A "rumour-guy" from Warseer (75Hastings69) with a good track record. I'm not sure if he is still on Warseer but he is active on Disqus.
He is somewhere higher in the GW pipeline, meaning he knows more about what will come out sooner and less accurate on the actual release time. He gives us a better idea of what's in development instead of what is being boxed up.
He's no Lady Atia, but an almost 80% correct record (taking the harshest interpretation of the partially true as being false) is nothing to sneeze at. I'd have to do a lot more number-crunching than I can at the moment, but I suspect that of the people with more than 100 rumors that's a very high rate. Not infallible though.
There's been enough rumors and actions to make me think that GW intend to release a plastic Thunderhawk, but what I'd be quite keen to know is a rough timeframe to pile together the funds. Warhammerfest? Summer? Their holiday splash release?
(to the tune of some old sea chanty i cant remember)
Fare thee well, Resin Thunder Hawk
Will you return in plastic? We shall see
If not the who cares, ill make my own from
Plasticard
It still wont be the same to me.
(to the tune of some old sea chanty i cant remember)
Fare thee well, Resin Thunder Hawk
Will you return in plastic? We shall see
If not the who cares, ill make my own from
Plasticard
It still wont be the same to me.
(to the tune of some old sea chanty i cant remember)
Fare thee well, Resin Thunder Hawk
Will you return in plastic? We shall see
If not the who cares, ill make my own from
Plasticard
It still wont be the same to me.
Gets you right in heart strings!
Nobody that plays 40k has a heart, it's the deal we make the first time we pick up an OP model.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Hasting's is generally accurate, but I've noticed his rumours do seem to 'miss' some stuff - such as Shadow War and Hammerhal.
Can't draw conclusions about that, but suggests he has a single source within GW who doesn't have 'full access' or whatevs.
Just an observation of mine
I've noticed the same. My guess is that he is or he knows someone important but isn't so high up as to be aware of everything going on. Probably someone in the design studio but not someone who sees everything that's going on and where once something is out of their hands and off to manufacturing has no idea what's going on.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Hasting's is generally accurate, but I've noticed his rumours do seem to 'miss' some stuff - such as Shadow War and Hammerhal.
Can't draw conclusions about that, but suggests he has a single source within GW who doesn't have 'full access' or whatevs.
Just an observation of mine
I've noticed the same. My guess is that he is or he knows someone important but isn't so high up as to be aware of everything going on. Probably someone in the design studio but not someone who sees everything that's going on and where once something is out of their hands and off to manufacturing has no idea what's going on.
I don't know how he gets his info but he lost interest in GW because of AoS and a few other things like fine cast, but talking to him he seems pretty fired up by the new stuff GW is releasing- especially Quest and the new Dwarfs. He's more interested in the fantasy side of things but I'm amazed at how far ahead he knows about some stuff- he mentioned Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch coming back over a year before it happened. Bit of a legend at Warseer but he is hanging out on War of Sigmar, hasn't returned to Warseer.
I don't know how he gets his info but he lost interest in GW because of AoS and a few other things like fine cast, but talking to him he seems pretty fired up by the new stuff GW is releasing- especially Quest and the new Dwarfs. He's more interested in the fantasy side of things but I'm amazed at how far ahead he knows about some stuff- he mentioned Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch coming back over a year before it happened. Bit of a legend at Warseer but he is hanging out on War of Sigmar, hasn't returned to Warseer.
He's obviously an old time GW fan, so it's no surprise the products aimed at us old time hobbyists would get him excited. His predominantly fantasy interest maybe why he doesn't get things right...
Can you imagine that "curse" where he just wants to know about fantasy but his friend at GW only works on 40k... "can you tell me about the dwarfs?" -"Don't know any about that, wanna hear about the new-new Eldar and how-" -"Please, dwarfs or nothing?"
What people don't seem to get is that making resin models is work intensive, uses a lot of materials and requires quite a bit of space for each casting. That translates to quite expensive to make.
As most of us know, making plastic models requires a massive investment up front, but making each model is quite cheap materials wise, manpower wise and space wise.
If the resin Thundehawk has been selling decently for the last decade plus that means that it has proven itself and transforming the product to plastic means that it will earn itself back in the next decade and a half (many times over). Making the resources available at FW to pursue other products/projects. The same that has happened with all the other 30k/40k stuff.
Going plastic means that it's going to be significantly cheaper (I really hope that the pricing Hastings indicates is true), available in GW stores and retail (web) stores. That means more people will be able to buy it, thus selling even more copies...
Plastic means easier assembly, easier painting, easier transport, and greater durability then the resin model. I know most people are quite paranoid about their large resin FW models, especially when their Reaver fell of the table and shattered. Sure outfits like KRmulticase will sell great storage solutions, and many will buy/use them, but it'll still survive a box with good packing material (if you use plastic glue instead of superglue).
At the Hastings pricing of 125-135GBP the question for me isn't whether I buy one or not, but how many to buy right away ;-)
Rules... Those change over the years. Not buying the TH for the rules, I never do.
What some folks just don't get is that the 'pure' gamer is a rare beast in the GW customer pool. GW is a miniatures company first, a games company second. That has been true for almost three decades. Things changed when all the non-GW material was removed from WD.
Let's be honest, the GW games have never been good, especially the core games. What GW sells to most of us id the idea of the game, the fluff and the miniatures. I haven't played 30k/40k/WFB/AoS in years, but have spend more on them then most 10 40k 'pure' gamers combined. When I see a box like Calth I don't just think "A 30k or 40k army!", I think "Finally a 32mm scale way to build that Epic army from my youth I never got to buy!"...
If you don't want or need a TH on your gaming table and thus think it a bad idea. Your not the target audience, we are.
Also keep in mind that GW isn't releasing all that much new for it's core armies, but is releasing a lot. GW is diversifying it's model range. Whych is good for it's viability. You can only keep up this kind of release rate if you do more then the core miniatures and renewing those every decade or so. While everyone would love to see some plastic Sisters of Battle or Noise Marines, a plastic TH will be more profitable for GW in the long run and that's what's GW has been doing. Looking at the long run, the reason for more plastic, more games beyond 40k/WFB/LotR.
I can't wait for them to release the Plastic Thunderhawk. I hope I'm one of the 10 people worldwide who manages to buy one before they run out of their Limited Time only stock.
Loopstah wrote: I can't wait for them to release the Plastic Thunderhawk. I hope I'm one of the 10 people worldwide who manages to buy one before they run out of their Limited Time only stock.
You understand that a boxed game with printed material and bundling of existing content isn't the same as something that would be a range item yeah?
If not, continue your griping. Facts won't matter.
But surely a Thunderhawk will be such a niche product and have such low demand that it makes sense for GW to only produce a minimum to keep their loses down?
Note: Posts may contain sarcasm, don't take them too seriously.
Loopstah wrote: But surely a Thunderhawk will be such a niche product and have such low demand that it makes sense for GW to only produce a minimum to keep their loses down?
Note: Posts may contain sarcasm, don't take them too seriously.
Sarcastic post or not, it isn't the same situation.
Thunderhawk as a niche wouldn't matter. The driving factor behind things like Shadow War being "limited" is the extra components inside of it. The templates, the cardboard markers, the rulebook, and the two reference books.
That's stuff that GW doesn't produce in house. Thunderhawk selling out of its run wouldn't be a huge deal; there have been times where a brand new item launch has oversold the production run and they've shipped out the sprues in plain white Citadel boxes.
To use an example when Harlequin came out, that stuff sold fast. My preordered Solitaire came in a plain white Citadel character box, with "Harlequin Solitaire" on a bar code on the front.
I wouldn't put it past GW to make a Thunderhawk some sort of limited thing, I wouldn't expect them to and I hope they don't, but I wouldn't put it past them
I dunno, I could see them running a plastic thunderhawk as a "limited" item, easily. It's a large model that will most likely be $300-400, at least, and will have very limited use in the actual game as anything other than an expensive (but impressive) terrain piece or mission objective. Most people will probably be put off the idea of spending that much money on something they can't really play with too often, if at all. Then again I could be completely wrong, too.
Sidstyler wrote: I dunno, I could see them running a plastic thunderhawk as a "limited" item, easily. It's a large model that will most likely be $300-400, at least, and will have very limited use in the actual game as anything other than an expensive (but impressive) terrain piece or mission objective. Most people will probably be put off the idea of spending that much money on something they can't really play with too often, if at all. Then again I could be completely wrong, too.
People said that about Imperial Knights, new Archaon, the new Bloodthirster, etc.
Yeah, hence why I said I could be wrong, but to be fair those models are all around the $150-180 price point and GW seemingly hasn't gone too far above that. The thunderhawk will be easily double that, and the first kit of its kind if I'm not mistaken. Maybe people can be convinced to fork out a little over $100 for an impressive centerpiece model for their army, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be willing to buy something even bigger and more expensive.
My brother's a Gundam nut and lost his gak when the Neo Zeong came out, which is basically a giant $300 robot model that probably stands larger than a FW titan when completed. Still hasn't gotten one. Probably never will, as he can't really afford to spend the money and has said that it would take an age to put the thing together. Time alone is a huge issue once you start getting older, sadly.
Ah, but when those high price point models were released, nothing had been at that price point.
