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.

My birthday and Christmas are coming up and I'm very tempted to get my hand on this bad boy; I am curious about it's actual value on the table-top though and I'm looking for feedback from people who have actually used it:

1) Did it make its points back?

2) How was its durability?

3) Did you ever have targeting problems (turret-mounted weapons)?

4) Did you prefer it with the quad HB turrets or TLAC turrets (loyalist SM)?

5) Do you feel like it fits more of a AA role or is it more geared against ground targets (strafing run)?

I'm trying to come up with a competitive SM list based around a strong aerial threat:

6) Would you include this aircraft in a competitive list? Or is its cost too prohibitive?

From a modeling standpoint:

7) Do you think it would be difficult to magnetize the parts to be able to turn it into a Storm Eagle?


I appreciate any feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just took a real close look at the pictures on FW and it seems the front end of the Storm Eagle and Fire Raptor are actually significantly different...

I can share some experiences about the CSM version. I played it using trial rules for 6th edition.

1) Yes, it made it's point back easily in every game.

2) It lasted the whole game in each of the games I played. My guess is it was in there for an average of 5 rounds each game.

3) I would not call them problems. Being able to shoot in 3 directions was definitely beneficial. There were times I wished I was aiming a turret at something in front of me, but that wasn't such a big deal. Having limited LOS behind the Fire Raptor was a big deal, the turrets were good.

4) The autocannons were necessary for killing infantry and light armor. I would take them in most games.

5) It is geared towards shooting up ground targets. I don't believe I ever used it against an enemy flyer, even when I was fighting them.

6) I can't answer that as I don't play competitive. But it was key in my CSMs destroying several self-described 'competitive' lists. The principle advantage for this vehicle is that no one really knows what to expect from it. There are always going to be lots of failed shots on it from the ground, and it's always going to do a lot of shooting back.

7) Yes, magnetizing the parts to get a Storm Eagle would be hard. Aside from the fact it's a different chassis, the model itself was hard to assemble and has a lot of long, flat surfaces that need to be bonded for the assembly to work. Magnetizing the thing would likely involve cutting some of the natural surfaces out and replacing them with scratch built materials that would involve a good deal of sculpting.

Fire raptors are incredible and one of the ( IMO) best fliers in the game .It just shreds so many things with such ease.

 phoenix darkus wrote:
1) Did it make its points back?

Yes, easily. It can deliver an 4 shot alpha strike with it's missiles against a vehicle, while using POTMS on it's avenger cannon and it's independent fire turrets to rip apart infantry squads. It's quite possible to make it's points back on the turn it arrives.

 phoenix darkus wrote:
2) How was its durability?

The one extra hull point over a Stormraven is a big deal, as most anti-flyer weapons rely on stripping hull points. The lack of armored ceramite is a pretty big drawback if you're facing other marines as opponents - Stormravens and Stormwolves can easily destroy a Fire Raptor with their melta weapons.

 phoenix darkus wrote:
3) Did you ever have targeting problems (turret-mounted weapons)?

I proxy the model using a space wolf flyer, so I'm not super sure, but it does seem like sort of a major issue. The main issue is that the two turrets are on either side of the model, and so you're basically forced to shoot at 3 different targets. The quad bolters are a pretty okay weapon (being twin-linked and 6 shots), but you certainly run into the issue that you're just softening up multiple units, rather than killing one outright. Good positional play is required to get good use out of all the turrets over the course of several turns.

 phoenix darkus wrote:
4) Did you prefer it with the quad HB turrets or TLAC turrets (loyalist SM)?

Loyalists can't take the AC turrets - the forgeworld rules are not up to date (the most current rules are found in IA2). If I had a choice, I would take the AC turrets - they're a lot more flexible.

 phoenix darkus wrote:
5) Do you feel like it fits more of a AA role or is it more geared against ground targets (strafing run)?

