teutonicavenger wrote:

Well this is quite sad (Cue the sad music)
At Warhammer world during the throne of skulls tournament GW/ FW announced the last ever Thunder hawk was available at the forgeworld shop and it was not getting re-stocked EVER AGAIN. Now I won't get into speculations (though I know what the first thing people will think) of what this may mean but if you ever wanted a thunder hawk from FW then you are out of luck

From Battle Bunnies
http://battlebunnies.blogspot.co.nz/2017/03/the-last-resin-thunderhawk-official.html?m=1

***UPDATE***
Hastings confirms it!

Warhams-77 wrote:
Where is my old rumor thread from February with Drake Seta's hints at the new kit...? anyway, some more info from Hastings (posted yesterday)

Hastings - Disqus

Yes it's coming, as everyone can clearly now see the final resin TH has been sold, the plastic one has quite a few options as I understand it, and should come in around 25-30% of the cost of the resin one... or at least that's the last I heard. I recall a figure of either £125 or £135...

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/warofsigmar/war_of_sigmar_rumors_and_rules_for_age_of_sigmar_9005/#comment-3224673992

This could be what its going to look like:

Picture is from Inferno.

the insiide the studio vid also hinted at plastic t hawk

What's the over/under on the number of threads we'll see on this in the next day? We're already up to three.

Lol that's my post from B&C

Well GW/ FW actually announced there will be no more resin thunder hawks though whether or not they actually release a plastic kit or let The old bird retire remains to be seen.

How much do we all think the plastic one will cost?

£150?

More?

If it's under £200 I'll buy two.

If it's £150 I'm going for one.

I find it amusing that rumors sites are making the jump from "no more FW thunderhawks" to "that must mean they're coming in plastic!", when nothing of the sort has been said (the WH TV video hinted at it, but they did not even remotely say it's actually a thing).

Edit: Welp, if Hastings is saying it's coming, good sign it's probably coming.

I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides spaced armor, or was that not popular?

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides spaced armor, or was that not popular?

Spaced armor?

 troa wrote:
I find it amusing that rumors sites are making the jump from "no more FW thunderhawks" to "that must mean they're coming in plastic!", when nothing of the sort has been said (the WH TV video hinted at it, but they did not even remotely say it's actually a thing).

There are some, slightly fuzzy, pictures of a Thunderhawk doing the rounds... saw them in a /tg/ thread earlier. Nothing that you can get much detail from, as it's in the back of a larger set-up, half-behind a building. The only certainties are that it isn't the Forgeworld one, due to some slightly different trimmings.

 troa wrote:
I find it amusing that rumors sites are making the jump from "no more FW thunderhawks" to "that must mean they're coming in plastic!", when nothing of the sort has been said (the WH TV video hinted at it, but they did not even remotely say it's actually a thing).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

Snebze wrote:

 troa wrote:
I find it amusing that rumors sites are making the jump from "no more FW thunderhawks" to "that must mean they're coming in plastic!", when nothing of the sort has been said (the WH TV video hinted at it, but they did not even remotely say it's actually a thing).

There are some, slightly fuzzy, pictures of a Thunderhawk doing the rounds... saw them in a /tg/ thread earlier. Nothing that you can get much detail from, as it's in the back of a larger set-up, half-behind a building. The only certainties are that it isn't the Forgeworld one, due to some slightly different trimmings.

DO YOU HAVE THESE?

Sorry for the yelling. Really excited.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.

Considering that there are plenty of "standard issue" Imperial Guard vehicles that have been dropped, and there are no plastic variants yet, leads me to believe that this isn't entirely true.

 NivlacSupreme wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides spaced armor, or was that not popular?

Spaced armor?

Extra armor came in two types, reinforced or spaced, like on the old upgrade kit for the rhino.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides spaced armor, or was that not popular?

So what you're saying is that we're getting a plastic Repressor?

I'm guessing this they are replacing the model with a updated look based on the storm bird. Call it a thunder hawk mk 3 or what ever they are onto now and give it new weapon options.

This may simply be due to the molds being too far gone. If memory serves the Thunderhawk is one of Forge World's oldest models still in production. I can't imagine many of the old molds or even masters still holding up to this day, especially since Resin Casting is more brutal on the molds than plastic casting.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides spaced armor, or was that not popular?

So what you're saying is that we're getting a plastic Repressor?

I said popular

I have hopes that a plastic repressor kit comes with SOB.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lockark wrote:
I'm guessing this they are replacing the model with a updated look based on the storm bird. Call it a thunder hawk mk 3 or what ever they are onto now and give it new weapon options.

In the past items became unavailable when molds were being redone. But they never said " last one for sale" even when they were making changes to the kit that I'm aware of.

Snebze wrote:

 troa wrote:
I find it amusing that rumors sites are making the jump from "no more FW thunderhawks" to "that must mean they're coming in plastic!", when nothing of the sort has been said (the WH TV video hinted at it, but they did not even remotely say it's actually a thing).

There are some, slightly fuzzy, pictures of a Thunderhawk doing the rounds... saw them in a /tg/ thread earlier. Nothing that you can get much detail from, as it's in the back of a larger set-up, half-behind a building. The only certainties are that it isn't the Forgeworld one, due to some slightly different trimmings.

So, get them posted here.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.

Considering that there are plenty of "standard issue" Imperial Guard vehicles that have been dropped, and there are no plastic variants yet, leads me to believe that this isn't entirely true.

But did they sell?
Kits like the Salamander and Atlas were built around the old chimera and Leman Russ kits and required updating. When they discod them I was bummed, but not surprised.

Auto correct

 Asmodai wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides spaced armor, or was that not popular?

So what you're saying is that we're getting a plastic Repressor?

Thunderhawks are an iconic vehicle of the SPEEHS MUHRINES! They cannot let it go.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:


In the past items became unavailable when molds were being redone. But they never said " last one for sale" even when they were making changes to the kit that I'm aware of.

The only reason to do this is to build hype. If it was just going away, they would have just put it on last chance to buy then removed it.

Nobidy saw that post right? Good!

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.

Considering that there are plenty of "standard issue" Imperial Guard vehicles that have been dropped, and there are no plastic variants yet, leads me to believe that this isn't entirely true.

But did they sell?
Kits like the Salamander and Atlas were built around the old chimera and Leman Russ kits and required updating. When they discod them I was bummed, but not surprised.

Auto correct

Considering how many stock models I've seen over the years, both in person and online, I'm guessing they did sell. I agree that some models needed an update. But it's a shame they never did.

 troa wrote:
I find it amusing that rumors sites are making the jump from "no more FW thunderhawks" to "that must mean they're coming in plastic!", when nothing of the sort has been said (the WH TV video hinted at it, but they did not even remotely say it's actually a thing).

It's pretty obvious that's what's happening. It's an iconic kit (unlike most of the OOP stuff), and the only reason to announce "no more FW Thunderhawks" instead of just quietly removing it from the website once the last inventory is sold is to hint at an upcoming replacement. The only question remaining is exactly when the new plastic Thunderhawk will be released.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Kits like the Salamander and Atlas were built around the old chimera and Leman Russ kits and required updating.

Actually they worked just fine. I have Salamanders that were shipped with the current Chimera kit and have no problems at all, and Destroyer/Mars Alpha LRBT kits (same design as the Atlas) that shipped with the current LRBT kit. It's more likely that they didn't sell all that well because of weak rules and, for the Salamander, easy conversion from a plastic Chimera.

I wonder if they just are going to do a rerelease of a limited run of the old metal thunderhawk...

stormboy wrote:
I wonder if they just are going to do a rerelease of a limited run of the old metal thunderhawk...

New and improved in Finecast!

a plastic thudnerhawk would make sense, there's been demand for them for awhile. and space Marines, lack a "vehicular Lord of war" option. (yes they can take a knight but I mean antive to codex Space marines) a thunderhawk would also be something that could be fairly widely avaliable, space marines, chaos space marines, blood angels, dark angels, space wolves, even sisters of battle (whom would presumably have some sort of transport, and it'd make sense to have thunderhawks given their widespread use of the rhino chassis)


I suppose the other answer that could pop up is GW moving more in a direction of having space marines using storm ravens. as a continuation in the practice of using smaller easier to manafacture hulls that began with them. or even a brand new replacement for the tHunderhawk (which WAS supposed to be more a temoporary stop gap measure that sort of "took over")

If a plastic T.Hawk is on the way I wonder how many new variants GW and FW will get out of the kit? IIRC the Baneblades the super heavy to beat in that department.

While interesting, isn't the Thunderhawk a bit large for the table top? While the knight and Wraithknight are large, they're also mostly vertical. The Thunderhawk would take up an enormous part of the table.

I think you'd find the overwhelming majority of sales would be modelling projects and shelf fillers, not active additions to a played list.

I certainly wouldn't have any illusions about playing one if I bought one (and I already have a Fellblade and a Fire Raptor glaring at me accusingly from the other side of the room waiting for paint and for a game which I don't currently intend to play.)