Given FW likely had solid sales of the Thunderhawk (note the likely) despite by all accounts it being a bit of sod to put together as a kit, it may be they've crunched the numbers, and have seen projected sales based on existing data do indeed justify the costs incurred by plastic tooling.
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, hence why I said I could be wrong, but to be fair those models are all around the $150-180 price point and GW seemingly hasn't gone too far above that. The thunderhawk will be easily double that, and the first kit of its kind if I'm not mistaken. Maybe people can be convinced to fork out a little over $100 for an impressive centerpiece model for their army, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be willing to buy something even bigger and more expensive.
My brother's a Gundam nut and lost his gak when the Neo Zeong came out, which is basically a giant $300 robot model that probably stands larger than a FW titan when completed. Still hasn't gotten one. Probably never will, as he can't really afford to spend the money and has said that it would take an age to put the thing together. Time alone is a huge issue once you start getting older, sadly.
Ya I think people are over estimating the price of a plastic thunderhawk. I don't expect it to be more than 200-225. Gw charges based on amount of sales and number of sprues. This won't cost as much as a realm of battle
Sidstyler wrote: I dunno, I could see them running a plastic thunderhawk as a "limited" item, easily. It's a large model that will most likely be $300-400, at least, and will have very limited use in the actual game as anything other than an expensive (but impressive) terrain piece or mission objective. Most people will probably be put off the idea of spending that much money on something they can't really play with too often, if at all. Then again I could be completely wrong, too.
People said that about Imperial Knights, new Archaon, the new Bloodthirster, etc.
Well you can reference some amorphous group of "people", but the Thunderhawk is another step up in absurdity so the chance of hitting the limit is increased.
Using the IK, Archaon and Bloodthirster as an argument of where "people" were wrong and extrapolating to the Thunkerhawk is a false equivalency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, hence why I said I could be wrong, but to be fair those models are all around the $150-180 price point and GW seemingly hasn't gone too far above that.
Actually they're in the $115-165 price point. I think Archaon is the most expensive kit GW have released at $165USD, unless I'm forgetting something else? Otherwise most GW expensive kits are $160 (Lord of Skulls, Obelisk, Renegade Knight).
So the Thunderhawk would probably be in the realm of $50USD more would be my guess.
Sidstyler wrote: I dunno, I could see them running a plastic thunderhawk as a "limited" item, easily. It's a large model that will most likely be $300-400, at least, and will have very limited use in the actual game as anything other than an expensive (but impressive) terrain piece or mission objective. Most people will probably be put off the idea of spending that much money on something they can't really play with too often, if at all. Then again I could be completely wrong, too.
People said that about Imperial Knights, new Archaon, the new Bloodthirster, etc.
Well you can reference some amorphous group of "people", but the Thunderhawk is another step up in absurdity so the chance of hitting the limit is increased.
Using the IK, Archaon and Bloodthirster as an argument of where "people" were wrong and extrapolating to the Thunkerhawk is a false equivalency.
When the argument is that because people likely wouldn't buy it because it would be too big or expensive so GW would do a plastic Thunderhawk as a "limited" item, yet we have seen people at tourneys or events with all Knight armies--I think it a bit unfair to try to claim it is a false equivalency.
Sure, it's another step up in scale but I highly doubt it will be a limited run item.
Sidstyler wrote: I dunno, I could see them running a plastic thunderhawk as a "limited" item, easily. It's a large model that will most likely be $300-400, at least, and will have very limited use in the actual game as anything other than an expensive (but impressive) terrain piece or mission objective. Most people will probably be put off the idea of spending that much money on something they can't really play with too often, if at all. Then again I could be completely wrong, too.
People said that about Imperial Knights, new Archaon, the new Bloodthirster, etc.
Well you can reference some amorphous group of "people", but the Thunderhawk is another step up in absurdity so the chance of hitting the limit is increased.
Using the IK, Archaon and Bloodthirster as an argument of where "people" were wrong and extrapolating to the Thunkerhawk is a false equivalency.
When the argument is that because people likely wouldn't buy it because it would be too big or expensive so GW would do a plastic Thunderhawk as a "limited" item, yet we have seen people at tourneys or events with all Knight armies--it clearly is not a false equivalency.
Except it is because even an all Knight army is easier to transport, less inconvenient to play with and I'm gonna take a stab and say probably less time consuming to assemble/paint.
There's obviously some curve of size/expense/time and the further up you go it the more people are going to drop off it and stop buying. Saying some "people" were surprised how far we got up the curve doesn't mean something even further up the curve is also going to follow the same trend.
Especially when you add in the factor that this is an ex-FW model, so the crazy folk who are really far up the curve (happy to buy a very inconvenient model for several hundred pounds) will have already bought their thunderhawks.
Sidstyler wrote: I dunno, I could see them running a plastic thunderhawk as a "limited" item, easily. It's a large model that will most likely be $300-400, at least, and will have very limited use in the actual game as anything other than an expensive (but impressive) terrain piece or mission objective. Most people will probably be put off the idea of spending that much money on something they can't really play with too often, if at all. Then again I could be completely wrong, too.
People said that about Imperial Knights, new Archaon, the new Bloodthirster, etc.
Well you can reference some amorphous group of "people", but the Thunderhawk is another step up in absurdity so the chance of hitting the limit is increased.
Using the IK, Archaon and Bloodthirster as an argument of where "people" were wrong and extrapolating to the Thunkerhawk is a false equivalency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, hence why I said I could be wrong, but to be fair those models are all around the $150-180 price point and GW seemingly hasn't gone too far above that.
Actually they're in the $115-165 price point. I think Archaon is the most expensive kit GW have released at $165USD, unless I'm forgetting something else? Otherwise most GW expensive kits are $160 (Lord of Skulls, Obelisk, Renegade Knight).
So the Thunderhawk would probably be in the realm of $50USD more would be my guess.
Gw still has smaug for the hobbit in stock at 385e which i would guess is even a smaller niche than the thunderhawk which will likely be around half the price from smaug. I dont think they will make the thunderhawk a limited item since it has been on sale for so many years now just because it wont be used in games as often. If they make enough stock at release is another matter.
I haven't played 30k/40k/WFB/AoS in years, but have spend more on them then most 10 40k 'pure' gamers combined. When I see a box like Calth I don't just think "A 30k or 40k army!", I think "Finally a 32mm scale way to build that Epic army from my youth I never got to buy!"...
If you don't want or need a TH on your gaming table and thus think it a bad idea. Your not the target audience, we are.
The first Epic Scale Model I got was the smaller version of the Thunder Hawk. I hoped one day that a plastic kit released for War Hammer 40'000 with rules for use in game & would be produced by regular Games Workshop.
Sidstyler wrote: I dunno, I could see them running a plastic thunderhawk as a "limited" item, easily. It's a large model that will most likely be $300-400, at least, and will have very limited use in the actual game as anything other than an expensive (but impressive) terrain piece or mission objective. Most people will probably be put off the idea of spending that much money on something they can't really play with too often, if at all. Then again I could be completely wrong, too.
People said that about Imperial Knights, new Archaon, the new Bloodthirster, etc.
Well you can reference some amorphous group of "people", but the Thunderhawk is another step up in absurdity so the chance of hitting the limit is increased.
Using the IK, Archaon and Bloodthirster as an argument of where "people" were wrong and extrapolating to the Thunkerhawk is a false equivalency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, hence why I said I could be wrong, but to be fair those models are all around the $150-180 price point and GW seemingly hasn't gone too far above that.
Actually they're in the $115-165 price point. I think Archaon is the most expensive kit GW have released at $165USD, unless I'm forgetting something else? Otherwise most GW expensive kits are $160 (Lord of Skulls, Obelisk, Renegade Knight).
So the Thunderhawk would probably be in the realm of $50USD more would be my guess.
Smaug is $490USD.
Smaug is also a Forgeworld product, that's sold by GW (as opposed to Forgeworld). They even say right in the description that it's made with FW resin and hand cast.
IIRC they named Smaug as their top selling model that year.
Now there was a lot to unpack in that claim, our conculsion must be it was dollars not units and online sales vs total but still, that means someone, a lot of someones bought a $400 models based on a very mediocre film.
The April issue of White Dwarf had it's Temporal Distort article focus on White Dwarf issue 196, making special mention of the metal Thunderhawk kit released around then.
Could be a coincidence, could be a sly hint of things to come?
BrookM wrote: The April issue of White Dwarf had it's Temporal Distort article focus on White Dwarf issue 196, making special mention of the metal Thunderhawk kit released around then.
Could be a coincidence, could be a sly hint of things to come?
I wonder if I still have that issue, it would be a fun retro review.
I remember some line about anyone who spends $200 on a thunderhawk must be crazy or American...
On topic, yes, yes, yes, yes, in a rational world fliers would be repped by epic models mounted on 18" bases because they'd never get close enough for ground weapons and certianly would never land in a hot fire zone.
And if it was up to me we'd all be talking about the plastic Warhound coming.
But the last 10 years have proven we will pay stupid amounts of money for big models, especially if they're Space Marines (or Dragon versions of Benedict Cumberbatch).
