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.

I'm firmly in the "I like it" camp.

I will certainly be picking one up for my new SW army. I *may* try and elongate the rear wings a little bit and if I'm feeling VERY frisky I'll try and replace the bottom engines with something a bit bigger.

I really get the sense that this thing is meant for boarding actions first, and as such is mostly a void craft with atmospheric capability. Anytime something like this pops up my mind just yells "Anti-Grav!" and I get on with my life.

Well, I'll say one thing for it:

It looks better than Storm Talon or Storm Raven.

Gunship version is kinda stupid though. C'mon GW, not EVERYTHING needs to be double-kit.

I like it. It looks like a WWII LCVP

Helfrost - If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each wound suffered or be removed from play

Does anyone else here read this rule and see how easy it can be abused? The way I am interpreting the rule, which is probably NOT RAI, but could absolutely be interpreted in RAW that after a model is hit with an unsaved wound from a helfrost weapon, not only must it make a strength test for the helfrost weapon its self, but for every consecutive wound "suffered" (which could be interpreted as unsaved) from any weapon.

This is what I mean to say in an example-

Hit Unit A with Helfrost weapon
Unit A suffers unsaved wound, passes strength test
Proceed to pepper Unit A with Lasguns, Bolters, etc
Unit A must now pass more strength tests or be removed from since it is now suffering wounds.

Am I absolutely stupid? Or is anyone else seeing this? I could definitely be stupid.

Wow. I love it. Sharp looking model. I hope it's not wolves only. First non forge world space marine aircraft I've liked. Great job GW.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Wow. I love it. Sharp looking model. I hope it's not wolves only. First non forge world space marine aircraft I've liked. Great job GW.

Err very definitely appears to be SW only club model. Wolfy bits, frosty bits and rune bits galore.

 ultimentra wrote:

Helfrost - If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each wound suffered or be removed from play

Does anyone else here read this rule and see how easy it can be abused? The way I am interpreting the rule, which is probably NOT RAI, but could absolutely be interpreted in RAW that after a model is hit with an unsaved wound from a helfrost weapon, not only must it make a strength test for the helfrost weapon its self, but for every consecutive wound "suffered" (which could be interpreted as unsaved) from any weapon.

This is what I mean to say in an example-

Hit Unit A with Helfrost weapon
Unit A suffers unsaved wound, passes strength test
Proceed to pepper Unit A with Lasguns, Bolters, etc
Unit A must now pass more strength tests or be removed from since it is now suffering wounds.

Am I absolutely stupid? Or is anyone else seeing this? I could definitely be stupid.

It's applicable on a model by model basis. If a single model suffers a wound not a unit. So it's only really good for multi-wound models such as characters, monstrous creatures, etc.

Also, in 7th you completely resolve one type of weapon (to hit, to wound, armor save, special effects) before moving onto another type of weapon; rinse and repeat until all models and/or weapon types in the shooting unit have fired. So this alone would mitigate such shenanigans.

 ultimentra wrote:

Helfrost - If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each wound suffered or be removed from play

Does anyone else here read this rule and see how easy it can be abused? The way I am interpreting the rule, which is probably NOT RAI, but could absolutely be interpreted in RAW that after a model is hit with an unsaved wound from a helfrost weapon, not only must it make a strength test for the helfrost weapon its self, but for every consecutive wound "suffered" (which could be interpreted as unsaved) from any weapon.

This is what I mean to say in an example-

Hit Unit A with Helfrost weapon
Unit A suffers unsaved wound, passes strength test
Proceed to pepper Unit A with Lasguns, Bolters, etc
Unit A must now pass more strength tests or be removed from since it is now suffering wounds.

Am I absolutely stupid? Or is anyone else seeing this? I could definitely be stupid.

No i dont interpret it that way at all. Just really good vs multiwound items.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However seeing what else in the codex gets the same type of rule may be interesting...

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Anything else mentioned like when the Codex arrives?

Do we know for sure that this is a full codex release, and not just a special one-off w/ WD rules for Sanctus Reach?

 streamdragon wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Anything else mentioned like when the Codex arrives?

Do we know for sure that this is a full codex release, and not just a special one-off w/ WD rules for Sanctus Reach?

The preview for the WD after this teases "warriors of Fenris" so yeah its a full release.

Woof woof!

Love the flying wolf buss!
It even got us to stop moaning (howling) about a presumed GH/WG nerf. Nice job GW!

 Fayric wrote:
Love the flying wolf buss!
It even got us to stop moaning (howling) about a presumed GH/WG nerf. Nice job GW!

Oh don't worry, I haven't forgotten. G-dubs are far from proving to me that I actually want to continue my SW in to 7th edition.

I like it. I don't have a wolf army. I bought the storm claw set and thought about converting the space wolves into chaos space marines. Now, I kinda want to start my space wolves allies. I guess I will save the models for the future when I decide to have my Stark marines

I think it looks great as a 40k flyer as the transport version. It would be nice if it was just a general SM kit though.