Something tells me if this kit came in plastic (which seems smart since they could do a couple versions, even a 30K/40K specific line etc.) it would be scaled down slightly and turned into at least 3-4 various kits.

I think it's one of the few large fliers which would do quite well, even at a 150-200 price point.

I hate resin and would never pay FW prices for a piece of junk that big, but if it's a sub-$200ish kit I'd be tempted to get one just for scenarios, etc.

The thunderhawk is large however it's also dependent on whatever flying base size they use for a plastic thunderhawk.

Honestly flyer rules kinda suck but if 8th edition fixed them and the points cost of the thunderhawk stays 750 or lower it would be more popular.

I would be tempted by a plastic one for a an elaborate crash site terrain piece to fight over at the centre of the table for our four player games.

If they mounted it on a small but heavy flying base you could probably just have it hovering ~1ft over the top of the table all game, though landing might be a bit impractical on most gaming tables.

If they make a plastic one at the right price I'll definitely think of grabbing it just to model for my DW.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
I would be tempted by a plastic one for a an elaborate crash site terrain piece to fight over at the centre of the table for our four player games.

That's exactly why I'd want one - for a Thunderhawk Down scenario.

If it is affordable, i will make a ceiling light out of it

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
I would be tempted by a plastic one for a an elaborate crash site terrain piece to fight over at the centre of the table for our four player games.

Forgeworld has a realm of battle crashed thunderhawk tile that might be cheaper to covert.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.

Considering that there are plenty of "standard issue" Imperial Guard vehicles that have been dropped, and there are no plastic variants yet, leads me to believe that this isn't entirely true.

But did they sell?
Kits like the Salamander and Atlas were built around the old chimera and Leman Russ kits and required updating. When they discod them I was bummed, but not surprised.

Auto correct

Considering how many stock models I've seen over the years, both in person and online, I'm guessing they did sell. I agree that some models needed an update. But it's a shame they never did.

I mean, it's not really the same thing. You're comparing the Thunderhawk Gunship, one of the most iconic flyers and vehicles in 40k, the flagship "big model" of their most popular army, with "Imperial Guard tank variants #10545 and #50394". Like, those IG tanks are great and all, but the Thunderhawk is on a totally other level. The fact that they took the time to announce the model was being discontinued rather than just removing it in normal Forge World fashion is a sign of that.

I think they would sell as many plastic T-hawks as they did Shadowsword kits. Maybe more. Even if it is $200. We are talking about the most Iconic and nearly mythical large model in 40k.

gungo wrote:
Forgeworld has a realm of battle crashed thunderhawk tile that might be cheaper to covert.

Eww!!!

I'd rather get a plastic one build it, then put it on a big plastic bag and throw it off a three story building.

Where is my old rumor thread from February with Drake Seta's hints at the new kit...? anyway, some more info from Hastings (posted yesterday)

Hastings - Disqus

Yes it's coming, as everyone can clearly now see the final resin TH has been sold, the plastic one has quite a few options as I understand it, and should come in around 25-30% of the cost of the resin one... or at least that's the last I heard. I recall a figure of either £125 or £135...

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/warofsigmar/war_of_sigmar_rumors_and_rules_for_age_of_sigmar_9005/#comment-3224673992

Warhams-77 wrote:
Where is my old rumor thread from February with Drake Seta's hints at the new kit...? anyway, some more info from Hastings (posted yesterday)

Hastings - Disqus

Yes it's coming, as everyone can clearly now see the final resin TH has been sold, the plastic one has quite a few options as I understand it, and should come in around 25-30% of the cost of the resin one... or at least that's the last I heard. I recall a figure of either £125 or £135...

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/warofsigmar/war_of_sigmar_rumors_and_rules_for_age_of_sigmar_9005/#comment-3224673992

For that cheap, I'll grab 2 to start.

I was at ToS yesterday. We were told the thunderhawk was going, and the last one was for sale in the FW shop. We were also told to expect an announcement soon, that "may or may not be related"...

Welp, Hastings confirmed it!

Must have...

Can it carry jump infantry? I want to load one up with Sanguinary Guard.

hmm...... I have two chaos marine armies, 4 loyalist chapters, and Custodes, which I assume would also have access. Man, I'm going to need a loan to cover my purchases.

 cuda1179 wrote:
hmm...... I have two chaos marine armies, 4 loyalist chapters, and Custodes, which I assume would also have access. Man, I'm going to need a loan to cover my purchases.

Well it only comes to £850 so around how much two would have cost.

always hoping they make macharius tank, thunderer, lemanruss destroyer tank hunter plastic......... always

I think people are being more than a little hasty assuming plastic.

I have a feeling in my bones the new one will be the one true casting medium METAL






If they must do one in plastic, I just hope they'll keep the classic design.

Will it come with a D-Rok rec... download code coupon?

Oh dear, SoB players will NOT be happy Another of 40k's mythic memes is down (and honestly, Kharadron overlords feel like Squats), who knows, maybe 2017 will be the year all dreams come true

Kroot Mercenaries new meme. Kroot can come too?

We even got a Grinx this year!

Holding my breath for Codex Enslavers.

Now let's see how many variations they can come up with.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I think people are being more than a little hasty assuming plastic.

I have a feeling in my bones the new one will be the one true casting medium METAL

Oh God, no. Nobody's known true pain until they've tried to assemble one of those monstrosities.

Hehe, what doesn't kill you!

I actually really wanted to try my hand at building the large resin kit! I hope the plastic kit is meant to be the same mk., or else I'll have to hunt one down in addition to getting the plastic one!

I've got one of those metal ones - in its wooden box - lurking in the corner of my painting room, taunting me ...

If there's a plastic one, that means it's feasible for me to get two - one for my Emperor's Children and one for my Astral Claws.

Warhams-77 wrote:


Will it come with a D-Rok rec... download code coupon?

I still have that CD!

The Warhammer record label They used D-Rok's songs for the Space Hulk (1993) intro as well. Lovely stuff

BTT I'm sure Hastings knows his stuff. And thanks, Dr. Bizzare. Pretty soon it seems.

*mutter grumble mumble*

I posted first...my thread gets kicked to 40k General....

Grumble grumble nepotism and other associated unsubstantiated nonsense mutter grumble.

I remember being frustrated that although the Marine was sitting in the wing bolter mounts in the Thunderhawk in Chaos Gate (based on the metal design), he never helped out his buddies with some covering fire. No, he had the attitude that "You've got your Action Points.....".


As for a plastic Thunderhawk, like others have stated, if it's at a 'reasonable' (for me) price point, I can see myself getting one as a display/ modelling piece.

Warhams-77 wrote:


The Warhammer record label They used D-Rok's songs for the Space Hulk (1993) intro as well. Lovely stuff

BTT I'm sure Hastings knows his stuff. And thanks, Dr. Bizzare. Pretty soon it seems.

Still got my WD flexidisc connected to the magazine!

Best place for it. That way, you won't accidentally put it on a turntable and listen to it ...

I'm actually tempted to buy two if they come out and they're in the $200USD range; at 135GBP exchange rates indicate it would be, but the southern hemisphere can provide adequate stories about not relying on "reality" for any sort of predictive ability there.

One for my Grey Knights that I'd likely paint first (hahahahahahahahaha....painting...that's a good one) and one for my own Marine chapter. As an extreme reach I might replace my novelty Stormraven-based Angels Encarmine force with one, but that just seems extremely doubtful. Still, the FW Thunderhawk was something I eyed year after year around tax time for my GK but just couldn't spend the money on a resin kit I knew I'd make a hash of. Getting it in plastic dramatically cheaper would almost be a no-brainer for me outside of the space to store it in...

So I have to assume that this image from the new Inferno book is very likely the shape of things to come then?
Easter Egg from Inferno

I'd predicted that it would simply be a Forge World resin re-sculpt like the Lightning or the Barracuda when these images came out, but I'm happy to be wrong if it's plastic instead!

My new prediction is a release alongside 8th edition this summer.

As to the scale of using a Thunderhawk in normal games, what if the new kit was more the size of the old metal one? I haven't seen one of those in real life, but aren't they a bit smaller than the FW resin ones?

For the record, I fully believe this means a plastic Thunderhawk is coming, but Hastings is not a primary source. He is a very reliable rumormonger, and I view him in the same sphere as Attia and Sad Panda, but he can't "confirm" anything, he can only support a claim. Only someone who works directly for GW can "confirm" a rumor. We're arguing semantics here, but in spite of the current world media, I believe the type of source still matters.

Wasn't the metal thunder hawk slightly smaller scale then the resin? And considering plastic can be significantly lighter than resin. If gw makes a plastic version with a sturdier single flight stand they can make the thunderhawk much easier to play with on a 6x4 table. That's what I'm hoping for something akin to a baneblade in table space. Of course this means flyer rules need to suck less on 8th

Well another interesting bit is that when asked about that picture the FW guys said they couldn't talk about it. That's not standard practice for FW. They usually talk (more)freely about future releases from their studio.