We don't really have any idea how many Smaugs they sold and whether it was enough to justify doing him in plastic. If anything Smaug was better suited to plastic in the sense you could divvy him up in a way that doesn't take up an inordinate amount of frames where as the Thunderhawk with it huge hull will probably consume 3-4 frames for the hull alone and another 2 or more frames for the wings alone.
People obviously buy big expensive kits, people were buying the resin thunderhawk before now The question isn't whether some people will buy it, the question is will enough people buy it to justify the machining cost to make the moulds and the manufacturing time to set them up to cast. Tamiya make a 1/32 scale Mosquito which is even bigger than a Thunderhawk, comes on 15 sprues and has a RRP of $280 USD and people buy that too, Airfix make their 1/24 kits that would dwarf a Thunderhawk and cost similar or even more money than we are predicting the Thunderhawk will be. BUT, Airfix and Tamiya sell those kits in damned near every hobby store in dozens of countries, they probably make back most of their money at wholesale before a single customer has even bought one.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: I remember some line about anyone who spends $200 on a thunderhawk must be crazy or American...
If someone managed to get a thunderhawk back then for $200 they'd be crazy like a fox. The flying bricks originally cost £400, or as they liked to put it, 40,000p.
BrookM wrote: The April issue of White Dwarf had it's Temporal Distort article focus on White Dwarf issue 196, making special mention of the metal Thunderhawk kit released around then.
Could be a coincidence, could be a sly hint of things to come?
I wonder if I still have that issue, it would be a fun retro review.
I remember some line about anyone who spends $200 on a thunderhawk must be crazy or American...
There is a pretty good reason I think a plastic Thunderhawk would be economically viable: The Ork Stompa.
Sure, it's not as big as the thunderhawk, but it is still pretty big and has some major volume to it, much like the Thunderhawk. It also prooved to be a commercial success.
Now, while the Stompa requires about 60% of the sprues that a Thundhawk would it also has a much wider customer base. The stompa can be used for ONE army, Orks. On the other hand there are currently 11 codexes in which a Thunderhawk would make sense. Considering that the different flavors of Marines and Chaos marines are among them (the best selling lines) I wouldn't be surprised if the potential customer base is 25 times larger than that of the number of Ork players.
Mymearan wrote: It wouldn't actually, since Specialist Games (Blood Bowl etc) are under FW.
Now that I come to think of it, GW is technically releasing Blood Bowl, and FW is doing the resin special players, so perhaps the roles really haven't changed. Pity.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: You have to figure the Thunderhawk will need 4-6 sprues just for its main components given the sheer contiguous surface area of the wings and hull.
If it's coming in plastic, it is going to completely dwarf anything else produced right now.
How many sprues does the Tesseract Vault come with? Five. The Thunderhawk kit can do that easily. Of course it's going to be over $200 US because they won't be able to save money by using the same mold four times but as long as it's less than $250 US, I expect it will sell very well.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: You have to figure the Thunderhawk will need 4-6 sprues just for its main components given the sheer contiguous surface area of the wings and hull.
If it's coming in plastic, it is going to completely dwarf anything else produced right now.
That's assuming it's the iconic standard Thunderhawk that gets put into plastic...
Spoiler:
Purportedly, this is the design we're seeing in plastic.
I like that one even better. I always loved the waist ball mounted guns on the Fire Raptor so much i never finished building or painting it, and would definitely buy one of these too so I could never finish building or painting it.
I have a MDF thunderhawkesque aircraft that I mocked up to look like a Thunderhawk Gunship but tbh the big tank turret on top always looked goofy to me.
Maybe they will make a basic T.hawk, and then have a seperate kit to detail the interior, and possibly another kit to turn it into a T.hawktransporter . The interior detailing kit being separate could help lower the overall cost.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: You have to figure the Thunderhawk will need 4-6 sprues just for its main components given the sheer contiguous surface area of the wings and hull.
If it's coming in plastic, it is going to completely dwarf anything else produced right now.
I bought Imperial Knights Renegade, and that was a lot of plastic. You're thinking the Thawk has more than that?
Theophony wrote: Maybe they will make a basic T.hawk, and then have a seperate kit to detail the interior, and possibly another kit to turn it into a T.hawktransporter . The interior detailing kit being separate could help lower the overall cost.
A bunch of conversion kits from FW would be almost guaranteed.
cuda1179 wrote: There is a pretty good reason I think a plastic Thunderhawk would be economically viable: The Ork Stompa.
Sure, it's not as big as the thunderhawk, but it is still pretty big and has some major volume to it, much like the Thunderhawk. It also prooved to be a commercial success.
Did it? Do you have any evidence? I actually always wondered if the Stompa made back the production cost. It's probably one of the cheapest GW big kits given the size and number of frames in the box.
cuda1179 wrote: There is a pretty good reason I think a plastic Thunderhawk would be economically viable: The Ork Stompa.
Sure, it's not as big as the thunderhawk, but it is still pretty big and has some major volume to it, much like the Thunderhawk. It also prooved to be a commercial success.
Did it? Do you have any evidence? I actually always wondered if the Stompa made back the production cost. It's probably one of the cheapest GW big kits given the size and number of frames in the box.
I wonder that too.
Although it is worth noting that a Stompa is fairly close in price to the Gorkanaut/Morkanaut...which is fairly smaller.
cuda1179 wrote: There is a pretty good reason I think a plastic Thunderhawk would be economically viable: The Ork Stompa.
Sure, it's not as big as the thunderhawk, but it is still pretty big and has some major volume to it, much like the Thunderhawk. It also prooved to be a commercial success.
Did it? Do you have any evidence? I actually always wondered if the Stompa made back the production cost. It's probably one of the cheapest GW big kits given the size and number of frames in the box.
I wonder that too.
Although it is worth noting that a Stompa is fairly close in price to the Gorkanaut/Morkanaut...which is fairly smaller.
That's because they stopped doing the annual price rises not long after it was released and it's never been reboxed afaik, so its still fairly close to its original release price from, what, 8 years ago now? IIRC both the Baneblade and the Stompa were £65 on release, but the Baneblade got reboxed with the Shadowsword sprue and a consequent price rise.
The whole model is about 15.5 inches wide with the annex (although those gothic fins add a bit...)
Fortress of Redemption....
The main tower stands 14" high and the whole kit is 24" wide when measured annex to annex.
I tried looking for comparison images but nothing popped up. Thanks for the measurements, that does help.
So a Thunderhawk costing somewhere in the realm of one of those wouldn't be terribly out of the question. It is smaller than either.
It's not smaller than the Aquila, and it's probably similar size to the Fortress of Redemption once you take in to account the bulk of the Thunderhawk, maybe slightly smaller.
But pricing wise, the Thunderhawk is probably not going to be outsourced to China like I believe the Aquila is.
I'm not sure about the Fortress of Redemption, is that made in house in the UK or is it made in China? Looking at an unboxing video it comes on sprues that look the same as GW's sprues. If it's made by GW in the UK then it's probably one of the best value kits in their lineup as far as size to price ratio is concerned.
I own a Fortress of Redemption, but I don't have the box. It definately looks and feels like an in-house GW product thought. Same plastic, and a very GW-like sprue tree.
I just watched an unboxing vid of the Fortress, it does look very much like a GW kit and has 8 sprues....
....BUT, it's actually only made from 4 unique frames, only 2 of which are "large" sprues and the other 2 unique sprues are small/normal sized.
So because of that it's not going to be a good place to judge the pricing of a plastic Thunderhawk because it's the number of UNIQUE sprues that affect the production cost. And the Thunderhawk is going to require I reckon about 4 to 6 unique large sprues and a few extra sprues which may be large or small. So the production cost of the Thunderhawk is probably going to be close to double that of the Fortress of Redemption, even if the total number of sprues you get in a box is similar.
I'm not so sure that the Thunderhawk couldn't have many repeat frames.
If they made the wings the same left-to-right, and the tops the same as the bottoms that would help. That means one large frame could be half a wing, half a lascannon wing, one Twin-linked heavy bolter turret (and possibly any variation turret), the wing engine bits, and all the random hull bling. Repeat frame four times.
I'd say another 4 frames for the rest of the hull, tale, central engine, and weapons.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm not so sure that the Thunderhawk couldn't have many repeat frames.
If they made the wings the same left-to-right, and the tops the same as the bottoms that would help. That means one large frame could be half a wing, half a lascannon wing, one Twin-linked heavy bolter turret (and possibly any variation turret), the wing engine bits, and all the random hull bling. Repeat frame four times.
I'd say another 4 frames for the rest of the hull, tale, central engine, and weapons.
I'd expect more frames for the body. But that said, with how well known and widespread the Thunderhawk can possibly be, a good comparison of pricing and contents would be the Baneblade kit. While the Lord of Skulls contains 3 unique sprues with one of them duplicated, the Baneblade kit is 9 (?) unique sprues for the same price. And the Stompa is 7 unique sprues for 3/4 of the price. While pricing has trended upwards since the original baneblade kit came out, so has the parts density of sprues as well.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm not so sure that the Thunderhawk couldn't have many repeat frames.
If they made the wings the same left-to-right, and the tops the same as the bottoms that would help. That means one large frame could be half a wing, half a lascannon wing, one Twin-linked heavy bolter turret (and possibly any variation turret), the wing engine bits, and all the random hull bling. Repeat frame four times.
