|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:28 pm
Great models, shame they're likely to be charged a good bit extra for.
Those may also be 'Ard boyz, though. Actually, wouldn't surprise me if it's GW making a mix box that could be either 'Ard Boyz or Cybork bodied boyz. Would probably be something between $30 and $40 and a ten model kit. Of course, this is all baseless speculation.
By the way, question: Warboss and 'retinue' would either need to be two separate trukks [One for boss, one for boyz] or start disembarked, correct? Not that this matters too much if true [can still move fully if you embark at the start of move], but if the later is false that makes bringing a Warboss to battle mounted a bit of a pickle.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:51 pm
Concidering that GW have said that it IS the plastic nobz set... I don't see how that speculation would make sense anyways~ wink
And there already is 'ard boy bitz in the boy pack, you just need more shoulder pads. mrgreen
But that won't stop you from looting the cybork parts to use them on boyz... even though the bitz would seem a bit big.
...
And I don't really get the question... >_o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:54 pm
Drachyench_The_Eternal Great models, shame they're likely to be charged a good bit extra for. Those may also be 'Ard boyz, though. Actually, wouldn't surprise me if it's GW making a mix box that could be either 'Ard Boyz or Cybork bodied boyz. Would probably be something between $30 and $40 and a ten model kit. Of course, this is all baseless speculation. By the way, question: Warboss and 'retinue' would either need to be two separate trukks [One for boss, one for boyz] or start disembarked, correct? Not that this matters too much if true [can still move fully if you embark at the start of move], but if the later is false that makes bringing a Warboss to battle mounted a bit of a pickle. He can start the game mounted with the squad he has joined, if there is room for him on board the transport and if the squad in question actually has bought the transport to start the game in it. If you care to look at the Boss entry you will note that he does not have access to a transport. So where do you get the idea that you need to buy one for the boss as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:29 pm
My apologies on the former, commenting from school. The main thing I cared about anyways was the squad thing. And I thought a character could only start the game attached to their retinue. Then again, I don't think they ever get too into detail with this tidbit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:02 pm
I'd suggest common sense but people over think these days. sweatdrop Ork bosses don't have retinues or command squads, they can just join other squads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:58 pm
Lt. Brookman I'd suggest common sense but people over think these days. sweatdrop Ork bosses don't have retinues or command squads, they can just join other squads. Right, this I knew. It was just confusing over the fact that it's two unit selection choices started out as one [involving a character being attached to a unit] inside a vehicle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:45 am
so what do you guys think of the orkz? i have painted another 4 since... i will add photos in about 30mins (i have to go for dinner) (ARGH! my busy schedule with college and that leaves me precious little time to paint! and i need the money if i am gonna go to the London EXPO!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:18 pm
I don't know if it's the primer, paint or both but it looks a little off. I can't really tell from the picture, but did you try shading? I can see areas of black poking out but I don't know if that's an intentional effect. I'd put on lots of chaos black, then dry brush scab red over it and then lightly go over it again with red gore if to highlight his muscles more.
Is the Ork supposed to have red skin or did he just paint himself red with his new-found love for Khorne?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:35 am
i know i rushed it, i had very little time and i used him as a quick colour scheme test. also, khorne has changed the skin colour of the orks, and no, i didnt try shading, as i say, it was a colour scheme test, i have already stripped the paint and i will repaint him properly when i get a chance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:32 am
Question: should I take the Ork Fighta or the Ork Fighta-Bommer? From a gaming point of view the bommer has a ball-mounted rear facing twin-linked shoota array and the ability to carry either supa-rokkits or two burna bomms. The fighta can have two bomms or two rokkits.
Visually both look great and mean enough to strafe Imperial troops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:41 am
It depends what you want to do with it, like everything else.
If you're going to use it as a primary attack vehicle I'd take the Fighter-Bomber because of it's superior payload and addition of a turret. If it's just going to be a support unit take the regular Fighter.
It should be noted, which is somewhat obvious, that the Fighter-Bomber is more intended towards taking out infantry and light support vehicles (Sentinels, for instance) and the regular Fighter should be chosen for an anti-armor roll.
If you're going after Imperial Troopers, I'd recommend the Fighter-Bomber. Supposing that points isn't that big of a deal, that is.
Edit
If I recall correctly, the Fighter-Bomber has six hardpoints as opposed to the Fighter's two, and the Fighter-Bomber moves slower.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:26 pm
Speed isn't an issue with 40k thankfully, though yeah, six hard points is better than two. I've also noticed that the Fighta has two twin-linked big shootas, the Bommer has four big shootas instead, making it more ideal (imho at least) for strafing enemy troop formations. I guess the bommer is more tempting then, as we want something that can strafe enemy formations with a lot of dakka. Being able to drop a ton of bombs along with burna bombs is a nice bonus.
However, the Fighta has rokkits, so it can tackle more directly the tanks that I field.
Thanks for the feedback, it has given me some good food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:09 pm
You can just take a fighter if you're not using it as main attack aircraft and spend the extra point on Gretchen-guided missiles.
I believe they both have the same amount of shooters built into the front of the aircraft near the engine block and in the wings. The only difference is, as previously stated, the ball turret. Even then, (I don't know if you have to but you might) have to draw line of sight. In which case it's a waste because it's entirely an anti-aircraft weapon unless you fly upside down or at ground level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:13 am
I think I'll go with the Fighta-Bommer, it has more fire power than the Fighta when it comes to forward facing guns - four big shootas of the Bommer versus two twin-linked shootas of the Fighta. And I've been tossing the Inferno template around a bit in practice so burna bomms are a tempting upgrade for scorching out enemy positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