Ground attack, mostly. The Stormstrike Missiles are absolutely deadly against enemy fliers, but the Avenger cannon is sort of underwhelming (against AV12 flyers, it's doing less than 1HP per turn). The Avenger cannon seems tailor-made to murder MEQ infantry, and that's how I use it. Against AV11 and AV10 fliers, it would probably be pretty deadly... but so are all the other SM fliers.

 phoenix darkus wrote:
6) Would you include this aircraft in a competitive list? Or is its cost too prohibitive?

Absolutely, it's a great unit, and almost certainly underpriced. We have a regional tournament coming up, and I'm kicking around the idea of running two of them in an Iron Hands list

 phoenix darkus wrote:
7) Do you think it would be difficult to magnetize the parts to be able to turn it into a Storm Eagle?

I haven't put together either model, so I'm not super sure. However, just from looking at the forgeworld pictures, it looks like some of the major components are different (take a look at the side panels, where the turrets are - they're fairly different in design). However, I don't think it would be too difficult to convert the models, especially if you scratch-built some heavy bolter turrets and glued an assault cannon onto the front of a storm eagle.

Thanks for all the feedback guys!

Just a quick note, FW has a faq/update for IA II 2nd ed, you can replace the quad HBs with TLAC for free. Not as good as the reaper batteries of the Chaos version but higher strength than the HBs.

Still unsure at this point. I tried the Storm Wing formation the other day (subbing in some other models) and I'm looking for a more dedicated AA flyer, I think the Stormraven fits better in that role while the 2 Stormtalons can deal with the ground stuff (albeit much more fragile).

The Roc pattern Storm Eagle has great stats but a hefty price tag (point-wise) and the regular Storm Eagle also gets pricy once you get the weapons upgraded...

Might stick with Stormravens; we'll see how much cash I get to spend too

Isn't a fire raptor the same price as a storm raven? If you want to get storm wing, why not get a fire raptor and a stormraven instead of the storm talons? A fire raptor can easily do what two storm talons can, plus more

That's true but the Storm Wing has its advantages: it's a formation, so it doesn't take a slot in your primary CAD, and you're guaranteed that the planes arrive together.

I should just show up with a Thunderhawk and call it a day

For a slight clarification, the loyalist fire raptor has two quad heavy bolter batteries that each fire 6 shots and these can be swapped for twin-linked autocannons firing 2 shots each. Additionally the chaos version can exchange the quad heavy bolter batterie for reaper autocannon batteries giving each turret 4 shots.

So for loyalists I would keep the hravy bolters since going from 6 to 2 shots isn't worth it to me while I'd take the reapers on a chaos one.

 Dantioch wrote:
For a slight clarification, the loyalist fire raptor has two quad heavy bolter batteries that each fire 6 shots and these can be swapped for twin-linked autocannons firing 2 shots each. Additionally the chaos version can exchange the quad heavy bolter batterie for reaper autocannon batteries giving each turret 4 shots.

So for loyalists I would keep the hravy bolters since going from 6 to 2 shots isn't worth it to me while I'd take the reapers on a chaos one.

This is my thinking as well, 4 S7 shots aren't going to help me all that much. I can see myself getting more use out of 12 S5 shots, in addition to the Avenger Cannon.

Be mindful that the updated rules for the Fire Raptor Gunship, (Chaos Version) are in the Lost and the Damned book.

Cost was reduced to 200 and they have access to Maelefic Ammunition for their heavy bolters or, if you have taken the reaper autocannons, which grants Rending. This means that a Twin Linked Heavy 4 Str 7 Ap 4 gun, can potentially glance or Pen a Land Raider. Thats a big deal, especially if your opponent decides on taking some sort of Armored Wing of higher AV Tanks. Its a great price for a hardy aircraft. Mine never ceases to make its points back. Most of the time Ill rid of 3-400 points of models before the thing gets forced to fly off the board so it doesnt get Tau'd or Eldar'd Which is a statement in and of itself. And dont forget, the independant guns, dont count as weapons that have been fired in terms of the number of weapons the Fire Raptor can fire each turn. Therefore you can fire both of the Independant Reaper Auto Cannons, your Avenger Bolt Cannon, a Multi Melta and a missile or two

Don't think the chaos one gets a Multi-Melta

You are quite correct. I was mistaken on the Multi Melta.