I'd say another 4 frames for the rest of the hull, tale, central engine, and weapons.
You could make the tops and bottoms of the wings identical but I think it'd be compromising the design to do so because of the weapon mounts on the bottom while the top side has the the mountings for the 2nd wing thing. You'd also have to make them symmetrical front to back when in plan view which on an aircraft isn't a good look IMO.
I also think you underestimate the number of frames for the hull and weapons. The hull is almost as long as GW's largest sprues and it's quite deep, 4 might be enough for the hull, tail, engines and weapons, but I'm thinking it'll probably be more like 4 for the hull and engines and another one for the tail and weapons (or some other combination), so 5 all up.
But even by your estimation by my count that's still 5 LARGE frames which is a lot more than the Fortress's 2 large and 2 regular frames and a lot more machining time.
As I said I reckon 4 to 6 large unique sprues for the main structure (wings, engines, hull, tail) and then another large sprue or maybe a couple of small sprues for everything else.
I thought the smaller lascannon wings mounted to the upper hull? Also, as for the weapons mounts, they could have blank areas on the wings. If on the bottom side cover with weapons mounts. If on the top side, cover with decorative panel/flaps.
cuda1179 wrote: I own a Fortress of Redemption, but I don't have the box. It definately looks and feels like an in-house GW product thought. Same plastic, and a very GW-like sprue tree.
It's not; I checked my box this morning and there's a "Made in China" sticker on the bottom. It's hard to see without being able to hold the kit, but the runners are also very flat compared to GW's more square-shaped ones that you find on nearly every kit. Most indicative of all is the lack of GW copyright info on the sprue itself. That said, it's still a very well-executed piece in "normal" HIPS and likely comparable to the work GW would have done in-house at the time.
GW has since become quite creative in how they lay out parts and some kits have absolutely bonkers part densities. We'll have to see if a Thunderhawk materializes I suppose. Have we heard any further rumblings on that point? Am I remembering right that GW's fiscal year ends in May and thus is that a possibility to boost the EOY figures since 8th edition seems like it might be a bit further out towards the summer? Or would we have had some news from other rumormongers about that by this point and thus May seems unlikely because we know about Death Guard?
Throne, some of those GW sprues are a NIGHTMARE to use. Like why even attach the 1mm but to the frame when you could just have attached the bulky part? And the sprue connectors always leave flash on the hardest to clean parts. FW is better.
The point about repeating sprues is a good one. GW could make the top and bottom of the wings symmetrical, and if they skip doing an interior the left and right sides could reuse a sprue.
Perhaps the hull and top plates could be repeated 2 or 3 times.
Certainly the left and right engines could be the same.
So it's possible they could keep the number of different sprues down.
But this is a showcase piece and lately even workman-like vehicles like the Taurox have had interiors. In fact I think all the vehicles since the 3rd edition land raider had interiors so I think we may not see any repeated parts.
EmberlordofFire8 wrote: Throne, some of those GW sprues are a NIGHTMARE to use. Like why even attach the 1mm but to the frame when you could just have attached the bulky part? And the sprue connectors always leave flash on the hardest to clean parts. FW is better.
If the 1mm part isn't attached to the sprue frame as well as the bulky part... how do you expect the plastic to get into the mould cavity to form the 1mm part? Don't forget as well as injecting plastic they are also extracting air to draw the material through to all parts of the mould. Pushing material into a sealed space is not easy or effective compared to pushing material into a vented space.
I do agree though, sometimes the sprue connection locations leave something to be desired. Smooth shoulder pad with a sprue point right in the middle springs to mind. I'm sure they are working on improving things over time, the current kits are already light years ahead of most of the older plastic kits.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The point about repeating sprues is a good one. GW could make the top and bottom of the wings symmetrical,
Honestly I really think doing that would compromise the aesthetic
and if they skip doing an interior the left and right sides could reuse a sprue.
You mean make the interior and exterior of the hull detailed in the same way so the left and right are interchangable? I suppose you could, but it still means you have to machine both halves of the mould (you can't just roughly face it off with a large cutter, it has to be done with a fine detail cutter) and there's a limited amount you can make symmetric. The hull on the current TH tapers inward at the nose, and taper inward at the top near the turret, so those bits can't be made symmetric.
Perhaps the hull and top plates could be repeated 2 or 3 times.
Not unless they majorly change the design. The hull top plate narrows toward the rear under the main gun turret section, so the rear hull plates aren't going to be the same as the front ones unless you quite severely alter the silhouette of the thing.
It's these subtle tapers that make the TH look like an appealing flying brick rather than just, well, a brick.
Certainly the left and right engines could be the same.
Probably, still depends how they attach to the wings, you might end up compromising other parts to make them symmetrical..
I think overall you could probably make 1 maaaaybe 2 sprues repeats, but beyond that I think it'll come as a compromise and what's the point of building such a flagship model for your range when you have to make such compromises.
Its a less bulky than a thunderhawk, but there are 18 sprues including etched metal and some fabric harnesses. I've built one, no filler needed or anything, the internal detail is incredible.
Tamiya do bigger volume production runs,, but at £135 as rumored, a thunderhawk in plastic is entirely feasible.
$90, 22" long and makes for a nice attractive flying brick. Sub out the cockpit and you've got a cool 40k troop shuttle. I've built 3 of the smaller 1/72 ones.
If a thunderhawk comes out I'm going to challenge my modeling supremacist friend (he thinks he's better than me because he builds planes and boats) to a build off.
Its a less bulky than a thunderhawk, but there are 18 sprues including etched metal and some fabric harnesses. I've built one, no filler needed or anything, the internal detail is incredible.
Tamiya do bigger volume production runs,, but at £135 as rumored, a thunderhawk in plastic is entirely feasible.
Tamiya are one of the more expensive kits on the market but they are still a bargain compared to most GW stuff
Over here especially we can get a Tamiya 1/32 superkit for LESS than an Imperial Knight. Looks like Tamiya charges similar prices in the UK and Australia.
Tamiya only do a handful of those big superkits and they sell 1+ of each to almost every hobby store in the world. But they do a good job of making GW's big kits look like terrible value
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The point about repeating sprues is a good one. GW could make the top and bottom of the wings symmetrical,
Honestly I really think doing that would compromise the aesthetic
Not really. I doubnt anyone's going to notice the panel lines on the top are the same as on the bottom, and locating points for the missile hardpoints and lascannon rests can be disguised as vents, depressed detail, etc.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The point about repeating sprues is a good one. GW could make the top and bottom of the wings symmetrical, and if they skip doing an interior the left and right sides could reuse a sprue.
Perhaps the hull and top plates could be repeated 2 or 3 times.
Certainly the left and right engines could be the same.
So it's possible they could keep the number of different sprues down.
But this is a showcase piece and lately even workman-like vehicles like the Taurox have had interiors. In fact I think all the vehicles since the 3rd edition land raider had interiors so I think we may not see any repeated parts.
Actually, the Corvus Blackstar didn't have an interior. Nor the Goliath tank
cuda1179 wrote: I'm not so sure that the Thunderhawk couldn't have many repeat frames.
For what GW will charge for this kit, they won't need to compromise the aesthetics just to save cutting a tool.
Yes, a number of the details and bits (engines, stabilizers, weapons) could be duplicated, but the core will have a lot of unique panels, just like the Baneblade / Shadowsword / Stormlord 8-in-1 kit.
The real challenge is designing the kit so that it makes both Transporter and Gunship variants with maximum sprue overlap - the bodies are quite different, but being able to share half of the sprues would be a big help.
Some interior detail would be nice, but having seats and stuff? That's what FW is for. Along with further specialty variants, much as we saw with the Arkurion pattern superheavies.
EmberlordofFire8 wrote: Well, I'm pretty sure those Rhino-sized doors will be the same on both sides
Which Rhino sized doors? I thought the only Rhino sized door was on the front.
I'd consider the ramp at the front more of the Land Raider's assault ramp. The two doors on either side of the nose are the Rhino doors.
The front door is far larger than a raider ramp. And the doors are land raider doors, not rhino. The storm raver is the one with the rhino side doors and rear hatch sized front ramp.
Interior of the thunderhawk, I can see them doing a halfway point, with interior detailing for the troop bay with a roof, and a small cockpit section, but not the large rear cockpit that connects into the troop bay and is invisible unless you tak e the top off.
The Thunderhawk ramp is supposed to be able to deploy a Dreadnaught, IIRC. The Land Raider cant carry dreadnaughts...makes sense that the door would be bigger!
I have wonder if this Thunderhawk will be any different in size from the resin one. The Thunderhawk is supposed to only hold 30 marines and alternatively an appropriate number of terminators, bikes, or dreadnought. A Stormeagle can carry 20 marines or 10 Terminators... and yet it's less than half the size of the resin Thunderhawk. The original metal Thunderhawk is only a bit larger than the Stormeagle.
aka_mythos wrote: I have wonder if this Thunderhawk will be any different in size from the resin one. The Thunderhawk is supposed to only hold 30 marines and alternatively an appropriate number of terminators, bikes, or dreadnought. A Stormeagle can carry 20 marines or 10 Terminators... and yet it's less than half the size of the resin Thunderhawk. The original metal Thunderhawk is only a bit larger than the Stormeagle.