If they can't talk about it, then it might not be their release.

gungo wrote:
Wasn't the metal thunder hawk slightly smaller scale then the resin? And considering plastic can be significantly lighter than resin. If gw makes a plastic version with a sturdier single flight stand they can make the thunderhawk much easier to play with on a 6x4 table. That's what I'm hoping for something akin to a baneblade in table space. Of course this means flyer rules need to suck less on 8th

I will now amuse myself with images of the giant Thunderhawk on the silly 4" tall cross base.

Where is this 4chan picture?

I'll be the first to put my hand up and admit I was wrong, but this 'news' about a plastic thunderhawk is bullgak from top to bottom!

Plastic thunderhawk? You gotta be kidding me

It's still a few days until April 1st.

Why the scepticism? It's long been 'unofficially accepted, by many, including this forum, that GW only pull this out of the hat if the company is heading down the pan, third world war, Armageddon, Luxembourg declaring war on the USA etc etc

Only if GW were struggling financially would they smash the hit in emergency only glass, and go for the nuclear option that is the plastic thunderhawk.

But by all accounts, GW are recovering, rebuilding, and heading for calmer waters since the Kirby days, ergo these is no need for this.

So yeah, I could be horribly wrong, but with April 1st just round the corner, I can smell the bullgak from a mile away.

Don't be fooled, Dakka, don't be fooled.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I can't think of a popular kit FW discontinued that didn't get a plastic replacement. Given the cost I'm sure they don't want to get stuck with FW stock before the plastic release.

Considering that there are plenty of "standard issue" Imperial Guard vehicles that have been dropped, and there are no plastic variants yet, leads me to believe that this isn't entirely true.

I think you forgot to read the word "popular".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This may simply be due to the molds being too far gone. If memory serves the Thunderhawk is one of Forge World's oldest models still in production. I can't imagine many of the old molds or even masters still holding up to this day, especially since Resin Casting is more brutal on the molds than plastic casting.

Due to the molds being made of squishy material vs hard resin, instead of heavy metal vs soft plastic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nvs wrote:
While interesting, isn't the Thunderhawk a bit large for the table top? While the knight and Wraithknight are large, they're also mostly vertical. The Thunderhawk would take up an enormous part of the table.

It's not that big, plus it's hovering above the rest, so it doesn't take up that much space.

Large fliers get in the way, and they're very easy to knock over when you reach down for dice. I try not to put my hands within a foot of a large flier.

 Verviedi wrote:
Large fliers get in the way, and they're very easy to knock over when you reach down for dice. I try not to put my hands within a foot of a large flier.

I try to not put my dice on the table personally. I hate it when it bounces off some random piece and lands on 1.

For me, it varies. I'll do large dice rolls in a box, but it's very annoying pulling the box out from under the table, rolling the dice, and then putting it back. Probably a relic of me usually playing on GW store tables, which don't have seperate rolling areas.

gungo wrote:
Wasn't the metal thunder hawk slightly smaller scale then the resin? And considering plastic can be significantly lighter than resin. If gw makes a plastic version with a sturdier single flight stand they can make the thunderhawk much easier to play with on a 6x4 table. That's what I'm hoping for something akin to a baneblade in table space. Of course this means flyer rules need to suck less on 8th

Smaller, but between 7 and 8 kilos when built, IIRC. Boxed up in the wooden suitcase, around 11KG.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

gungo wrote:
Wasn't the metal thunder hawk slightly smaller scale then the resin? And considering plastic can be significantly lighter than resin. If gw makes a plastic version with a sturdier single flight stand they can make the thunderhawk much easier to play with on a 6x4 table. That's what I'm hoping for something akin to a baneblade in table space. Of course this means flyer rules need to suck less on 8th

Smaller, but between 7 and 8 kilos when built, IIRC. Boxed up in the wooden suitcase, around 11KG.

It would also fly to pieces if not assembled with pins, screws, girders, Prayers.

morgoth wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This may simply be due to the molds being too far gone. If memory serves the Thunderhawk is one of Forge World's oldest models still in production. I can't imagine many of the old molds or even masters still holding up to this day, especially since Resin Casting is more brutal on the molds than plastic casting.

Due to the molds being made of squishy material vs hard resin, instead of heavy metal vs soft plastic.

My understanding was they never have to retire a model due to moulds dying. They just make new moulds off the masters when they need them and when the masters start to die, they repair them.

There was a time when several DKOK figures went out of stock, I emailed FW and they said the masters had gone back to the studio to be repaired, so they'd be back but it'd take a bit of time.

if a plastic thunder hawk does come out, I will never say plastic sisters or squats will never happen...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This may simply be due to the molds being too far gone. If memory serves the Thunderhawk is one of Forge World's oldest models still in production. I can't imagine many of the old molds or even masters still holding up to this day, especially since Resin Casting is more brutal on the molds than plastic casting.

Due to the molds being made of squishy material vs hard resin, instead of heavy metal vs soft plastic.

My understanding was they never have to retire a model due to moulds dying. They just make new moulds off the masters when they need them and when the masters start to die, they repair them.

There was a time when several DKOK figures went out of stock, I emailed FW and they said the masters had gone back to the studio to be repaired, so they'd be back but it'd take a bit of time.

That's true.

Also, if recasters can make perfect recasts based on a regular resin cast, you don't need a master to make a new mold.

But sometimes they do get behind, a mold breaks and it's not high on the priority list so the thing is out of stock for ages - which might make business sense.

I'm curious about the additional options Harry has mentioned. We had speculated earlier that if they re-did the kit (either a new resin re-model from FW or a new plastic one) that additional weapons options would be likely, but this is the first tidbit that isn't pure speculations based on current kit trends.

Based on the size of a T-hawk kit (even if it's more the size of the old metal model) would that put it's main dorsal armament at about the same scale as Imperial knight weaponry? If so, any of those weapons could be fair game which could boost the optional list of main weapons up to 4 (RF Battle Cannon, Thermal Cannon, and Avenger Gatling Cannon) plus the Turbo Laser which I'm sure it would still have as an option. Then you've still got the Heavy Bolter Turrets which might be swappable for other heavy weapons like the Stormraven and other marine flyers can do—and that still doesn't even cover the two lascannons and underwing ordinance. That's a lot of available options.*

*I don't consider this wishlisting. I'm just speculating based off of Harry's rumor of more options.

I'll be getting one if it's true, I don't play marines, but I'd probably use it more as a big obstacle / terrain piece in games and I know it's a model I'll love building and painting.

So when can we start the rumor about the plastic Leviathan?

I have the FW Thunderhawk, its a great model but at the price and weight and size (takes up a 2x2' tile when landed) it just dosnt see the table top. Think I have used it twice in 5 years.

If they do a plastic one then I will happily get it to run in games more often.

 gainsay wrote:
if a plastic thunder hawk does come out, I will never say plastic sisters or squats will never happen...

Reset the clock!

I may get a plastic t-hawk depending on price as a collectors piece but it might depend on how impressive the kit is - I wonder if it will be released to launch the new edition?

Now we just need a plastic manta to use as a base for it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'll be the first to put my hand up and admit I was wrong, but this 'news' about a plastic thunderhawk is bullgak from top to bottom!

Plastic thunderhawk? You gotta be kidding me

It's still a few days until April 1st.

Why the scepticism? It's long been 'unofficially accepted, by many, including this forum, that GW only pull this out of the hat if the company is heading down the pan, third world war, Armageddon, Luxembourg declaring war on the USA etc etc

Only if GW were struggling financially would they smash the hit in emergency only glass, and go for the nuclear option that is the plastic thunderhawk.

But by all accounts, GW are recovering, rebuilding, and heading for calmer waters since the Kirby days, ergo these is no need for this.

So yeah, I could be horribly wrong, but with April 1st just round the corner, I can smell the bullgak from a mile away.

Don't be fooled, Dakka, don't be fooled.

Well it's also been said that the concept for a plastic T-hawk was completed a few years ago, but the current CEO said 'NO' because he didn't think anyone would buy it. I think with how many Knight Titans have been sold, it's pretty clear to GW that their customers are not scared of big, expensive plastic kits.

Can somebody explain to me the appeal of this gargant of a kit? I'm not trying to be "that guy", I'm genuinely curious why people are so interested in it. I've been in the hobby since 2001 and I never understood how something that size can be utilized in a tabletop battle, other than Apocalypse sized battles.

Is it the fact it was previously only metal/resin? Is it more of a collector's piece? How does this kit improve a SM list?

I'm happy for the people who've been waiting for this one nonetheless!

Make a great ride for all the new Sisters of Battle

re why buy it - somewhat bored, have disposable income and it would loook cool

It's something iconic to the hobby, which may be reason enough for some to get one.

IMO, it's partly the iconic nature of the Thunderhawk. To me, more than even the landraider or rhino, it is THE marine vehicle. Others may disagree with that of course. So it's partly just the iconic nature of the kit.

