PSA Storm Eagle and v2

[D3L]

This maybe a PSA for people running Storm Eagles dropping in (I love them!)

but something has come up, more than once, but I don't see much acknowledgement, so I'm throwing it here to raise awareness

Premise: 

• due to some questionable proof reading the Storm Eagle seem to have had a MultiMelta removed from its upgrade in V2

Background:

• in HH v1, and 40k a Storm Eagle (SE) can upgrade it's nose twin-linked heavy bolters, for twin-linked MultiMeltas

Present:

•  in HH v2, a MM (MultiMelta) is twin-linked by default (cf: infantry carrying only one of them, are still TL), that in effect means it's a twin-linked melta 
• The SE can currently upgrade it's twin-linked Heavy Bolters for A SINGLE MultiMelta (!)
• The model has two

Problem:

• This means RAW the SE has 1 shot of a weapon it has TWO of, which have twin-linked by default, when it should have 2 shots

Solution:

• the SE should have 2 shots of a MultiMelta, considering it literally is modelled with 2 MM
• keeping with the HH v2 format, this should mean it's a Gravis MM (2 shots, and twin-linked), thus duplicating the rules found in both HH v1 and 40k 

cheers for hashing it out with me
 

Edited September 1, 2022 by D3L
emphasis

[Xenith]

Gravis MM's only have 2 barrels still, so the 4x barrels on the stormraven/eagle model should be 2x multimeltas - mail to it GW! 

[D3L]

I did mail it, albeit I believe they ignore those emails

Yeah Gravis was just the easy fix I could think of, (double shots and treat the weapon as the same inseparable attack) it is the way that the fire raptor and stormbird quad turrets are adapted too for dual-twin linked weapons too

But hey at least I'm not crazy, there are two MM on there, not one

And the previous rules and the 40k rules state that too

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by D3L

[Stitch5000]

4 hours ago, D3L said:

 

• due to some questionable proof reading the Storm Eagle seem to have had a MultiMelta removed from its upgrade in V2

WHy do you think it's "questionable proof reading" and not just a decision to give it a single Twin-linked Multi-melta?

[D3L]

1 hour ago, Stitch5000 said:

WHy do you think it's "questionable proof reading" and not just a decision to give it a single Twin-linked Multi-melta?

easy, because they dont decide to do that at all

the model has two multimeltas,

the rules give it one multimelta

multimeltas have the twin-linked keyword by default (as a singular weapon cf: their stats and infantry, who certainly dont carry two ;-) )

thus the rules ignore the second multimelta present on the model


(and ignoring the rules from both v1 and 40k which give it two multimeltas)

Edited September 1, 2022 by D3L

[Mandragola]

I think this might be a balance change, I'm afraid to say. You might also notice that the cyclone has been downgraded to just a single missile launcher. I think they wanted to reduce the Storm Eagle's firepower. That does leave us in a weird situation where the four-barrelled Storm eagle's melta has one shot, while the two-barrelled dreadnought version gets two.

But this is GW.

[TheNineteenth]

3 hours ago, Mandragola said:

I think this might be a balance change, I'm afraid to say. You might also notice that the cyclone has been downgraded to just a single missile launcher. I think they wanted to reduce the Storm Eagle's firepower. That does leave us in a weird situation where the four-barrelled Storm eagle's melta has one shot, while the two-barrelled dreadnought version gets two.

But this is GW.

Huh? The Storm Eagle? It only had a single Missile Launcher option in Age of Darkness Army List, and Crusade Army List before it; I just checked. Maybe it had a Cyclone in its original appearance in the Black Books? I can't be bothered to trace that down.

I think OP's point about it being modeled incorrectly in relation to the rules is correct. I guess we just install (or pop off) only one of the multi-melta barrel tips, like the modeling on the old Multi-Melta Razorbacks (a single weapon on one side and a targeter on the other, as some people used for Rhinos with Multi-melta before the Pintle Mount Weapons came out)? 

[D3L]

it also leaves us with the ridiculous difference between rulesets, models and store picture

And the 30pt increase to lose a weapon in v2

Edited September 2, 2022 by D3L

[Stitch5000]

There's always going to be some discrepancy between what's on the model, how it is described and what it represents since the models are designed and their production life spans many editions of a game system.

The Storm Eagle model isn't "technically" a Horus Heresy model, since it features an aquila icon on the front canopy, the Multi-meltas themselves are an anachronistic pattern for the HH period, it is just the closest thing we can easily buy to represent the army list entry. A lot of older FW models fit into this category, some of the titans included, because HH was literally just a side project until a few years ago. 

Things change over time, games evolve and are balanced, so it's perhaps best not to get too hung up about it. 

[D3L]

5 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

There's always going to be some discrepancy between what's on the model, how it is described and what it represents since the models are designed and their production life spans many editions of a game system.