Is it possible that the resin kit was scaled up slightly so they could use thicker resin pieces?
aka_mythos wrote: I have wonder if this Thunderhawk will be any different in size from the resin one. The Thunderhawk is supposed to only hold 30 marines and alternatively an appropriate number of terminators, bikes, or dreadnought. A Stormeagle can carry 20 marines or 10 Terminators... and yet it's less than half the size of the resin Thunderhawk. The original metal Thunderhawk is only a bit larger than the Stormeagle.
I wouldn't be surprised if the plastic version would be smaller than the resin. Could call it a Voss-pattern Thunderhawk or something.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if the plastic version would be smaller than the resin. Could call it a Voss-pattern Thunderhawk or something.
I would. The plastic Valk was FW size - HUGE! Same with the other recent stuff being big. Besides, plastic is so much cheaper to mass produce, and GW will sell so many of them, no need to shrink it.
I'm not saying GW has ever been rational but for what the Thunderhawk does the resin version is too big and doesn't fit the proportional size difference of the aircraft that have been made for SM.
Before the Thunderhawk was resin and large it was metal and half the size... in the lore "Thunderhawk" is a classification for how it is used and not a name of any specific pattern of craft. Even within the lore there are smaller and larger Thunderhawk patterns. So there isn't anything really keeping them from altering the size.
Even if they were to make it smaller, to make more sense, it doesn't need to be that much smaller.
aka_mythos wrote: I'm not saying GW has ever been rational but for what the Thunderhawk does the resin version is too big and doesn't fit the proportional size difference of the aircraft that have been made for SM.
Before the Thunderhawk was resin and large it was metal and half the size... in the lore "Thunderhawk" is a classification for how it is used and not a name of any specific pattern of craft. Even within the lore there are smaller and larger Thunderhawk patterns. So there isn't anything really keeping them from altering the size.
Even if they were to make it smaller, to make more sense, it doesn't need to be that much smaller.
.... I can't believe anyone would even ask for a model to be made worse.
It's not too big, it's a super heavy flyer and the resin version is vastly better than the metal one.
You're supposed to be able to fit a ton of stuff in there, even the current resin model might be a bit small to stuff all that.
Why would GW feth up the release of the iconic plastic thunderhawk with a "hey we made it worse, I hope you like it"?
aka_mythos wrote: I'm not saying GW has ever been rational but for what the Thunderhawk does the resin version is too big and doesn't fit the proportional size difference of the aircraft that have been made for SM.
Before the Thunderhawk was resin and large it was metal and half the size... in the lore "Thunderhawk" is a classification for how it is used and not a name of any specific pattern of craft. Even within the lore there are smaller and larger Thunderhawk patterns. So there isn't anything really keeping them from altering the size.
Even if they were to make it smaller, to make more sense, it doesn't need to be that much smaller.
.... I can't believe anyone would even ask for a model to be made worse.
It's not too big, it's a super heavy flyer and the resin version is vastly better than the metal one.
You're supposed to be able to fit a ton of stuff in there, even the current resin model might be a bit small to stuff all that.
Why would GW feth up the release of the iconic plastic thunderhawk with a "hey we made it worse, I hope you like it"?
Smaller isn't worse, though. Just smaller. It's down to preference if that's worse or not.
aka_mythos wrote: I'm not saying GW has ever been rational but for what the Thunderhawk does the resin version is too big and doesn't fit the proportional size difference of the aircraft that have been made for SM.
Before the Thunderhawk was resin and large it was metal and half the size... in the lore "Thunderhawk" is a classification for how it is used and not a name of any specific pattern of craft. Even within the lore there are smaller and larger Thunderhawk patterns. So there isn't anything really keeping them from altering the size.
Even if they were to make it smaller, to make more sense, it doesn't need to be that much smaller.
.... I can't believe anyone would even ask for a model to be made worse.
It's not too big, it's a super heavy flyer and the resin version is vastly better than the metal one.
You're supposed to be able to fit a ton of stuff in there, even the current resin model might be a bit small to stuff all that.
Why would GW feth up the release of the iconic plastic thunderhawk with a "hey we made it worse, I hope you like it"?
Smaller isn't worse, though. Just smaller. It's down to preference if that's worse or not.
Sure, but I bet most players prefer their toys to be in scale with each other.
I think most people also said that the old mini-rhino was worse than the new rhino.
And quite obviously, they've voted with their wallets on the more recent more to scale kits.
It's not about "smaller" or "bigger", it's about "to scale" or "wrong scale".
How do you expect anyone to have a "Thunderhawk" impression if it's the size of a "Wolfhawk" and a quarter at best?
aka_mythos wrote: I'm not saying GW has ever been rational but for what the Thunderhawk does the resin version is too big and doesn't fit the proportional size difference of the aircraft that have been made for SM.
Before the Thunderhawk was resin and large it was metal and half the size... in the lore "Thunderhawk" is a classification for how it is used and not a name of any specific pattern of craft. Even within the lore there are smaller and larger Thunderhawk patterns. So there isn't anything really keeping them from altering the size.
Even if they were to make it smaller, to make more sense, it doesn't need to be that much smaller.
.... I can't believe anyone would even ask for a model to be made worse.
It's not too big, it's a super heavy flyer and the resin version is vastly better than the metal one.
You're supposed to be able to fit a ton of stuff in there, even the current resin model might be a bit small to stuff all that.
Why would GW feth up the release of the iconic plastic thunderhawk with a "hey we made it worse, I hope you like it"?
Smaller isn't worse, though. Just smaller. It's down to preference if that's worse or not.
Sure, but I bet most players prefer their toys to be in scale with each other.
Those players must already be disappointed in GW though, as none of the vehicles are in scale with infantry.
aka_mythos wrote: I'm not saying GW has ever been rational but for what the Thunderhawk does the resin version is too big and doesn't fit the proportional size difference of the aircraft that have been made for SM.
Before the Thunderhawk was resin and large it was metal and half the size... in the lore "Thunderhawk" is a classification for how it is used and not a name of any specific pattern of craft. Even within the lore there are smaller and larger Thunderhawk patterns. So there isn't anything really keeping them from altering the size.
Even if they were to make it smaller, to make more sense, it doesn't need to be that much smaller.
The FW Thunderhawk *is* BIG, because that's how big GW really wanted it to be. The metal Thunderhawk was some sculptor squirreling away bits of material to make his own Thunderhawk, getting caught, and having the resulting "side project" productized since the sculpting labor had already been spent. The smaller / larger bit is GW retroactively making both sizes canon. But make no mistake that the FW Thawk is the size GW wants it to be.
And really, the FW / plastic Valk is already way too big, but it wasn't designed to fit a smaller sprue count at a smaller price point. The Thawk has the luxury of getting however many sprues it needs, and driving whatever price GW finds appropriate. ____
ImAGeek wrote: Smaller isn't worse, though. Just smaller. It's down to preference if that's worse or not.
aka_mythos wrote: I have wonder if this Thunderhawk will be any different in size from the resin one. The Thunderhawk is supposed to only hold 30 marines and alternatively an appropriate number of terminators, bikes, or dreadnought. A Stormeagle can carry 20 marines or 10 Terminators... and yet it's less than half the size of the resin Thunderhawk. The original metal Thunderhawk is only a bit larger than the Stormeagle.
Doesn't the Thunderhawk only carry troops in the nose section while the Stormeagle carries them along the full length of the hull?
Either way the Thunderhawk has a big engine in the fuselage and a big turret gun, those things are going to take a lot of space inside the hull itself, not just externally. The Stormeagle only has wing mounted engines and no hull mounted main weapon that's going to take up space.
FW are usually better than GW proper at scaling their kits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ImAGeek wrote: Yeah nothing's in scale as it is. I wager more people would prefer practicality than scale.
Given how much the rules suck these days, I'll take scale over practicality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
krazynadechukr wrote: This guy (Richard Powell) spent $250+ making his own Thunderhawk... (2 stormraven kits, a rhino, and a valk...)
I'm sure they put a lot of effort in to it, but it looks like a Frankenstein monster to me. There's more to designing a nice looking model than throwing existing pieces together, for example I scratch built the wings on my Stormtalon conversion because I couldn't find anything that didn't look weirdly out of proportion.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And really, the FW / plastic Valk is already way too big,
Not really; aircraft are big. A Blackhawk is 20 metres long; twice as long as an Abrams tank. The Valkyrie is the size it needs to be to be in scale with the infantry (Forge World used to make a set of ten seated Elysians to go in the back of one; they fit, but only just).
No, because 40k foreshortens everything except the Valk. Proportionally, the Valk is more true than heroic, so it doesn't match so well. If GW had bobbed the nose, trimmed the tails, I wouldn't have an issue with the size of the model.
aka_mythos wrote: I'm not saying GW has ever been rational but for what the Thunderhawk does the resin version is too big and doesn't fit the proportional size difference of the aircraft that have been made for SM.
Before the Thunderhawk was resin and large it was metal and half the size... in the lore "Thunderhawk" is a classification for how it is used and not a name of any specific pattern of craft. Even within the lore there are smaller and larger Thunderhawk patterns. So there isn't anything really keeping them from altering the size.
Even if they were to make it smaller, to make more sense, it doesn't need to be that much smaller.
.... I can't believe anyone would even ask for a model to be made worse.