How does it improve the space marine list? I'm sure that question would be impossible to answer at the moment being dependent on rules we don't have using 8th edition mechanics we don't understand. Time will tell if it's actually WORTH the investment from a gameplay perspective.

Even if it's only a beautiful terrain piece for a lot of games, I think it would make for an amazing objective. Having your marines secure a Thunderhawk which has been forced down due to mechanical problems is all kinds of cinematic.

Knowing GW they will release it in plastic and only vanilla marines will get it since they usually only let those in awe of girlyman get new toys just look at the terminators and contemptor

So will the plastic Thunderhawk be ridiculously out of scale like the Corvus Blackstar?

Hoping it won't be Chinese plastic and come pre-clipped in bags.

I'd prefer a plastic Thunderbolt but I'll still probably pick one up to put on my to-do shelf.

 bubber wrote:
I'd prefer a plastic Thunderbolt but I'll still probably pick one up to put on my to-do shelf.

More like use it AS a shelf. Have your models out on the wings and standing on the fuselage.

I need a plastic T-Hawk like I need Dorn's model.

So, not really at all, but I will get them and I will have an Imperial Fist army to start.

 Floyd73 wrote:
Hoping it won't be Chinese plastic and come pre-clipped in bags.

I would say you're partially right on that. In order to make this thing viable, I would expect much of the main body and the main wings to be single, large pieces of plastic, much like the base of the Aquila Strongpoint model is one giant piece of plastic. So, yes, I expect parts of it to be "pre-clipped". And the a bunch of sprues to add on the bits and stuff.

Forget the flying brick, where the F is the plastic Warhound!? It would have more uses on the field than that flying hunk of junk!

 Brother Xeones wrote:
I'm curious about the additional options Harry has mentioned. We had speculated earlier that if they re-did the kit (either a new resin re-model from FW or a new plastic one) that additional weapons options would be likely, but this is the first tidbit that isn't pure speculations based on current kit trends.

Based on the size of a T-hawk kit (even if it's more the size of the old metal model) would that put it's main dorsal armament at about the same scale as Imperial knight weaponry? If so, any of those weapons could be fair game which could boost the optional list of main weapons up to 4 (RF Battle Cannon, Thermal Cannon, and Avenger Gatling Cannon) plus the Turbo Laser which I'm sure it would still have as an option. Then you've still got the Heavy Bolter Turrets which might be swappable for other heavy weapons like the Stormraven and other marine flyers can do—and that still doesn't even cover the two lascannons and underwing ordinance. That's a lot of available options.*

*I don't consider this wishlisting. I'm just speculating based off of Harry's rumor of more options.

The dorsal cannon is basically 8dentical to the Shadowsword kit, and could even use the same cad assets. For other weapon options, it has pylons on the wings that could carry missiles or bombs, and the turrets could be a mix of heavy bolters, melta, assault cannons, Las cannons, or plasma cannons based on other sm fliers.

There will definitely be at least two bought between my brother and I. One for my Crimson Fists and the other for his Dark Angels. There is a distinct possibility my 30K Imperial Fists will get one. Or my Deathwatch. But definitely for my Crimson Fists.

Good news for traitors is we will not feel compelled to buy such an expensive model, thus saving hundreds of dollars, seeing as how GW can't be bothered to spend the extra 30 minutes of manpower to write rules to include us to double the return on such an investment

IA13 is a thing, even if it is currently OOP. There's little to no reason to think CSM won't/can't take them.

macluvin wrote:
Good news for traitors is we will not feel compelled to buy such an expensive model, thus saving hundreds of dollars, seeing as how GW can't be bothered to spend the extra 30 minutes of manpower to write rules to include us to double the return on such an investment

Don't worry, i expect they will let dark angels use them. More seriously, ia13 and the 30k books let the traitor legions take them.

My general rule is that each of my armies will have a Special Character, a flyer, and a Lord of War/superheavy.

A plastic thunderhawk goes a long way to letting me double-up for some of my armies. World Eaters have the Lord of Skulls..... which os both derpy lookng and has lackluster rules.

I'm actually fully expecting some of the parts to be totally cross-compatible with other kits. Weapons with the Baneblade, sponsons with the Land Raider (Who wouldn't want to see a Hurrican bolter thunderhawk?, possibly parts from the Storm Talon and Storm Raven.

 Azreal13 wrote:
IA13 is a thing, even if it is currently OOP. There's little to no reason to think CSM won't/can't take them.

At least until 8th Ed hits and the new Thunderhawk has 30 wounds and a 3+ save and AI13 becomes basically worthless.

Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Floyd73 wrote:
Hoping it won't be Chinese plastic and come pre-clipped in bags.

I would say you're partially right on that. In order to make this thing viable, I would expect much of the main body and the main wings to be single, large pieces of plastic, much like the base of the Aquila Strongpoint model is one giant piece of plastic. So, yes, I expect parts of it to be "pre-clipped". And the a bunch of sprues to add on the bits and stuff.

How big are the biggest frames GW currently casts? Other UK companies do frames big enough to be a Thunderhawk.

Probably only the sides of the fuselage would be 1 big piece, I imagine the bottom/top of the fuselage would be multiple pieces. Even then the sides could be broken down in to smaller pieces.

Depends how many they plan to make I guess.

Hive City Dweller wrote:Can somebody explain to me the appeal of this gargant of a kit? I'm not trying to be "that guy", I'm genuinely curious why people are so interested in it. I've been in the hobby since 2001 and I never understood how something that size can be utilized in a tabletop battle, other than Apocalypse sized battles.

Is it the fact it was previously only metal/resin? Is it more of a collector's piece? How does this kit improve a SM list?

I'm happy for the people who've been waiting for this one nonetheless!

My guess is most people want it as a cool display piece, something that is going to be an interesting challenge to build/paint and maybe once in a blue moon pull it out for an actual game.

Companies like Airfix and Tamiya revolve around customers who buy models just for the hell of building and displaying them without ever thinking of playing an actual game with them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
IA13 is a thing, even if it is currently OOP. There's little to no reason to think CSM won't/can't take them.

At least until 8th Ed hits and the new Thunderhawk has 30 wounds and a 3+ save and AI13 becomes basically worthless.

Yeah... pretty suspicious about buying any rules between now and when the next edition drops.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Floyd73 wrote:
Hoping it won't be Chinese plastic and come pre-clipped in bags.

I would say you're partially right on that. In order to make this thing viable, I would expect much of the main body and the main wings to be single, large pieces of plastic, much like the base of the Aquila Strongpoint model is one giant piece of plastic. So, yes, I expect parts of it to be "pre-clipped". And the a bunch of sprues to add on the bits and stuff.

How big are the biggest frames GW currently casts? Other UK companies do frames big enough to be a Thunderhawk.

Probably only the sides of the fuselage would be 1 big piece, I imagine the bottom/top of the fuselage would be multiple pieces. Even then the sides could be broken down in to smaller pieces.

This picture might give you an idea, if you haven't seen an Aquila Strongpoint in person:


That is one piece of plastic. No sprue attached to it in the box, either (I have one). The big turret next to is also one piece. That's why I can see GW making this with several large pieces for the wings and main body, without having to break any of them up. Then just several sprues of bits to go on it. Ultimately, we'll just have to wait and see how it goes.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Floyd73 wrote:
Hoping it won't be Chinese plastic and come pre-clipped in bags.

I would say you're partially right on that. In order to make this thing viable, I would expect much of the main body and the main wings to be single, large pieces of plastic, much like the base of the Aquila Strongpoint model is one giant piece of plastic. So, yes, I expect parts of it to be "pre-clipped". And the a bunch of sprues to add on the bits and stuff.

How big are the biggest frames GW currently casts? Other UK companies do frames big enough to be a Thunderhawk.

Probably only the sides of the fuselage would be 1 big piece, I imagine the bottom/top of the fuselage would be multiple pieces. Even then the sides could be broken down in to smaller pieces.

This picture might give you an idea, if you haven't seen an Aquila Strongpoint in person:

Spoiler:

That is one piece of plastic. No sprue attached to it in the box, either (I have one). The big turret next to is also one piece. That's why I can see GW making this with several large pieces for the wings and main body, without having to break any of them up. Then just several sprues of bits to go on it. Ultimately, we'll just have to wait and see how it goes.

Sorry I should have been more clear, those preclipped pieces as far as I'm aware come out of China. The reason they are "pre clipped" is possibly because they use a hot-runner casting machine.

My question was how big are the largest sprues GW themselves make in house. I imagine the Baneblade or Gargant are probably the largest kits they currently do?

I'd think GW wouldn't want to outsource a kit like the Thunderhawk to China unless they're only planning on doing a limited run of it.

