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.

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

And they make models for wargaming. Their models are becoming increasingly sophisticated, but they're a long way from being display models of the kind produced by, say, Tamiya (despite being considerably more expensive). The parts count in a GW kit is still a fraction of a 'serious' plastic kit.

Yes, but demand effects the pricing not simply the kit's complexity or level of detail.

I hate the Tornsalon for one very simple reason. It looks totally redundant. Pointless and so very unspacemarinelike. WHY would they buzz around in these ridiculous goldfish aircraft with oversized weaponry and frankly impossible engineering physics? Truly horrific. Makes the Stormraven look well designed in comparision. I only hope it hasnt got Jes Goodwins name on it because i was amazed that he worked on the 'raven

Been waitIng a long time for a Plastic Ork flyer kit..... I have been waiting since the 3rdedition vehicle design rules ....... Can't wait to buy the kit. The SM flyer doesn't feel like it fits in the 40k universe, idk why, the necromancy thing reminds me of the star gate movie flyer

Tailgunner wrote:

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

And they make models for wargaming. Their models are becoming increasingly sophisticated, but they're a long way from being display models of the kind produced by, say, Tamiya (despite being considerably more expensive). The parts count in a GW kit is still a fraction of a 'serious' plastic kit.

See, now I can't remember where it was, but I swear seeing a report where one of the GW higher-ups essentially says that 2/3 of their sales are from people who don't play their games.

I need to find it!

infinite_array wrote:

Tailgunner wrote:

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

And they make models for wargaming. Their models are becoming increasingly sophisticated, but they're a long way from being display models of the kind produced by, say, Tamiya (despite being considerably more expensive). The parts count in a GW kit is still a fraction of a 'serious' plastic kit.

See, now I can't remember where it was, but I swear seeing a report where one of the GW higher-ups essentially says that 2/3 of their sales are from people who don't play their games.

I need to find it!

Was it the one by Kirby guy claiming GW is "the hobby" ?

^And that narrows it down, how?

infinite_array wrote:^And that narrows it down, how?

It doesn't, I just wanted to know if we are remembering the same one :'P

ShumaGorath wrote: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.

Maybe that's where some of the difference of opinion is coming from. I saw all of those things as being there to differentiate the different variants, rather than just as bits to customise any of the three.

But even so, most of them don't help with the problem that I see with the kit overall. Putting fuel pods on the end of the wing doesn't make it any more orky.

insaniak wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: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.

Maybe that's where some of the difference of opinion is coming from. I saw all of those things as being there to differentiate the different variants, rather than just as bits to customise any of the three.

But even so, most of them don't help with the problem that I see with the kit overall. Putting fuel pods on the end of the wing doesn't make it any more orky.

No, you want the ones where the front of the jet looks like a mouth, not the ones with the metal skeleton.

I got to say this. I like the look of the SM flyer.
It looks kinda cool. Not t mention tw lascannons and assault cannons.
Or those nice Storm hammer missle.
Now just to figure out how to magnitize.

I like the Stormtalon. I don't care what my friends say. I gotta be me!

Wonder if you get enought bits in the Ork kit to make a second flyer if you can knock the body and wing issue..

Maybe Ork up a secondhand crappy Valk...

-P

ShumaGorath wrote:No, you want the ones where the front of the jet looks like a mouth, not the ones with the metal skeleton.

Yeah, when I said that was hilarious the first time round? Less so by the third iteration.

Who else thinks the storm talon would look ten billion times cooler if you just do away with the ridiculous tail, make weapon mounts a bit smaller, and ad a propeller on top, they gotta have come helis!

More pics http://www.gamestrust.de/news,warhammer-40-000-necron-space-marine-ork-flugeinheiten-abgelichtet,id19097.html

Thanks for the new pics.

Does anyone else think the Necron decor light globes look like Xbox?

infinite_array wrote:

Tailgunner wrote:

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

And they make models for wargaming. Their models are becoming increasingly sophisticated, but they're a long way from being display models of the kind produced by, say, Tamiya (despite being considerably more expensive). The parts count in a GW kit is still a fraction of a 'serious' plastic kit.