It's not too big, it's a super heavy flyer and the resin version is vastly better than the metal one.
You're supposed to be able to fit a ton of stuff in there, even the current resin model might be a bit small to stuff all that.
Why would GW feth up the release of the iconic plastic thunderhawk with a "hey we made it worse, I hope you like it"?
Smaller isn't worse, though. Just smaller. It's down to preference if that's worse or not.
Sure, but I bet most players prefer their toys to be in scale with each other.
I think most people also said that the old mini-rhino was worse than the new rhino.
And quite obviously, they've voted with their wallets on the more recent more to scale kits.
It's not about "smaller" or "bigger", it's about "to scale" or "wrong scale".
How do you expect anyone to have a "Thunderhawk" impression if it's the size of a "Wolfhawk" and a quarter at best?
To some degree scale is what I'm talking about... I am taking about its relative size to the other aircraft, that it is currently larger than it should be in that context. I'm not saying it should be smaller, but I'm saying there is a basis fictional and scale wise for its size to be different. In my mind I think GW should simply increase its carry capacity in the rules. However if they are stuck on that transport capacity it should be 15-20% smaller.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
allseeingskink wrote:
Doesn't the Thunderhawk only carry troops in the nose section while the Stormeagle carries them along the full length of the hull?
ImAGeek wrote: Yeah nothing's in scale as it is. I wager more people would prefer practicality than scale.
Lets be real here for a moment - there's nothing practical about flyer models period, nevermind superheavy fliers of any size worthy of that designation.
People who care about a practical gaming experience who bought Thunderhawks used them as display pieces or terrain, not functional tabletop models, and I doubt that would change if the plastic version was ~20% smaller.
ImAGeek wrote: Yeah nothing's in scale as it is. I wager more people would prefer practicality than scale.
Lets be real here for a moment - there's nothing practical about flyer models period, nevermind superheavy fliers of any size worthy of that designation.
People who care about a practical gaming experience who bought Thunderhawks used them as display pieces or terrain, not functional tabletop models, and I doubt that would change if the plastic version was ~20% smaller.
Yeah, I remember doing a true scale marine army two years ago, A Land Raider model is the true scale of a rhino if you are being a real stickler on true scale. The LR was like a baneblade size, etc... If you want to be a realistic/practical gamer, that's what historical gaming is for!
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, because 40k foreshortens everything except the Valk. Proportionally, the Valk is more true than heroic, so it doesn't match so well. If GW had bobbed the nose, trimmed the tails, I wouldn't have an issue with the size of the model.
IOW, if GW had completely ruined the model. No thanks, let's not have that happen to the Thunderhawk.
JohnHwangDD wrote:No, because 40k foreshortens everything except the Valk. Proportionally, the Valk is more true than heroic, so it doesn't match so well. If GW had bobbed the nose, trimmed the tails, I wouldn't have an issue with the size of the model.
Doesn't it make sense the Valk is proper sized given the original Valk was a FW model and FW tend to scale their vehicles better, GW just kept that scale?
Maybe if the Valk was never a FW model before being a GW model it would have been chibi scale like all the rest of GW's vehicles?
aka_mythos wrote:
allseeingskink wrote: Doesn't the Thunderhawk only carry troops in the nose section while the Stormeagle carries them along the full length of the hull?
No. It extends further back into the Thunderhawk.
Spoiler:
Yeah I saw a picture after I posted that. Even though it uses more than just the nose section, it kind of confirms what I said, the floor area of the troops carrying portion of the Thunderhawk is only a small part of the total hull, where as the Storm Eagle it's most the hull. Look at this pic...
The entire upper level where the cockpit is is NOT part of the troop carrying area, you just have the small room behind the cockpit, then the slope that leads down to the nose contains a door, so you effectively can't have troops there either, then you have the flat part of the underside of the nose, that can contain troops, then you have the big door, which is again effectively wasted space.
When you look at the top down and subtract away all the area that the Thunderhawk can't use for carrying troops (centre mounted engine, turret, rear nose door) then really the Thunderhawk troop area isn't much more than 50% larger than the Storm Eagle.... which is exactly what it's supposed to be.
Do the cheek mounted guns need to retract in to the nose as well? So you might also have to allow space for that.
Basically I don't think the Thunderhawk is as oversized as you think compared to the Storm Eagle, the Storm Eagle just makes more efficient use of space to carry troops where as the Thunderhawk is more of a command vehicle with significant space dedicated to a control deck, engines and extra weapon systems.
The command deck is incorporated and already represented immediately behind the cockpit. The whole aft is presumably the space for a volcano cannon or superheavy battle cannon. What I am comparing is really just the transport bays of the two flyers.
The way I see it, if the width and height were equal then the relative length would be the correct and proportional length to represent the relative capacity. However the transport section of the Thunderhawk is ~20% wider, obviously to accommodate an internally stowed Dreadnought. Relative to each other the Thunderhawks greater width should allow it to hold 40 marines instead of 30.
I'm not saying the model "should" be smaller, just that I think the model reflects something a bit bigger than its rules. That the fiction does have the wiggle room to increase that capacity value or reduce the size to better match the rules, to improve consistency. I'm not even saying that it's necessary, just that GW has the opportunity to rethink the Thunderhawk.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Well then! I think we should revise the Rhino Transport capacity to match the models as well!
Agreed, to a degree. In the least it'd be interesting to see how large the model should be if everything were properly scaled. A rhino holds 10 marines, but realistically a capacity of 10 marines should equal 12+ guardsmen. If GW maintained a consistent scale a Land Raiders would be closer to Crassus which holds 30 guardsmen.
aka_mythos wrote: The way I see it, if the width and height were equal then the relative length would be the correct and proportional length to represent the relative capacity. However the transport section of the Thunderhawk is ~20% wider, obviously to accommodate an internally stowed Dreadnought. Relative to each other the Thunderhawks greater width should allow it to hold 40 marines instead of 30.
I'm not saying the model "should" be smaller, just that I think the model reflects something a bit bigger than its rules. That the fiction does have the wiggle room to increase that capacity value or reduce the size to better match the rules, to improve consistency.
I just copied that image and drew some squares over the actual troop carrying areas (by looking at a WIP model showing the interior and finding where the troops areas line up on the hull itself). By my calcs, the troop carrying area of the Thunderhawk model is only ~60% larger than the Storm Eagle.
EDIT: That's breaking it down into 3 decks, lower nose, mid deck and upper deck that is the cockpit so not used for troop carrying. If you assume the rear of the upper deck behind the cockpit is also used for troop carrying, the Thunderhawk has roughly 85% more area than the Storm Eagle... BUT, at that point you have troops split across 3 levels of the ship and you can't just densely pack them in anymore, you need space for Marines to traverse down the ladder from the top deck to the mid deck and then down the stairs from the mid deck to the lower deck.
So really, they aren't all that inconsistent with each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Well then! I think we should revise the Rhino Transport capacity to match the models as well!
I'm not even sure the Thunderhawk is realistically scaled, I'm just saying it's relatively consistent with the Storm Eagle. The reason the Thunderhawk is more than twice the size than the Storm Eagle but only has 50% more carrying capacity has to do with how the space is used. The Storm Eagle is basically a transport ship with a few weapons, the Thunderhawk is a full on gunship/command vehicle with some transport capacity to be used as a dropship.
As far as the Rhino is concerned, people have been talking about how the Rhino is undersized for the past 20 or 30 or so years (I'm not sure if it was big enough to fit 10 Rogue Trader style marines?). Undersized Rhinos are practically an iconic 40k trait now, along with Leman Russ turrets that wouldn't even fit the breach mechanism let alone the commander/gunner and non-functional tank suspension Doesn't mean we have to shrink everything else down as well.
As I said FW are usually pretty good with their scaling. I'm sure there's some things that are off (especially vehicles that are based off GW plastics to begin with) but I usually assume if FW picked a certain size for their vehicle, there's a good chance it's in the right ballpark.
40k Thunderhawk didn't translate IMO because there was no mechanism to carry over the best aspects of it from Epic. People are trying to talk about doing this and that to the model based on some crappy 40k interpretations of what is an Epic unit.
In Epic it may carry 8 infantry units, attack bikes, and dreads..
The Storm Eagle can carry 20 models. Period. IF it were an Epic unit (I couldn't find Net Epic rules for it) I would assume a 2 unit capacity and likely no ability to carry Dreads (maybe I'm wrong about that.. I don't have the Storm Eagle rules and am going off what I can find on the web).
So.. again.. my point is, the original domain of Thunderhawks was Epic not 40k and it was a pack mule.
MLaw wrote: In Epic it may carry 8 infantry units, attack bikes, and dreads..
In 2nd (1991) and 3rd ed (1997) Epic it could only carry 6 infantry units. I'm not sure about the more recent versions, but the Thunderhawk has historically only had a 30 man transport capacity.
To be honest I didn't use the Thunderhawk a whole heap in Epic, but when I did I remember being a little bit underwhelmed by it due to the needing to take several to drop any significant force. But maybe I was just using it wrong, I was pretty young at the time
EDIT: It seems they bumped it to a transport capacity of 8 when they released the free rules, not sure what year they were released but traditionally it's only been 30 infantry, I don't know how you could possibly fit 4 Dreadnoughts in one, hanging off the wings maybe ).