This thread is going the same direction as this one a few weeks back...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/716256.page

For the people asking about the size of the metal T-hawk, here's mine next to a Stormraven:

 krazynadechukr wrote:
This thread is going the same direction as this one a few weeks back...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/716256.page

We probably could have just necroed that thread instead of starting a new one if anyone had remembered about it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Heliodore wrote:
For the people asking about the size of the metal T-hawk, here's mine next to a Stormraven:

Wow, that's not nearly as big as I thought it would be. I guess the Epic 40k Thunderhawk that it was possibly based off was also quite small back then.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:
This thread is going the same direction as this one a few weeks back...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/716256.page

We probably could have just necroed that thread instead of starting a new one if anyone had remembered about it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Heliodore wrote:
For the people asking about the size of the metal T-hawk, here's mine next to a Stormraven:

Wow, that's not nearly as big as I thought it would be. I guess the Epic 40k Thunderhawk that it was possibly based off was also quite small back then.

Yeah, There's a great debate and good logic on number of sprues, weight, cost, etc...

" aka_mythos wrote:
Even as big as the Thunderhawk is it isn't so big as to cost $649 in plastic. Maybe its a Thunderhawk squadron boxset.. or some formation built around Thunderhawks.

This is my estimation based on a good number of years working with injection molding, designing and sourcing, and what I've come to expect and what I can infer looking at GW's large kits...

Take for instance the Baneblade, it uses 7 of the largest sprues to date... ~11"x17"... This gives GW's Baneblade kit molds a planar area of ~1100 in^2... but only about half that areas (550 in^2) is populated with parts the rest is used for gating and temperature regulation... The Thunderhawk is a box with wings, 17" wing span ~4.5 inches at the wides part of the wing... the hull is 19" long with a ~4.5" x 5" cross section at the largest portions... Given the wings thickness I'm counting it double... at this point we have a bounding surface area of ~650 in^2... even with all the weapons and facets, I don't see it adding more than 1/3 more surface area... at shy of 850 in^2 a Thunderhawk should fit on 11 sprues with a part density like the Baneblade kit. This assumes no significant interior structure or details and it assumes no major variants like the way the Shadowsword et al are part of the Baneblade kit.

In all likely hood given how much denser GW's been able to sprue their models in recent years they could probably pack the pieces more tightly than the Baneblade sprues, either cutting down the sprue count or adding more options.

Using a similar pricing scheme as the Baneblade (retail $140 for 7 sprues or $20/sprue) we'd be looking at between $200-220 for a kit this size. GW could always charge more, but this is a baseline based on what they've done."

 Heliodore wrote:
For the people asking about the size of the metal T-hawk, here's mine next to a Stormraven:

If they scale it closer to this model then it's definitely usable on a 6x4 table with a single sturdy flight stand. However I doubt they make it this small.

Nah it's just the limitation of metal. That's probably one of the (if not "the") largest model ever released in metal by a gaming company.

I do think that "size" while out of scale is much better/reasonable for gaming purposes, but as a set-piece or a terrain piece I'd like the proper scaled one.

 krazynadechukr wrote:
.....~11"x17"...

Yeah I remember that discussion, just couldn't remember the sprue sizes.

If it's 11"x17" they should be able to fit the fuselage halves on to a regular sprue without having to rely on China and their frameless pieces. The FW Thunderhawk is apparently 19" long, some of that's going to be the engines which protrude, so once you remove those the sides will probably fit on the same sprue as the Baneblade.

God I hope they don't make it the same size as the metal Thunderhawk that would look way to small, almost as bad as the Corvus Blackstar (like that could fit 5 bikes in)

I can't wait for the community facebook page to make a post about the new plastic thunderhawk! Then myself and many others will ask 'why can't dark angels/blood angels/space wolves/ and chaos use the thunderhawk when they're all founding chapters?' and then GW will delete the whole post to silence opinions.

Ahhhh.....good times.

Despite sources, GWs current direction, and all other causes that would lead to this happening, I gotta take it with a grain of salt. Would I buy one? Hell Yes. Would I use it? Probably not. But I feel like this could all just be hype for an April Fool's joke. Which, if it is, and they don't respond with some form of "btw, you will get thunderhawks back, just not immediately.", big error. I don't think so, and it'll be interesting as to see how it goes over considering 8th is a few months out. These last couple waves of releases, have given us lots of big models, such as Magnus, Guilliman, and now Mortarion. Perhaps the new edition will create an environment more friendly and accessible to superheavies.

 Heliodore wrote:
For the people asking about the size of the metal T-hawk, here's mine next to a Stormraven:

Spoiler:

Respect

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

gungo wrote:
Wasn't the metal thunder hawk slightly smaller scale then the resin? And considering plastic can be significantly lighter than resin. If gw makes a plastic version with a sturdier single flight stand they can make the thunderhawk much easier to play with on a 6x4 table. That's what I'm hoping for something akin to a baneblade in table space. Of course this means flyer rules need to suck less on 8th

Smaller, but between 7 and 8 kilos when built, IIRC. Boxed up in the wooden suitcase, around 11KG.

The metal one is substantially smaller than the resin one... 30% smaller by length, 50% by volume. It's closer to a Storm Eagle or Fire Raptor in size than it is to the resin Thunderhawk.

 Don Savik wrote:
I can't wait for the community facebook page to make a post about the new plastic thunderhawk! Then myself and many others will ask 'why can't dark angels/blood angels/space wolves/ and chaos use the thunderhawk when they're all founding chapters?' and then GW will delete the whole post to silence opinions.

Ahhhh.....good times.

In response to my earlier comments, I'm skeptical about this news, but that doesn't mean to say I oppose it if it ever happens. On the contrary, the thunderhawk would be a fantastic model for the painter and collector and would look amazing on any coffee table.

But there in lies the problem. I may be stating the obvious here, but Games Workshop is primarily a GAMES company, the clue being in the name. Games need rules, and the Thunderhawk does nothing for the game or the rules.

40k is, at its core, still the same system from the days of rogue trader. At its heart it's a game of small unit action, skirmish, for warbands of up to 20 models and/or 1 or 2 light vehicles/medium tanks.

When you start adding Knight Titans, Thunderhawks, Tau mega battle suits of doom, and other rules bloat piled on top of one another, you get this horrible, bloated mess of a game.

It's like the British tax system. Years and years of stuff added on, but the core remaining unchanged, no attempt to change it, and the game suffers.

For the collector and painter, this is welcome news. For the gamer, it's a disaster. IMO, thunderhawks for the game should be restricted to epic 40k, where the game was designed to handle them.

Gamesworkshop are a company that exists to make money. The thunderhawk will make them lots of it

That's why it is happening.

Because a thread about a long awaited happy event cannot possibly contain 0% negativity after all...

Can't you just be happy for everyone you know who's going to drool over this model?

Yeah I don't think Games Workshop have cared about the "Games" part in a while, other than its capacity to sell more miniatures at higher prices.

Vorian wrote:
Gamesworkshop are a company that exists to make money. The thunderhawk will make them lots of it

That's why it is happening.

For sure, 99.9% of companies are in it for the money, but most also see the long term picture, and don't sacrifice it for short-term gain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah I don't think Games Workshop have cared about the "Games" part in a while, other than its capacity to sell more miniatures at higher prices.

A strategy that nearly had them over the cliff edge for a while.

It's no sacrifice, it's s long wished for model. They've put out a huge amount of new games recently with more coming, so it's not exactly impacting them in that way.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Gamesworkshop are a company that exists to make money. The thunderhawk will make them lots of it

That's why it is happening.

For sure, 99.9% of companies are in it for the money, but most also see the long term picture, and don't sacrifice it for short-term gain.

I think that ship has sailed for GW. We already have 400pt Knights and 800pt Stompas written right in to the core codices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah I don't think Games Workshop have cared about the "Games" part in a while, other than its capacity to sell more miniatures at higher prices.

A strategy that nearly had them over the cliff edge for a while.

As much as I hate to acknowledge it, GW seem to be having more success by just giving customers bigger toys while leaving the games in their crappy states.

They're pulling themselves back from the edge of the cliff with more toys, not better rules or better prices like I wish they would do.

It's hardly jumping the shark, but I guess commentators gotta commentate.

In the words of bender, screw it, Im going to make my own non space marine space marine codex, and its gonna have black jack, and thunder hawks, and contemptors…

They're pulling themselves back from the edge of the cliff with more toys, not better rules or better prices like I wish they would do.

But they are actually reducing prices, they are just doing it in different ways.

They are releasing more games, with rules that aren't terrible. AoS is aiming for a tight ruleset that's tournament ready (you'd presume 40k is heading that way). They are brining back old popular games. They are bringing out a game specifically for the competitive market.

They are also ENGAGING with their community. It's generating much more good will than the dark years of basically treating it as a hostile entity.

There's lots to the new GW and it isn't just bigger models (though they don't hurt )

With FW announcing something ('which may or may not be-')related soon, the last WD page teasing 'A time to celebrate' and the Warhammer Fest in May, the TH will probably be sold in Q2

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


But there in lies the problem. I may be stating the obvious here, but Games Workshop is primarily a GAMES company, the clue being in the name. Games need rules, and the Thunderhawk does nothing for the game or the rules.

