models are aimed more at modellers. But it still comes back to the point I made before - kits like these are just the starting point. As an Ork player (actually more of a modeller), I actually like not getting absolutely everything in the box, because there's more scope for adding unique touches. And there are a lot of Ork plastic kits now, which provide plenty of gubbins.

Tailgunner wrote:

insaniak wrote:Well, they've provided 'a lot' of options because they've provided different parts to differentiate the three different planes. I would probably rather have seen just two variants (an anti-infantry or air-superiority version and a bomber) with the remaining space used to just throw in a bunch of random mechanical gubbins to tack on wherever.

Right, but in the end they're wargaming models, so they've gone for gaming options over modelling options. The FW models are aimed more at modellers. But it still comes back to the point I made before - kits like these are just the starting point. As an Ork player (actually more of a modeller), I actually like not getting absolutely everything in the box, because there's more scope for adding unique touches. And there are a lot of Ork plastic kits now, which provide plenty of gubbins.

I'd disagree. Remember, GW is a models company, not a games company.

I like the aesthetics of some of the larger skimmer/flyer models, and some I really don't like. What I really don't like is the move to having more of these type of models on the table. 40k isn't considered a 'skirmish' game, but really that is what it is. We play engagements of anywhere between 20-150 models, on a surface that is far too small to have aircraft represented. I think a better way to handle aircraft in 40k would be to include rules for airstrikes/air insertions. A much better medium for using aircraft would be Epic 40k or Aeronautica Imperialis.

I know I'm going to have to get my hands on that ork bomma, but I'll likely not ever use it in a game. It will be something I'll enjoy spending extra time painting and join my stompa on the shelf for display.