It even says in the free Epic description of the Thunderhawk "Launched from the orbiting Battle Barge Dominatus, three pairs of Thunderhawk Gunships carrying one hundred and eighty Space Marines descended..." 3 pairs = 6 total, 180 Marines divided by 6 Thunderhawks = 30 per Thunderhawk, so it seems they just abstracted it to carrying 8 units for the sake of the rules.
With a heavy gun and relatively small transport capacity, the Thunderhawk is like a flying razorback, while the larger Storm Bird is a flying Land Raider (well, Land Raider Crusader for the Sokar pattern)
We’ve had a lot of questions over the last few weeks, since our venerable Thunderhawk gunship sold out online.
We can now announce that the Forge World studio are nearing completion on a brand new updated version.
Pre-production model – there may be some slight differences in the final model.
This new resin Thunderhawk keeps the iconic and uncompromising outline of the Thunderhawk we all know and love, but also takes on a few design cues from other recent kits, like the Stormbird and Heresy-era Space Marine Legion tanks.
For the moment, we don’t have anymore to show you, but you can rest assured this Lord of War will be touching down very soon.
In fact, we’re hoping to have it available first at Warhammer Fest this May (which you can get a ticket for here):
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
I don't really care either way, just thought I'd point that out.
Why would Forgeworld spend the time and effort to make a new resin Thunderhawk, if there was a plastic one coming out soon, that would make it obsolete?
Verviedi wrote: So our so-called reliable rumormonger fails us... at least the model is pretty.
Every in the know person starts getting duff info at some point. It's important to remember that most reliable ones are just passing on what they've been told.
It's a shame that it's looking like his info well is drying up though.
Puts a big doubt in my mind about the Super Marines too.
Verviedi wrote: So our so-called reliable rumormonger fails us... at least the model is pretty.
Every in the know person starts getting duff info at some point. It's important to remember that most reliable ones are just passing on what they've been told.
It's a shame that it's looking like his info well is drying up though.
Puts a big doubt in my mind about the Super Marines too.
I severely doubt Super Marines will actually happen, honestly.
Yes, it is sad. Reliable rumors are really what makes things work around here, and now we can trust him just a little bit less.
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
I don't really care either way, just thought I'd point that out.
Why would Forgeworld spend the time and effort to make a new resin Thunderhawk, if there was a plastic one coming out soon, that would make it obsolete?
Why would Forge World spend the time and effort to make the Xiphon Interceptor when the Stormhawk Interceptor had recently come out/was on its way out?
Did the plastic Venerable Dreadnought kit invalidate the resin kit?
GW producing something in plastic != obsolete resin kits.
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
I don't really care either way, just thought I'd point that out.
Why would Forgeworld spend the time and effort to make a new resin Thunderhawk, if there was a plastic one coming out soon, that would make it obsolete?
Why would Forge World spend the time and effort to make the Xiphon Interceptor when the Stormhawk Interceptor had recently come out/was on its way out?
Did the plastic Venerable Dreadnought kit invalidate the resin kit?
GW producing something in plastic != obsolete resin kits.
I doubt a plastic kit will come out now that we know there is a new resin kit.
However, if a plastic thunderhawk does come out this year, it's because GW and FW do a gakky job of talking to each other.
, and now we can trust him just a little bit less.
That's unfair. Hastings basically seems to see things through some sort of trick lens, and sometimes makes mistakes not because his information is bad but because it isn't necessarily what it seems to be at first glance (with the added issue he isn't that into 40K in some cases.)
I'd guess there is still a large plastic flyer kit in the works, but it may not be a THawk.
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
I don't really care either way, just thought I'd point that out.
Why would Forgeworld spend the time and effort to make a new resin Thunderhawk, if there was a plastic one coming out soon, that would make it obsolete?
Why would Forge World spend the time and effort to make the Xiphon Interceptor when the Stormhawk Interceptor had recently come out/was on its way out?
Did the plastic Venerable Dreadnought kit invalidate the resin kit?
GW producing something in plastic != obsolete resin kits.
Because the Xiphon and Stormhawk are different models and the plastic Venerable dread came out a good while after the resin, and the resin ones also offered chapter specific options. Different situations to releasing a resin model and shortly after releasing the same model (even if it's a different pattern) in plastic.
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
I don't really care either way, just thought I'd point that out.
You honestly think that they will simultaneously release the same kit in plastic and resin??
I guess that could appeal to the 'I'd actually like to pay 5x the price for no benefit, makes me feel important' 24carat iphone crowd lol.
Ironclad Dreadnought is in both plastic and resin. Not "the same kit", mind, but they've had plastic/resin variants of stuff in the past.
False equivalency bud. There is a key point you are missing - these things you referenced weren't released at the exact same time. That kinda is the point. The Xiphon and stormhawk are no the same kit in diff materials. So that has nothing to do with this. Dreads released years apart, and that is a very important point. They also have a large differentiation and options between them too. Price not being someone's annual hobby budget also a huge diff.
It would have made sense for GW to release a core plastic and then have FW release variant additions, but not the exact same, or at least largely identical vehicle. Not at these prices. Having dread options is low cost enough to understand. A 200 buck thunderhawk and a 600 buck thunderhawk, not vastly different from one another, makes zero sense at all.
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
I don't really care either way, just thought I'd point that out.
Why would Forgeworld spend the time and effort to make a new resin Thunderhawk, if there was a plastic one coming out soon, that would make it obsolete?
Why would Forge World spend the time and effort to make the Xiphon Interceptor when the Stormhawk Interceptor had recently come out/was on its way out?
Did the plastic Venerable Dreadnought kit invalidate the resin kit?
GW producing something in plastic != obsolete resin kits.
The Xiphon is not a Stormhawk. They're entirely different kits. Thunderhawks are Thunderhawks. They are the same kits. Releasing them at the same time would be idiotic.
It would have made sense for GW to release a core plastic and then have FW release variant additions, but not the exact same, or at least largely identical vehicle. Not at these prices. Having dread options is low cost enough to understand. A 200 buck thunderhawk and a 600 buck thunderhawk, not vastly different from one another, makes zero sense at all.
My interest level has reset to 0. Gone from planning to buy multiples to no interest at all. Even if the price was as rumoured I still wouldn't want to touch such a big resin kit.
Between this and the shadow war debacle GW is having a bad month.
This new resin Thunderhawk keeps the iconic and uncompromising outline of the Thunderhawk we all know and love, but also takes on a few design cues from other recent kits, like the Stormbird and Heresy-era Space Marine Legion tanks.
I really like the look of this new version. Hopefully Forge World have found a way to mitigate the soul-destroying problems they have with their larger kits (warping, uneven shrinkage, misalignment, etc.).
Johnny The Lictor wrote:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHY GW WHY YOU DO THIS
They didn't do anything, they didn't stand up and announce a plastic thunderhawk was incoming, that was Hastings.
MajorTom11 wrote:
Also very misleading 'last ever thunderhawk!' stuff, then 2 weeks later, 'first ever thunderhawk!' from FWlol -
Much like the Lightning, I expect it will be the MkII or the 'insert forge world name' pattern thunderhawk.
MajorTom11 wrote:
I think many will be quite disappointed by this turn of events, for price implications alone...
I immediately was, then realized I was only going to buy them if they were plastic and so not existing, I went back to my original 'mental shopping cart' of things I want... which is still vast and the cost of a large house...
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
I don't really care either way, just thought I'd point that out.
You honestly think that they will simultaneously release the same kit in plastic and resin??
I guess that could appeal to the 'I'd actually like to pay 5x the price for no benefit, makes me feel important' 24carat iphone crowd lol.
Ironclad Dreadnought is in both plastic and resin. Not "the same kit", mind, but they've had plastic/resin variants of stuff in the past.
False equivalency bud. There is a key point you are missing - these things you referenced weren't released at the exact same time. That kinda is the point. The Xiphon and stormhawk are no the same kit in diff materials. So that has nothing to do with this. Dreads released years apart, and that is a very important point. They also have a large differentiation and options between them too. Price not being someone's annual hobby budget also a huge diff.
Call it a false equivalency if you want, my point was that they effectively are the same item just with minor variations.
That's been FW's bread and butter for how long? "Not quite the same as a GW item"
It would have made sense for GW to release a core plastic and then have FW release variant additions, but not the exact same, or at least largely identical vehicle. Not at these prices. Having dread options is low cost enough to understand. A 200 buck thunderhawk and a 600 buck thunderhawk, not vastly different from one another, makes zero sense at all.
That argument can be made for huge swathes of FW's range...
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
Yes, it does. At least for the immediate, foreseeable future. If GW was going to sell plastic, they'd have digitally resculpted the Thawk and cut tools, rather than making resin molds and such.
Huh. You know it's kinda interesting, but there are certain similarities between the new kit and a 3D model I made a while back just for fun to update the Thunderhawk's aesthetic to something that worked with the newer kits. I drew heavily from the old metal and the epic kits and it looks like FW did the same when they made this one.
I won't say I'm not disappointed that it won't be plastic, but this way I won't feel tempted to get one.
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
Yes, it does. At least for the immediate, foreseeable future. If GW was going to sell plastic, they'd have digitally resculpted the Thawk and cut tools, rather than making resin molds and such.