See, now I can't remember where it was, but I swear seeing a report where one of the GW higher-ups essentially says that 2/3 of their sales are from people who don't play their games.

I need to find it!

I'm happy to accept he said it; I'm not convinced that the majority of people who buy GW kits don't have at least some involvement in the gaming side. But it doesn't change the fact that GW kits are not designed principally as display models. They're designed to be constructed by relatively inexperienced modellers in a reasonably short time, and to be durable enough to be used as gaming models.

Amaya wrote:Yes, but demand effects the pricing not simply the kit's complexity or level of detail.

That's a completely different discussion. The point about cost was an aside I couldn't resist adding because I'm still a bit astonished at the hike on the Stormraven. I like GW's kits, but there are incredibly well designed, highly sophisticated kits out there which cost far less than GW's.

My blitza bomba is sooo getting a wrecking ball now.

Jidmah wrote:My blitza bomba is sooo getting a wrecking ball now.

If these things are even remotely usable in games, I'm going to be adding all sorts of hilarious crap I can't use on my other vehicles.

Just wait till you see a fighta bomma with a deff rolla on it... they said I was mad to stick a deffrolla on a jet! MAD I TELL YOU! LOOK WHO'S LAUGHIN NOW!!!!!

Best part is, I have some really crappy old WWII plane models I put together when I was around 12 or so. I could easily tear them apart to take advantage of the spare wings in the kit! Man that'll be a fun project...

So does anyone have the actual for real rules for these things? I've seen several different rule sets posted throughout this thread, and I can't tell the fan made ones from the real ones.

More pics http://www.gamestrust.de/news,warhammer-40-000-necron-space-marine-ork-flugeinheiten-abgelichtet,id19097.html

From top down and directly head on I think the ST actually looks pretty good, those pics do it a lot more justice. Im much less convinced of the profile and more angled views of it though :(

Ork bomba is most certainly getting purchased. Great looking kit.

I can't get over how good the Ork jets are looking, straight from the side it looks even better. This was just what I (but not my wallet) hoped for!

The best part really is that we can now destroy land raiders by crashing planes into them.

Goodbye suicide koptaz, hello suicide jets!

Those new pics are excellent. I think all of the models look rather good in them, the Necron and Ork ones being the best but the SM bird fairly decent as well.

Stormtalon... hmmm... I've seen this design before... If I could only figure out where-

http://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/84/skyhawk/

Okay, I'm not afraid to say it, I really like the look of the Stormtalon. To me it looks like something you'd see out of a sci-fi cyberpunk or urban setting, and frankly I have exactly that need for something like that. Especially an armored up tank like it is.

The turret is a little on the big side, but other than that, I have no complaints. The other two look ace, and I can't wait to see what the Harpy's gonna look like.

lord_blackfang wrote:More pics http://www.gamestrust.de/news,warhammer-40-000-necron-space-marine-ork-flugeinheiten-abgelichtet,id19097.html

Here they are for the Dakka

I know a similar edit was already done, but if you mounted the ACs right into the fuselage I think it looks a lot better without having to completely reengineer the hull.....

Yes I know I has Awesome photoshop skillz...but it get the point accross

I think the other angle shots do make it look better.....

ish

Kroothawk wrote:Some pics that do more justice to the models:

... this is fixable, actually.

1.) Remove the side sponsons. Put the weapon muzzles into where the "air vents" in the front currently are.

2.) Remove the entire chin-mount weapon assembly. Take off the bottom plate (the piece that is closest to the ground). Build the guns (and by "the guns", I mean the much smaller assault cannons from other kits) - build them right under the sensors. Take that plate and close off the assembly on the bottom.

3.) Optional - extend the engines on either side about 1 inch using PVC pipe of whatever the appropriate size turns out to be (half-inch probably).

I think this model can be made to look good.

Another idea would be to convert into into a smaller, stubbier A-10: Remove the engine aseemblies and remove the winglets from them, reduce the width by half and mount them near the tail, and add wings... wings of an un-yet determined origin. Perhaps this would make a good CHS conversion kit.

SargentWhiskey wrote: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.

I think the Stormraven is an awesome looking model. However I don't really like the Talon too much. Guns are too big and the landing gears are on the undercarriaged gun, WTF?.