Actually Games Workshop primarily describe themselves as a miniatures company, the games just happen to be an (albeit big) side part to that. Their own business model in a single sentence is :

We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever.

So a plastic thunderhawk would make sense based on that statement.

Though they do actually expand on this and say the games are an important part of it

The games are a key part of both our Hobby and our business model. Our games are played between people present in a room (a Games Workshop store, a club, a school), not with a screen. They are truly social and build a real sense of community and comradeship. This again makes good business sense. The more fun and enjoyable we make our games, the more customers we attract and retain, and the more miniatures our customers want to buy. This in turn allows us to reinvest in making more and more exciting miniatures and games, which creates a virtuous circle for all.

But I'm guessing if it turned out 99% of their customers were only collectors/painters and not gamers they would probably scrap the games!

But I'm guessing if it turned out 99% of their customers were only collectors/painters and not gamers they would probably scrap the games!

To be fair if nobody is buying the rule books there'd be no point to really making them.

The issue is when Kirby and the atmosphere that was being generated pretty much ignored every aspect ASIDE from the model part when they had more bases to cover.

But with regards to the model itself, I'd like a plastic thunderhawk, but much like the others have stated probably more as a collectors piece. But I'm primarily a heresy gamer these days, so I might get a chance to use it now and then especially as some of my opponents have non-primarch LoW . Though it would probably be used for scenario purposes as well

e.g an Istvaan type scenario with both sides scrambling to take control of a (working) abandoned 1, either to escape or use it's weaponary, or as was mentioned previously a Black Hawk Down type scenario

Do_I_not_like is just trolling and trying to derail the thread, that's why he has to answer to himself every now and then. Just ignore him

I've wanted a thunderhawk transporter for quite a while now but could never justify the cost, but now? BRING ON THE PLASTIC AND MAGNETS, POST-HASTE GW!!!

I haven't seen this posted anywhere so apologies if it has been buried think this pic from the video posted the other day confirmed it??

Why is the bloke from Sons of Anarchy visiting Warhammer TV?

To address a number of points.

I'm repeating myself, but I have no doubt it will be a wonderful model for the painter and collector, but a balance has to be struck between those who game, those who collect, and those who buy only to paint.

To my mind, the gamers outweigh the other two groups, so they should be the main priority. Good, solid fun games, like what GW used to do, will encourage repeat business in my book. If you're only a collector or painter, then the rules are not your priority.

I appreciate the fact that some people have been waiting for this Thunderhawk for years, but once those people have the model, you have your short term boost to profits, but what about the long term?

Like I said, the Thunderhawk being used in the game hinders the game, because the rules are so badly in need of an overhaul.

There's nothing worse than spending weeks building and painting up a squad of 20 imperial guardsmen or whatever, lovingly creating them for the tabletop, putting them on the tabletop, and then, 30 seconds later, you're taking them off the table because the Thunderhawk or the Tau mega battle suit of doom, the Primarch etc etc looked at them...

That's a knee to the groin.

In that regard, the Thunderhawk is a double edged sword in my book.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address a number of points.

I'm repeating myself, but I have no doubt it will be a wonderful model for the painter and collector, but a balance has to be struck between those who game, those who collect, and those who buy only to paint.

To my mind, the gamers outweigh the other two groups, so they should be the main priority.

I think there's a large number of gamers who don't really care, are happy seeing absurd models on the table and/or like the idea of a game more than they actually care about the game itself.

Luckily they are making gaming a priority again, with the incredibly turnaround for AoS and hiring people like James Hewitt to work on board games with good, solid rules like Silver Tower (improved even further in Shadows of Hamerhal), giving over Specialist Games to Forge World, publishing tons of new rules material in WD, streaming games several days a week, running competitive tournaments again, etc. Not to mention the fact that they are now actively doing playtesting with tournament organizers and top players for games like AoS and Blood Bowl (and 40k 8th apparently). So while your complaints might have made sense even two years ago, now they pretty much only apply to 40k, and we already know it's getting a reboot.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In response to my earlier comments, I'm skeptical about this news, but that doesn't mean to say I oppose it if it ever happens. On the contrary, the thunderhawk would be a fantastic model for the painter and collector and would look amazing on any coffee table.

But there in lies the problem. I may be stating the obvious here, but Games Workshop is primarily a GAMES company, the clue being in the name. Games need rules, and the Thunderhawk does nothing for the game or the rules.

40k is, at its core, still the same system from the days of rogue trader. At its heart it's a game of small unit action, skirmish, for warbands of up to 20 models and/or 1 or 2 light vehicles/medium tanks.

When you start adding Knight Titans, Thunderhawks, Tau mega battle suits of doom, and other rules bloat piled on top of one another, you get this horrible, bloated mess of a game.

It's like the British tax system. Years and years of stuff added on, but the core remaining unchanged, no attempt to change it, and the game suffers.

For the collector and painter, this is welcome news. For the gamer, it's a disaster. IMO, thunderhawks for the game should be restricted to epic 40k, where the game was designed to handle them.

This is flat out not true, Games Workshop is primarily a miniatures company. They make most of their money off of people who will just buy cool new thing than they do anyone else.

The GW of the Kirby era touted itself as a miniatures company but I have not heard that mantra repeated since Rountree took over. In fact there have been more rules for more games released in the last 2 years than the previous ten. That said I really don't think it will have much effect on the way 40k is played. Even if it sells for £125 I think GW will be very happy if they sell one to 10% of marine players and many of those will not want to play it in many games.
There is always a lot of talk about how the big kits and primarchs will ruin 40k but I think I only saw one primarch in use at Adepticon and that was the studio's model.
I also think that GW is stalling until the release of 8th edition. That is why we have not seen an updated codex for a while.
Having a thunder hawk as the last hurrah of 7th edition would be a pretty good way to see it off.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I said, the Thunderhawk being used in the game hinders the game, because the rules are so badly in need of an overhaul.

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address a number of points.

I'm repeating myself, but I have no doubt it will be a wonderful model for the painter and collector, but a balance has to be struck between those who game, those who collect, and those who buy only to paint.

To my mind, the gamers outweigh the other two groups, so they should be the main priority. Good, solid fun games, like what GW used to do, will encourage repeat business in my book. If you're only a collector or painter, then the rules are not your priority.

I appreciate the fact that some people have been waiting for this Thunderhawk for years, but once those people have the model, you have your short term boost to profits, but what about the long term?

Like I said, the Thunderhawk being used in the game hinders the game, because the rules are so badly in need of an overhaul.

There's nothing worse than spending weeks building and painting up a squad of 20 imperial guardsmen or whatever, lovingly creating them for the tabletop, putting them on the tabletop, and then, 30 seconds later, you're taking them off the table because the Thunderhawk or the Tau mega battle suit of doom, the Primarch etc etc looked at them...

That's a knee to the groin.

In that regard, the Thunderhawk is a double edged sword in my book.

The problem with the Thunderhawk is not its damage output, it is nowhere near the most OP unit in its points range, the problem is how you maneuver the thing on the average 6'*4' table that has the correct amount of scenery on it. Mine is rarely used as it is such a pain to game with, I would rather game with any of my other super heavies, even my Ordinatus or Reaver are easier to play with. The Thunderhawk takes up most of a FW gaming tile.

I'm glad GW are making the Thunderhawk, I just hope people who buy one get to enjoy lots of games with it.

Chikout wrote:
The GW of the Kirby era touted itself as a miniatures company but I have not heard that mantra repeated since Rountree took over. In fact there have been more rules for more games released in the last 2 years than the previous ten. That said I really don't think it will have much effect on the way 40k is played. Even if it sells for £125 I think GW will be very happy if they sell one to 10% of marine players and many of those will not want to play it in many games.
There is always a lot of talk about how the big kits and primarchs will ruin 40k but I think I only saw one primarch in use at Adepticon and that was the studio's model.
I also think that GW is stalling until the release of 8th edition. That is why we have not seen an updated codex for a while.
Having a thunder hawk as the last hurrah of 7th edition would be a pretty good way to see it off.

I actually lifted the statement directly off their corporate website, but it does also say that the games are a major part of their ability to sell the miniatures but also around building a community. So first and foremost they do still see themselves as a miniature company, but I guess they're trying to change the perception of how they meet that end.

 Looky Likey wrote:
The problem with the Thunderhawk is not its damage output, it is nowhere near the most OP unit in its points range, the problem is how you maneuver the thing on the average 6'*4' table that has the correct amount of scenery on it. Mine is rarely used as it is such a pain to game with, I would rather game with any of my other super heavies, even my Ordinatus or Reaver are easier to play with. The Thunderhawk takes up most of a FW gaming tile.

I'm glad GW are making the Thunderhawk, I just hope people who buy one get to enjoy lots of games with it.