Thats fundamentally what GW have been moving away from for the last 10 years

rules NOW represent models

models without rules, are removed

technically. the Storm Eagle is now a model without rules (as you cannot build it correctly with what they provide, in terms of multimeltas), if you want to run wit that analogy (I wouldn't, I'm just highlighting how you're wrong)

 

Quote

The Storm Eagle model isn't "technically" a Horus Heresy model, since it features an aquila icon on the front canopy, the Multi-meltas themselves are an anachronistic pattern for the HH period, it is just the closest thing we can easily buy to represent the army list entry. A lot of older FW models fit into this category, some of the titans included, because HH was literally just a side project until a few years ago

Thats actually quite quite wrong

the aquila is an imperial symbol present even before the heresy, it was present within the heresy, it's found over all HH vehicles, and even the new polystyrene ones (shock horror, and the MKVI), what you mean, is the Imperialis, the astartes winged skull, which was adopted by loyalist forces within the heresy (and is anachronistic to be found on armour and armoured chassis during the heresy)

anyway that aside, it's not the closest thing at all, it was released and unveiled at the same time in both 30k and 40k, it's a quitessential HH vehicle, not some stand-in, I can't fathom how you can have come to that conclusion

it sounds awfully like you've missed the last 10 years of HH
 

Quote

Things change over time, games evolve and are balanced, so it's perhaps best not to get too hung up about it. 

that isn't constructive or helpful, if you cant see how the model isn't represented correctly within the new edition rules, I can't help you I'm afraid, I'll leave it at that
 

Edited September 2, 2022 by D3L
typos

[Mandragola]

14 hours ago, TheNineteenth said:

Huh? The Storm Eagle? It only had a single Missile Launcher option in Age of Darkness Army List, and Crusade Army List before it; I just checked. Maybe it had a Cyclone in its original appearance in the Black Books? I can't be bothered to trace that down.

I think OP's point about it being modeled incorrectly in relation to the rules is correct. I guess we just install (or pop off) only one of the multi-melta barrel tips, like the modeling on the old Multi-Melta Razorbacks (a single weapon on one side and a targeter on the other, as some people used for Rhinos with Multi-melta before the Pintle Mount Weapons came out)? 

Oh yes, my bad on the cyclone thing. It's always been a Typhoon missile launcher for the Storm Raven that the kit is based on. I forgot it was a single missile launcher in 1.0, though now I remember wondering back then why it wasn't a Typhoon.

[SkimaskMohawk]

4 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

The Storm Eagle model isn't "technically" a Horus Heresy model, since it features an aquila icon on the front canopy, the Multi-meltas themselves are an anachronistic pattern for the HH period, it is just the closest thing we can easily buy to represent the army list entry.

Yea, the javelin with its multi melta and aquila released 2013, purely for heresy, would like a word. So would the scimitar, released a mont after heresy started in 2012. I could list more, but I think we all understand that it's nonsense. Especially the part where it was a side project until a few years ago; they had 4 full factions in resin, one of which was the marine legions and all their specific kits and stuff. 

The rules shouldn't cause dissonance with the models, and if they do, it should follow the trend of being better than pictured. The fire raptor gets gravis autocannon batteries with 4 shots each and twinlinked; the cyclone launcher gets 2 shots and twinlinked; the dreadnought ranged weapons all get extra shots and/or twinlinked. The storm eagle should get more rules on it's front weapons.

@D3L iirc it got released in the early summer/spring of 2012 with the minotaur imperial armour book. But ya, basically simultaneously.

[D3L]

I'm surprised I actually saw some netlists on here or reddit (I forget where) for V2, that utilized the old profile

so at least some certainly haven't noticed this, yet

Edited September 2, 2022 by D3L
correction

[TheNineteenth]

On 9/2/2022 at 11:27 AM, D3L said:

I'm surprised I actually saw some netlists on here or reddit (I forget where) for V2, that utilized the old profile

so at least some certainly haven't noticed this, yet

I don't follow... it didn't have two Multi-meltas before, it had a twin-linked Multi-melta. Now, "twin-linked Multi-melta" is redundant since it has the Twin-linked rule by default.

[D3L]

On 9/7/2022 at 12:34 PM, TheNineteenth said:

I don't follow... it didn't have two Multi-meltas before, it had a twin-linked Multi-melta. Now, "twin-linked Multi-melta" is redundant since it has the Twin-linked rule by default.

It has two MM on the model, previously this was given the twinlinked rule

All MM in V2, have the twinlinked rule (cf: infantry)

It has two MM present, look at the model and the rules in both 40k and V1 (where twinlinked is due to two parallel weapons)

I... Don't think it can't be explained more clearly

As it stands a singular man portable multimelta, has the same rule as dual multimeltas on the aircraft

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by D3L
correction

[Bloody Legionnaire]

21 hours ago, D3L said:

It has two MM on the model, previously this was given the twinlinked rule

All MM in V2, have the twinlinked rule (cf: infantry)

It has two MM present, look at the model and the rules in both 40k and V1 (where twinlinked is due to two parallel weapons)

I... Don't think it can't be explained more clearly

As it stands a singular man portable multimelta, has the same rule as dual multimeltas on the aircraft

 

 

I’m sorry man, I can’t help but think you’re the one conflating terms and definitions here. Not that I think that is completely your fault.