Well now your'e just moving the goalposts.
Still doesn't mean one isn't coming.
Again, I don't care either way. Just pointing this out.
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
Yes, it does. At least for the immediate, foreseeable future. If GW was going to sell plastic, they'd have digitally resculpted the Thawk and cut tools, rather than making resin molds and such.
Well now your'e just moving the goalposts.
Still doesn't mean one isn't coming.
Again, I don't care either way. Just pointing this out.
Yeah, can we just discuss the model itself at this point instead of who was right, who was wrong, and who the wargaming community is likely to try to lynch because of such a heinous breach of trust has been perpetrated?
Lol he is not moving goalposts because he said foreseeable future and not 'never', come on dude. They release a plastic t-hawk in 2039 are you gonna find him and pull the 'ha! Told you so!' card?
Come on guys I understand you want to stick to your points, but the 'prove a negative' defense doesn't improve your position. They aren't releasing a plastic t-hawk in the near future. It will be years and years until/if they do. Nothing you have said makes any kind of sense from a business or a marketing perspective, or vs the company's own history.
Dare to be brave and realize that though our 'evidence' is anecdotal, it is far more credible, logical and derived from established fact. Simply saying 'prove they won't release a plastic and resin at the same time!' is not a viable defense, clearly you come from the internet argument school (or maybe politics lol) and not actual debate teams
PS - another supporting anecdotal observation, can you imagine that you buy this new T-hawk from FW at 600-800 bucks and then GW release a near identical or even largely identical one in plastic for 200 2 weeks later? THINK ABOUT ITlol, it would be a fekking inexplicably predictable genuine PR disaster...
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
Yes, it does. At least for the immediate, foreseeable future. If GW was going to sell plastic, they'd have digitally resculpted the Thawk and cut tools, rather than making resin molds and such.
Well now your'e just moving the goalposts.
Oh, so you've got proof of a plastic Thawk, to be released imminently? Really?
Because if you don't know what "weren't able to immediate, foreseeable future" refers to, perhaps you shouldn't post nonsense about it.
TalonZahn wrote: This doesn't mean there isn't a plastic one coming.
Yes, it does. At least for the immediate, foreseeable future. If GW was going to sell plastic, they'd have digitally resculpted the Thawk and cut tools, rather than making resin molds and such.
Well now your'e just moving the goalposts.
Oh, so you've got proof of a plastic Thawk, to be released imminently? Really?
Because if you don't know what "weren't able to immediate, foreseeable future" refers to, perhaps you shouldn't post nonsense about it.
That could mean 2 weeks to 10 years in GW timeframe.
Again, you and Tom should take your crapfest to another thread and discuss it there.
Start talking about the model.
I merely stated that a resin one doesn't mean proof a plastic one isn't coming.
TalonZahn wrote: Hey Tom, take a chill and send me a PM so I can tell you what I really think.
I'm embarrassed your'e a BA player. I'm glad you were on a "real" debate team.
You have no proof that a plastic one isn't coming anytime soon. A resin release is not proof.
I said I don't care either way, and you have no proof either way. You are debating NOTHING because there is NOTHING to debate.
Oh boy lol... TalonZahn... I am so deeply sorry I embarrassed you by having BA. I have brought shame on our house! Or something. (Or, y'know, what a super odd thing to say??)
If your katra is centered again, I put the winky face on to show I was joking about 'internet argument school' for the most part, but the prove a negative defense is actually a really, really bad way to have a discussion. Don't take my word for it, look it up and learn, if you want. Or don't. you may encounter less push-back on your posits though.
Anyways! I'll drop it with you since you might tell me what you think in PM and that is very scary
Back OT - The design is better on the new Resin, but I feel leaving the sillouette mostly unchanged was a bit of a miss, a few more tweaks, to the body mainly, and I would have been much more impressed. Also, gun-pods rule. It is an improvement but not as much as I had hoped, though, other angles may be much cooler as per HHprospero.
Let's see, you said something foolish about a claimed plastic Thawk, and a couple people called you out on it. You doubled down, and are now calling names?
If you want to talk about the model, there first needs to be a plastic Thawk to talk about. I don't think you've got anything, so there's nothing to talk about. So once again, I challenge you to put up or shut up. What evidence or proof do you have of this plastic Thawk kit that you're wanting us to talk about? Go on, I'll wait.
As others have said, on a scale of Octo-Mom to Kate Upton, rumors of the Thunderhawk going from Resin to Plastic have reduced my interest level from Emily Blunt to Rosie O'Donnel.
NivlacSupreme wrote: Didn't they literally say that the last resin Thawk had been sold?
Yes and if we get the Thunderhawk II, the Mars-Pattern Thunderhawk, the Voss-Pattern Thunderhawk, the Thunderhawk B etc all that will have been true, it would also be true to say that at that time, on that day, the last Thunderhawk was sold, if they had no more Thunderhawks for sale...
The Lightning underwent a minor name change when it was redesigned, when the Baneblades were rereleased in plastic they made mention of the differences between them as differences between FW patterns, so there's precedence for it.
LOL Octo-Mom is the bottom of your scale??? Interesting...
Yeah honestly I think in this case they maybe should have shot down the ubiquitous plastic rumors MUCH sooner... they even contributed to it by making such a fuss over the 'last resin thawk ever sold! (until like a month from now)' annouce when they knew the plastic rumors were already swirling.
This new resin t-hawk is now a defacto disappointment unfortunately. A lesson for GW hopefully to manage expectations on something like this if they have the fore-warning they did.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Let's see, you said something foolish about a claimed plastic Thawk, and a couple people called you out on it. You doubled down, and are now calling names?
If you want to talk about the model, there first needs to be a plastic Thawk to talk about. I don't think you've got anything, so there's nothing to talk about. So once again, I challenge you to put up or shut up. What evidence or proof do you have of this plastic Thawk kit that you're wanting us to talk about? Go on, I'll wait.
Well, then get a mod to delete the thread, because the last 14 pages are about a model that doesn't exit.
I didn't say anything foolish. I said a coming resin model doesn't mean there won't be a plastic one. There are already several instances of plastic and resin model of the same things to prove this true.
You two are arguing that one wouldn't be released so quickly on the heels of the other. That can also be proven false by recent releases.
And dear Tom, the reason I said you can PM me, is so the thread can continue without your inane arguments. You decried my statements and said I lack proof, when you have the same issue with proof.
The facts are that plastics and resins of the same models currently exist. They have not come decades apart, and have actually come fairly close together in production terms.
So if anything, there's MORE evidence that a resin kit and plastic kit can exist at the same time for the same item.
Just because you two FEEL that they wouldn't do it, doesn't mean they won't.
Oh dear, that's disappointing. I thought this was a sure thing after the 'plastic Thunderhawk' box in GW's vid from a few weeks ago.
I suppose I should have probably paid more attention to the tongue-in-cheek nature of the video then...
FW can keep their resin monster though, thanks but no thanks!
MajorTom11 wrote: LOL Octo-Mom is the bottom of your scale??? Interesting...
Yeah honestly I think in this case they maybe should have shot down the ubiquitous plastic rumors MUCH sooner... they even contributed to it by making such a fuss over the 'last resin thawk ever sold! (until like a month from now)' annouce when they knew the plastic rumors were already swirling.
This new resin t-hawk is now a defacto disappointment unfortunately. A lesson for GW hopefully to manage expectations on something like this if they have the fore-warning they did.
Agreed, they could have easily put this to bed on day one.
So the whole video with the Plastic Thunderhawk box in the background wasn't actually a clever joke, but GW putting their balls onto our face.
K. Gotcha.
And honestly, I'm not surprised that Hastings got a rumor wrong. At the end of the day we're taking someone's word for it on the internet. Gotta temper expectations here people.
After reading some of the gak in the thread I'm kinda happy they trolled the rumormills with the "plastic thunderhawk box".
In any case I'm looking forward to seeing more pics of the new model. I think it's close but there appears to be some low-hanging fruit adjustments to improve it a bit. The adjustable top-wing-things still look too blocky to me.
Don Savik wrote: So the whole video with the Plastic Thunderhawk box in the background wasn't actually a clever joke, but GW putting their balls onto our face.
If I worked at GW, and I had seen the amount of "plastic thunder hawk!" talk over the years (and occasional rumors), I'd be very tempted to troll the internet too. Just as they do with sisters stuff.
Unless someone has the transcript, we don't know they said anything about resin. So really, they just left out "from the current mold" in the announcement. Assuming they actually left that out, again, without the transcript they very well could have clarified for all we know.
We’ve had a lot of questions over the last few weeks, since our venerable Thunderhawk gunship sold out online.
We can now announce that the Forge World studio are nearing completion on a brand new updated version.
Pre-production model – there may be some slight differences in the final model.
This new resin Thunderhawk keeps the iconic and uncompromising outline of the Thunderhawk we all know and love, but also takes on a few design cues from other recent kits, like the Stormbird and Heresy-era Space Marine Legion tanks.
For the moment, we don’t have anymore to show you, but you can rest assured this Lord of War will be touching down very soon.
In fact, we’re hoping to have it available first at Warhammer Fest this May (which you can get a ticket for here):
. The interior detailing kit being separate could help lower the overall cost.