This. I don't have a Thunderhawk but I do have a Marauder and it's just not a practical model for 28mm games. It needs a huge base to be stable, a completely flat spot to put it down on to avoid tipping, and extreme caution any time you're doing anything even close to the model. Even with a lot of bending the rules on the actual model placement ("it's really over there") just getting the thing on the table is a massive pain. So I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed at wasting their money on a Thunderhawk kit once the initial hype fades.

 Peregrine wrote:
This. I don't have a Thunderhawk but I do have a Marauder and it's just not a practical model for 28mm games. It needs a huge base to be stable, a completely flat spot to put it down on to avoid tipping, and extreme caution any time you're doing anything even close to the model. Even with a lot of bending the rules on the actual model placement ("it's really over there") just getting the thing on the table is a massive pain. So I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed at wasting their money on a Thunderhawk kit once the initial hype fades.

Indeed. It'll be a lovely model. But, I suspect the fate of most is to end up warming shelves. The only time they generally see the table is if it's used as a terrain piece or for a specific mission and always used in conjunction with this:

Agreed!

GW should be looking to put out a Mars Pattern (Mars Pattern Is Best Pattern!) Warhound in plastic way before even thinking about (and then rejecting the idea of) a Thunderhawk in plastic.

Having had a long, hard think about the problem of the Thunderhawk on the table top, I believe the solution is thus:

Scale the Thunderhawks and the titans down to around 15mm/1:100, hire Rick Priestly to write a balanced set set of rules for them to be used in conjunction with infantry and other armoured vehicles, and see how the gaming community reacts. It would be an awesome game, an epic game. I think epic would be a god name for this new game


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
Agreed!

GW should be looking to put out a Mars Pattern (Mars Pattern Is Best Pattern!) Warhound in plastic way before even thinking about (and then rejecting the idea of) a Thunderhawk in plastic.

A rare occasion when I find myself in agreement with you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Looky Likey wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address a number of points.

I'm repeating myself, but I have no doubt it will be a wonderful model for the painter and collector, but a balance has to be struck between those who game, those who collect, and those who buy only to paint.

To my mind, the gamers outweigh the other two groups, so they should be the main priority. Good, solid fun games, like what GW used to do, will encourage repeat business in my book. If you're only a collector or painter, then the rules are not your priority.

I appreciate the fact that some people have been waiting for this Thunderhawk for years, but once those people have the model, you have your short term boost to profits, but what about the long term?

Like I said, the Thunderhawk being used in the game hinders the game, because the rules are so badly in need of an overhaul.

There's nothing worse than spending weeks building and painting up a squad of 20 imperial guardsmen or whatever, lovingly creating them for the tabletop, putting them on the tabletop, and then, 30 seconds later, you're taking them off the table because the Thunderhawk or the Tau mega battle suit of doom, the Primarch etc etc looked at them...

That's a knee to the groin.

In that regard, the Thunderhawk is a double edged sword in my book.

The problem with the Thunderhawk is not its damage output, it is nowhere near the most OP unit in its points range, the problem is how you maneuver the thing on the average 6'*4' table that has the correct amount of scenery on it. Mine is rarely used as it is such a pain to game with, I would rather game with any of my other super heavies, even my Ordinatus or Reaver are easier to play with. The Thunderhawk takes up most of a FW gaming tile.

I'm glad GW are making the Thunderhawk, I just hope people who buy one get to enjoy lots of games with it.

An excellent point, which I had overlooked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address a number of points.

I'm repeating myself, but I have no doubt it will be a wonderful model for the painter and collector, but a balance has to be struck between those who game, those who collect, and those who buy only to paint.

To my mind, the gamers outweigh the other two groups, so they should be the main priority.

I think there's a large number of gamers who don't really care, are happy seeing absurd models on the table and/or like the idea of a game more than they actually care about the game itself.

Are they a majority or minority though? If it's the former, GW are laughing. The latter, then long term could be a problem again.

Given that Smaug was their #1 model in the year it was released... and that I doubt they were bought as gaming pieces (!) and yet GW somehow survived this.... I'm going to guess they'll survive the piles of money this thunderhawk will bring.

It's also a pretty safe bet that most people paying £125+ for one are going to have some idea of the size and understand it's really not much of a gaming piece

It'll make an awesome big bit of terrain to fight aroun. KT, smaller games, evac missions etc

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address a number of points.

I'm repeating myself, but I have no doubt it will be a wonderful model for the painter and collector, but a balance has to be struck between those who game, those who collect, and those who buy only to paint.

To my mind, the gamers outweigh the other two groups, so they should be the main priority.

I don't think you're right.

I own 30.000 points of Eldar.
I don't need them to game, and while I do game, it's not nearly as much as I collect.
In fact, most players I know have far more miniatures than they play with, either because they have multiple armies, or nice 10K+ collections of a single army.

In essence, pure gamers won't ever touch a game like 40K, because it just sucks compared to StarCraft II or really any video game.
Pure non-painters will rarely get into 40K, so that means most 40K owners are actually at least part hobbyists.

Overall, it's likely that 40K sales are driven by the collector aspect first, then the game aspect second, and the painting aspect third, as painters can spend enormous amounts of time on just a few pieces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I said, the Thunderhawk being used in the game hinders the game, because the rules are so badly in need of an overhaul.

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

Then the people I've seen playing it must be magicians or something.

 Peregrine wrote:
This. I don't have a Thunderhawk but I do have a Marauder and it's just not a practical model for 28mm games. It needs a huge base to be stable...

If the model is plastic it won't need as large of a base to be stable. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, if you give up the idea of using a plastic base and instead use a metal base (for weight) it doesn't really need to be all that huge.

 Alpharius wrote:
Agreed!

GW should be looking to put out a Mars Pattern (Mars Pattern Is Best Pattern!) Warhound in plastic way before even thinking about (and then rejecting the idea of) a Thunderhawk in plastic.

What some commenters may not realize is how fethed up a FW-cast Thunderhawk really is.

Actually, anything that's supposed to be rectangular and has any amount of warpage will be a nightmare to fix and assemble.
Luckily, most titans don't really have that problem, since they're not really rectangular.
Also the warhound is not iconic or really spaceMarineIsh

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address a number of points.

I'm repeating myself, but I have no doubt it will be a wonderful model for the painter and collector, but a balance has to be struck between those who game, those who collect, and those who buy only to paint.

To my mind, the gamers outweigh the other two groups, so they should be the main priority.

I think there's a large number of gamers who don't really care, are happy seeing absurd models on the table and/or like the idea of a game more than they actually care about the game itself.

Are they a majority or minority though? If it's the former, GW are laughing. The latter, then long term could be a problem again.

Who knows? If GW do a bit of market research they can probably find out better than us.

I reckon there's a good chance that serious gamers are a minority compared to gamers who just use the game as an excuse to set up their models on a table and/or people who rarely ever game at all.

Another point to consider is that if the Thunderhawk is released in plastic it will probably be lighter, easier to built, more resistant and easier to repair than it's resin counterpack. It wil probably also be easier to convert into something a bit different. Also it will probably be at least half the price than the resin one (i hope).

If I were still into the GW range of games, I'd be tempted to have a crack at this Thunderhawk for the painting and modelling challenge that it brings.

A model this size presents numerous obstacles to overcome before it even reaches the tabletop. And of course, with the high price tag, mistakes could be costly.

For constructing, numerous sub-assemblies would be needed. Care would be needed for undercoating it, and of course, painting it presents numerous options.

How do you hold it? Do you paint the inside? Do you use an airbrush or a large brush? How much paint will you need and so on?

For undercoating, helping hands are a great tool. Would recommend them to anybody. Super gluing parts to wire, then putting that wire in a cork, for ease of handling, is also something I'd recommend.

I'd go for an airbrush over a brush on this one, as it gives a smooth consistent finish. With brushing, you do half of one area in green, then by the time the other half is done in the same green, the previous area is dry and you get a patchy look in my experience. You get away with that on small models, but not larger models.

Would it have a special flight stand or would it sit on its own weight? If it comes with a flight stand, I'd be going for heavy duty epoxy resin any day of the week.

All in all, some thinking to be done with this model, but not impossible.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

hypnoticeris wrote:
Another point to consider is that if the Thunderhawk is released in plastic it will probably be lighter, easier to built, more resistant and easier to repair than it's resin counterpack. It wil probably also be easier to convert into something a bit different. Also it will probably be at least half the price than the resin one (i hope).

Plastic is easier to work with, but any large kit still presents challenges. Nozzle control on the amount of poly cement being used, is key in my book. As is rubbing alcohol for cleaning up the mess

There's several schools of thought on the pricing possibilities. All logic aside...

1st, GW can and will do what the heck they want too. So, either

A. They price it the same as the FW was ($542ish), since (gasp) FW will no longer make them!

B. Price it at 50% of FW (about $275ish) and tell us how amazing of a deal it is!

C. Or somewhere in the middle, say $350ish...

IMHO

Also the warhound is not iconic

You what Dave?

 krazynadechukr wrote:
There's several schools of thought on the pricing possibilities. All logic aside...