The whole “dual barrels” thing you keep pointing out and justifying as what makes that weapon “twin-linked” is actually what makes a Multi-melta distinct from a meltagun.. at one point in time in previous editions a twin-linked multi-melta would be a different weapon from a twin-linked melta-gun because of the rules associated with those weapons, not just how they appear to be modeled. 
 

I would also hesitate on drawing too many conclusions between 40k and 30k and what GW may or may not be doing with how units are “modeled” and what they can be modeled with. However you feel about it’s “modeling” the rules are what should take ultimate precedent.. I don’t understand or agree with you eluding to the Storm Eagle not being legally playable because you can’t build it to the specifications in the rules based on what comes in the box. I believe that is a very 40k mindset that needs to stay in that realm and stay the heck out of 30k. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Bloody Legionnaire

[D3L]

49 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

 

The whole “dual barrel" thing you keep pointing out and justifying 

That's just the explanation for the casuals, and newbies who don't look at the model, nor played previous editions, t was a quick and fast explanation 

49 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

 at one point in time in previous editions a twin-linked multi-melta would be a different weapon from a twin-linked melta-gun because of the rules associated with those weapons, not just how they appear to be modeled. 

No need to be sorry, that's exactly my point

The storm eagle has two MM

It has rules for one

It used to have rules for two (in previous editions, twinlinked) MM

Now it doesn't (now tl is intrinsic to the MM)

Rules should be consistent, with both models and implementation

I was just pointing out, they are not

For examples of how dual weapons have been changed moving from v1 to V2, you may see the fire raptor and the stormbird, for which they did correctly parse

Right now, there are two MM on a storm eagle, and it has the same rules as a singular one carried by infantry

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by D3L
corrections

[Claws and Effect]

On 9/13/2022 at 11:26 AM, Bloody Legionnaire said:

The whole “dual barrels” thing you keep pointing out and justifying as what makes that weapon “twin-linked” is actually what makes a Multi-melta distinct from a meltagun..

He's not pointing out "dual barrels". He's pointing out that it has 2 separate multimeltas mounted on the nose, both of which have the twin over/under barrel configuration standard to a multimelta. 

He is correct in pointing out the discrepancy. If a single multimelta has 1 twin-linked shot, then 2 multimeltas mounted side by side should have 2 twin-linked shots. 

I suspect what happened is someone transposed the rules from 1.0 to 2.0 without actually looking at the model, and assumed that "twin-linked multimelta" meant it only had 1 because multimeltas were given the twin-linked rule before the Storm Eagle rules were written. 

[Mandragola]

I think it's entirely possible that they messed up and copied this across but it is also possible this is a balance decision. The designers may have felt that it would be too powerful if the Storm eagle had two twin-linked multimeltas. I don't have any proof of this but clearly replacing a twin-linked heavy bolter with two multimeltas would be a major increase in power, and also much more powerful than last edition's version.

Similar decisions seem to be made with other weapons. They've invented the "gravis" versions of weapons like lascannons and meltas to give more firepower to platforms like dreadnoughts and land raiders, for example. This does have the odd result that looking at the number of gun barrels on a model doesn't tell you very much about the firepower that will come out of them. The two lascannon on a dreadnought fire two shots but on a storm eagle they fire one twin-linked shot. The Land Raider's pair of lascannons on the side fire two shots but the pair on the front fires one, twin-linked.

This is a problem but it results from rules writers trying to create a balanced game using the models they're given. I honestly prefer this to 40k where the most recent marine vehicles are sort of ruined by having too many guns, creating glass cannon units and a game with generally far too much lethality. What (I think) they've done here is a better solution than that, in my opinion.

[TheNineteenth]

On 9/20/2022 at 4:38 AM, Mandragola said:

I think it's entirely possible that they messed up and copied this across but it is also possible this is a balance decision. The designers may have felt that it would be too powerful if the Storm eagle had two twin-linked multimeltas. I don't have any proof of this but clearly replacing a twin-linked heavy bolter with two multimeltas would be a major increase in power, and also much more powerful than last edition's version.

Similar decisions seem to be made with other weapons. They've invented the "gravis" versions of weapons like lascannons and meltas to give more firepower to platforms like dreadnoughts and land raiders, for example. This does have the odd result that looking at the number of gun barrels on a model doesn't tell you very much about the firepower that will come out of them. The two lascannon on a dreadnought fire two shots but on a storm eagle they fire one twin-linked shot. The Land Raider's pair of lascannons on the side fire two shots but the pair on the front fires one, twin-linked.

This is a problem but it results from rules writers trying to create a balanced game using the models they're given. I honestly prefer this to 40k where the most recent marine vehicles are sort of ruined by having too many guns, creating glass cannon units and a game with generally far too much lethality. What (I think) they've done here is a better solution than that, in my opinion.

It is sort weird and inconsistent how they did the 8th/9th style twin-linked-guns-from-7th-are-now-dual/Gravis guns in the new rules. This sits badly I think with many of us and contributes to the sloppy feel of the 'Nuj Testament.