Removing all colour really helps me see it tie together beyond the wolfyness...

Are we ever gonna get a transport with 20 model (10 TEQ) capacity outside of Apoc?

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Are we ever gonna get a transport with 20 model (10 TEQ) capacity outside of Apoc?

The Spartan can, and I think the Ceastus and maybe the Storm Eagle can?

 Paradigm wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Are we ever gonna get a transport with 20 model (10 TEQ) capacity outside of Apoc?

The Spartan can, and I think the Ceastus and maybe the Storm Eagle can?

Spartan and storm eagle yes, Ceastus no it's 10, but these can be 10 terminators (special rule!)

Let me rephrase: outside of Apoc or Forgeworld?

I love the caestus, and enjoy that they have another model (loosely) based on it, but also think they completely missed the point when they gave it a regular cockpit and a back ramp.

Skeptical, but vaguely optimistic.

edit: wait, so, there's also a front-transport version? If so, I think I'll be using these as proxies for stormravens, since I hate the look of those.

I'd say I was shocked that Games Workshop could produce a model that ridiculously awful, but I'd be lying.

It's a Space Marine flyer, and it is Space Wolves related. Sorta comes with the territory.

That thing is on line with the Centurions in having zero redeeming aesthetic qualities. Well done Games Workshop. Well done.

I would like to see the sprues so I can get an idea of what I can cut/replace on the model. I can see possibility for sure.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Let me rephrase: outside of Apoc or Forgeworld?

Yes but other than Apoc and Forgeworld, what have GW ever done for us?


It's actually growing on me a lot quicker than I thought it would, although I don't think I could field it as-is. I edited the WD scan with some colour-coded notes;



They amount to "make it look more like a monohulled Caestus". It'll still take a fair amount of work to bring it up to par for my personal tastes, but at least most of it is superficial exterior work rather than the almost total rebuilds required to make the other plastic SM fliers even remotely appealing.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Let me rephrase: outside of Apoc or Forgeworld?

Yes but other than Apoc and Forgeworld, what have GW ever done for us?

Nicely done (assuming you're going for Life of Brian).

Add Storm Raven wings and engines! I reckon that'll make a world of difference.

And there are even options for where to mount them - either back up high (next to the cockpit) or along the front hull - either could look good.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
Love the flying wolf buss!
It even got us to stop moaning (howling) about a presumed GH/WG nerf. Nice job GW!

Oh don't worry, I haven't forgotten. G-dubs are far from proving to me that I actually want to continue my SW in to 7th edition.

I dont think the codex will se many boosts. Most likely TWC will be more like normal cavalry but drop slightly in points, and long fangs just get split fire rule. Still no ~apothecary rules and no iron clad.
Hopefully they get some special rule for dreadnoughts, like the contemptors sagas.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I love the caestus, and enjoy that they have another model (loosely) based on it, but also think they completely missed the point when they gave it a regular cockpit and a back ramp.

Skeptical, but vaguely optimistic.

edit: wait, so, there's also a front-transport version? If so, I think I'll be using these as proxies for stormravens, since I hate the look of those.

I think I may actually do an armored cockpit for the assault version. Shouldn't be too hard with a little plasticard.

 Fayric wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
Love the flying wolf buss!
It even got us to stop moaning (howling) about a presumed GH/WG nerf. Nice job GW!

Oh don't worry, I haven't forgotten. G-dubs are far from proving to me that I actually want to continue my SW in to 7th edition.

I dont think the codex will se many boosts. Most likely TWC will be more like normal cavalry but drop slightly in points, and long fangs just get split fire rule. Still no ~apothecary rules and no iron clad.
Hopefully they get some special rule for dreadnoughts, like the contemptors sagas.

I'm not really worried about not getting boosts, I'm worried about needless nerfs, imbalance, loss of character and invalidating models.

Ilmarinen wrote:
Add Storm Raven wings and engines! I reckon that'll make a world of difference.

And there are even options for where to mount them - either back up high (next to the cockpit) or along the front hull - either could look good.

Yes - let's see this. Any photoshop out there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not really worried about not getting boosts, I'm worried about needless nerfs, imbalance, loss of character and invalidating models.

This is GW - much gnashing of teeth expected with each release. But as I have never played SW before - it's all new to me.

 Crablezworth wrote:
The flying shoe is problematic. Not just the lack of viable flight that it shares with its cousins, the fact that a lot of the weaponry is top mounted and can barely see ground targets. That's a problem.

You don't need aerodynamics, if you got enough (vectored) thrust

But yeah, mounting weapons in completely illogical places is another continuing GW thing. There's very little thought given to how such a vehicle would actually function on the battlefield - of course it's a sci-fantasy vehicle, but giving it a touch of credibility would add to the coolness.