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 getting the impression from what you're saying here, and what Gadzilla was saying in the other thread, that some of these reviewers aren't taking the time to get their facts straight before vomiting their reviews onto the internet...

 Dysartes wrote:
I'm getting the impression from what you're saying here, and what Gadzilla was saying in the other thread, that some of these reviewers aren't taking the time to get their facts straight before vomiting their reviews onto the internet...

The downside to the race to get the first clicks. Being fast is more important then being correct

 Dysartes wrote:
I'm getting the impression from what you're saying here, and what Gadzilla was saying in the other thread, that some of these reviewers aren't taking the time to get their facts straight before vomiting their reviews onto the internet...

It also seems GW has been little inconsistent as they also called it a vehical in their promotion for it aswell.

Also reading between the lines I suspect it was classified as a vehical during playtesting and some bright spark changed the keywords without thinking through all the implications.

As it having the biker keyword feels broken as.

I haven't heard anyone saying it has both keywords, just that it explodes like a vehicle, but is a biker and can be resurrected even after exploding!
It needs to be a vehicle, thus does nothing that changes it for Ravenwing.

Meanwhile, Deffkoptas are VEHICLES...

Did a little modifying to mine, which I feel helps a lot!

Brought the front wheels together to make it a trike, and re angled the back wheels downwards to give it a bit more ground clearance. Pretty easy to do, I may well get a couple more eventually.

That's a huge improvement.

I looked at doing the same thing but didn't like the look (plus the shocks are now behind the wheels

I suspect this would be the case TBH. every release it seems GW previews one model that gets mocked and turned into a meme, then it releases and the people who actually see the model tend to all say "...... thats actually not that bad"

 Stux wrote:
Brought the front wheels together to make it a trike, and re angled the back wheels downwards to give it a bit more ground clearance. Pretty easy to do, I may well get a couple more eventually.

I like your redesign, but it also highlights the weird way that the front has so little armour, yet everywhere else is armoured completely.

Had an extra flying base not in use yet so I placed it on one next to the outrider. It definitely looks better on a base.

my biggest issue wiuth the mini is no detailing on the under side, it seems minor but previously GW would detail every bit of the mini so it just seems an... odd change

BrianDavion wrote:
my biggest issue wiuth the mini is no detailing on the under side, it seems minor but previously GW would detail every bit of the mini so it just seems an... odd change

Less I have to paint. And I think it should be based, so its even less important.

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
my biggest issue wiuth the mini is no detailing on the under side, it seems minor but previously GW would detail every bit of the mini so it just seems an... odd change

Less I have to paint. And I think it should be based, so its even less important.

yeah if it was based it'd be less of an issue, but given it's not based that's going to be kinda obvious

hold up now it doesn't have a base ???? Okay...

 Argive wrote:
hold up now it doesn't have a base ???? Okay...

Not unless my box was defective.

Breton wrote:

 Argive wrote:
hold up now it doesn't have a base ???? Okay...

Not unless my box was defective.

It isn't pictured on one on the GW site, and the description there doesn't mention one, so your box was not defective.

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Argive wrote:
hold up now it doesn't have a base ???? Okay...

Not unless my box was defective.

It isn't pictured on one on the GW site, and the description there doesn't mention one, so your box was not defective.

Any rule against putting them on a base anyway?

Breton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Argive wrote:
hold up now it doesn't have a base ???? Okay...

Not unless my box was defective.

It isn't pictured on one on the GW site, and the description there doesn't mention one, so your box was not defective.

Any rule against putting them on a base anyway?

As long as you measure from the model and are extra clear with your opponent about it before the game.

Also, it not being on a base really makes it look like it was intended to be a vehicle.

It's not even CORE!!

Breton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Argive wrote:
hold up now it doesn't have a base ???? Okay...

Not unless my box was defective.

It isn't pictured on one on the GW site, and the description there doesn't mention one, so your box was not defective.

Any rule against putting them on a base anyway?

not so long as you measure from the hull anyway

still looks bad, atleast the modified versions look acceptable to great though...

Not Online!!! wrote:
still looks bad, atleast the modified versions look acceptable to great though...

SPEEDBUGGY! That's what it reminds me of. That cartoon dune buggy (and the actual dune buggies he was based off of).

Breton wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
still looks bad, atleast the modified versions look acceptable to great though...

SPEEDBUGGY! That's what it reminds me of. That cartoon dune buggy (and the actual dune buggies he was based off of).

I think now it is time for the mind blown gif?



Still looks abismal and oce again Dakka showed they are better at implementing Models then GW

 Stux wrote:
Did a little modifying to mine, which I feel helps a lot!

Brought the front wheels together to make it a trike, and re angled the back wheels downwards to give it a bit more ground clearance. Pretty easy to do, I may well get a couple more eventually.

It really looks better this way, good job!!

I think it looks awful because of the Marines on top, not because of the vehicle per se. The photo without the gunner is way cooler, it's just that oversized dude on top that makes it feel goofy, IMO.

 Denegaar wrote:
I think it looks awful because of the Marines on top, not because of the vehicle per se. The photo without the gunner is way cooler, it's just that oversized dude on top that makes it feel goofy, IMO.

the marine in the back I just headcanon stays on with magnetic boots. we know Marines have them.

 Denegaar wrote:
I think it looks awful because of the Marines on top, not because of the vehicle per se. The photo without the gunner is way cooler, it's just that oversized dude on top that makes it feel goofy, IMO.

I kind of agree to be honest. It wouldn't be that difficult with the Trike conversion to put the gatling cannon on the front with the bolters on the sides. But then you'd need to do something on the back, as having the platform empty is kind of worse than having the marine there. And that was more than I could be bothered with!

 Crimson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My issue with the go-kart is that it's armoured everywhere except the front. It has a single armour panel in the middle there, but everything else is open, whereas every other part of it has plates stopping incoming shots.

Yep. It would probably look better if the front wheel had armour like the rear wheels, but I'm not gonna buy two of these to convert one better looking one. In fact I didn't buy even one. I'm on the fence whether this is a lost cause or an interesting conversion challenge. I don't hate it nearly as much as most people, but it's not exactly a great model either.

I was thinking of converting, to enclose the driver and have no gunner and just the turret, but it just looks like WAY too much work. Maybe if some 3rd party comes up with conversion bits, but I am not gonna scratch build that.

 Argive wrote:
hold up now it doesn't have a base ???? Okay...

Spoletta wrote:
Also, it not being on a base really makes it look like it was intended to be a vehicle.

Because if it had a base, the base would have to be part of the sprue. It's an EZ2B model, so everything has to:

1. Be on the sprue.
2. Not require glue.

It's got nothing to do with its "intent" as a vehicle or anything else. It's just space on the frame.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Breton wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
still looks bad, atleast the modified versions look acceptable to great though...

SPEEDBUGGY! That's what it reminds me of. That cartoon dune buggy (and the actual dune buggies he was based off of).

I think now it is time for the mind blown gif?

It’s not that far off, it’s pretty easy to see how SpeedBuggy would have a Machine Spirit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
hold up now it doesn't have a base ???? Okay...

Spoletta wrote:
Also, it not being on a base really makes it look like it was intended to be a vehicle.

Because if it had a base, the base would have to be part of the sprue. It's an EZ2B model, so everything has to:

1. Be on the sprue.
2. Not require glue.

It's got nothing to do with its "intent" as a vehicle or anything else. It's just space on the frame.

Plus that would make a lot of aircraft and Repulsors bikes instead of vehicles. They come with a base.
This thing needs a base because it’s so short. It really misses that quarter inch or so of height. And it shows even more next to the bikes and other models.