1st, GW can and will do what the heck they want too. So, either

A. They price it the same as the FW was ($542ish), since (gasp) FW will no longer make them!

B. Price it at 50% of FW (about $275ish) and tell us how amazing of a deal it is!

C. Or somewhere in the middle, say $350ish...

IMHO

Okay and none of those will sell in retail stores. GW will do what will actually sell products and they know once you to a certain price point you simply won't be able to sell enough models to recoup costs. It's not accurate to base your assumption off how much a model "costs" by using the FW prices. Recasters have shown that those prices are wildly inflated due to each of the big kits probably selling a very small amount.

Thunderhawk is a triple whammy of problems. It has pretty awful rules, it is too large to use in most games and it has a super expensive model only a few will even buy. A plastic kit solves the last issue but the other two remain.

A plastic thunderhawk would be an auto buy for me. The only reason I haven't brought a FW one is all the horror stories I've seen / heard about large FW kits.

If hasting is right and it's in the £125 - £135 mark I'd buy three. Sod it four, I'll loot one up for the orks as well.

Chikout wrote:
The GW of the Kirby era touted itself as a miniatures company but I have not heard that mantra repeated since Rountree took over. In fact there have been more rules for more games released in the last 2 years than the previous ten. That said I really don't think it will have much effect on the way 40k is played. Even if it sells for £125 I think GW will be very happy if they sell one to 10% of marine players and many of those will not want to play it in many games.
There is always a lot of talk about how the big kits and primarchs will ruin 40k but I think I only saw one primarch in use at Adepticon and that was the studio's model.
I also think that GW is stalling until the release of 8th edition. That is why we have not seen an updated codex for a while.
Having a thunder hawk as the last hurrah of 7th edition would be a pretty good way to see it off.

I think this is just GW building up for a more superheavy friendly edition of 40K. Primarchs are gonna be a lot more common if they continue to release them over time. At the same time, I don't think we'll see the TH released until 8th launches, otherwise no one will have the opportunity to use them in 7th tournaments.

Yeah, There's a great debate and good logic on number of sprues, weight, cost, etc...

" aka_mythos wrote:
Even as big as the Thunderhawk is it isn't so big as to cost $649 in plastic. Maybe its a Thunderhawk squadron boxset.. or some formation built around Thunderhawks.

This is my estimation based on a good number of years working with injection molding, designing and sourcing, and what I've come to expect and what I can infer looking at GW's large kits...

Take for instance the Baneblade, it uses 7 of the largest sprues to date... ~11"x17"... This gives GW's Baneblade kit molds a planar area of ~1100 in^2... but only about half that areas (550 in^2) is populated with parts the rest is used for gating and temperature regulation... The Thunderhawk is a box with wings, 17" wing span ~4.5 inches at the wides part of the wing... the hull is 19" long with a ~4.5" x 5" cross section at the largest portions... Given the wings thickness I'm counting it double... at this point we have a bounding surface area of ~650 in^2... even with all the weapons and facets, I don't see it adding more than 1/3 more surface area... at shy of 850 in^2 a Thunderhawk should fit on 11 sprues with a part density like the Baneblade kit. This assumes no significant interior structure or details and it assumes no major variants like the way the Shadowsword et al are part of the Baneblade kit.

In all likely hood given how much denser GW's been able to sprue their models in recent years they could probably pack the pieces more tightly than the Baneblade sprues, either cutting down the sprue count or adding more options.

Using a similar pricing scheme as the Baneblade (retail $140 for 7 sprues or $20/sprue) we'd be looking at between $200-220 for a kit this size. GW could always charge more, but this is a baseline based on what they've done."

NERD ALERT!

That was actually an interesting read, and I appreciate the insight.

It's nice to actually gain some information in a thread once in awhile.

Although I'm still going to give you a hard time about it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If I were still into the GW range of games, I'd be tempted to have a crack at this Thunderhawk for the painting and modelling challenge that it brings.

A model this size presents numerous obstacles to overcome before it even reaches the tabletop. And of course, with the high price tag, mistakes could be costly.

For constructing, numerous sub-assemblies would be needed. Care would be needed for undercoating it, and of course, painting it presents numerous options.

How do you hold it? Do you paint the inside? Do you use an airbrush or a large brush? How much paint will you need and so on?

For undercoating, helping hands are a great tool. Would recommend them to anybody. Super gluing parts to wire, then putting that wire in a cork, for ease of handling, is also something I'd recommend.

I'd go for an airbrush over a brush on this one, as it gives a smooth consistent finish. With brushing, you do half of one area in green, then by the time the other half is done in the same green, the previous area is dry and you get a patchy look in my experience. You get away with that on small models, but not larger models.

Would it have a special flight stand or would it sit on its own weight? If it comes with a flight stand, I'd be going for heavy duty epoxy resin any day of the week.

All in all, some thinking to be done with this model, but not impossible.

The Thunderhawk might be big and awkward for GW but it wouldn't be any bigger or more awkward than dozens of other plastic kits on the market from other manufacturers. I reckon it'd be a decent amount easier to put together than any of Airfix's 1/24 WW2 fighters range, and probably a lot easier than a large scale jet or multi engined bomber.

I wish that alongside the normal flyer rules they'd also give rules to use a landed Thunderhawk as a fortification. I think that way it would see much more gaming use.

 Crimson wrote:
I wish that alongside the normal flyer rules they'd also give rules to use a landed Thunderhawk as a fortification. I think that way it would see much more gaming use.

That's actually a very cool idea.

 JustaerinAtTheWall wrote:


I think this is just GW building up for a more superheavy friendly edition of 40K. Primarchs are gonna be a lot more common if they continue to release them over time. At the same time, I don't think we'll see the TH released until 8th launches, otherwise no one will have the opportunity to use them in 7th tournaments.

The ending of Rise of the Primarch pretty much states that the Imperium is sending forth armies on a scale not seen since the Great Crusade so I think 8th is definitely going to be about big armies, big kits etc Vulkan is a definite , Russ, my guess is 4 of them to match the 4 chaos ones, maybe 5 if Gulliman is the equivalent of the Emperor and represents a combined imperium - they will need a combined Chaos equivalent.

In terms of the back and forth about practicality - for me and my small group of friends the last few years has seen us go from having abandoned GW to now all in with little spend on non GW gaming - because GW is kicking out the models and product we all largely wanted since being in the hobby. Already planning how many Shadow War we will buy, and we'd be in for at least one Thunderhawk each if it happens.

I think what we will see is a base kit in plastic then Forgeworld does resin kits to adapt it, this the model for many 30k models now and would allow for the transporter and more legion/organisation specific kits. BAC and BoP both saw forgeworld sell out several times of associated legion specific upgrade kits and weapon kits so they know plastic kits hekp them sell resin and allows for easier variants to be made.

 Kirasu wrote:
Thunderhawk is a triple whammy of problems. It has pretty awful rules, it is too large to use in most games and it has a super expensive model only a few will even buy. A plastic kit solves the last issue but the other two remain.

It seems extremely likely that GW will release new rules for the TH when it comes out. They did so for every other FW kit they converted, didn't they?

 Perfect Organism wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Thunderhawk is a triple whammy of problems. It has pretty awful rules, it is too large to use in most games and it has a super expensive model only a few will even buy. A plastic kit solves the last issue but the other two remain.

It seems extremely likely that GW will release new rules for the TH when it comes out. They did so for every other FW kit they converted, didn't they?

Sort of? Given that FW has released rules after the fact for kits GW has done in plastic (Baneblade variants in IA1 and 30k, Stompas in IA8, Valkyrie variants in IA1, 3, and 4) I expect there'll be a split where you use GW Thunderhawk rules in 40k and FW Thunderhawk rules in 30k.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I said, the Thunderhawk being used in the game hinders the game, because the rules are so badly in need of an overhaul.

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

All those games of 40k ive seen online , played in stores/clubs and round my friends house must all be figments of my imagination....

The game is playable, its just not extremely well balanced and is fairly open to abuse. I guess it also depends on the people who you game with. # The game is not unplayable

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I said, the Thunderhawk being used in the game hinders the game, because the rules are so badly in need of an overhaul.

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

Objectively untrue. I once played a game with only two or three rules mishaps, and only half an hour of pregame negotiation.

My gaming group never seems to have any problems playing 40k...it's the very definition of a PLAYABLE game.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I said, the Thunderhawk being used in the game hinders the game, because the rules are so badly in need of an overhaul.

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

Odd. Every Friday evening me and 20 other people must step into an LGS in alternate Earth.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I said, the Thunderhawk being used in the game hinders the game, because the rules are so badly in need of an overhaul.

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

Odd. Every Friday evening me and 20 other people must step into an LGS in alternate Earth.

Do you also, like, whip yourselves, pull out your nails and such? I mean, all those things are also technically doable, just like playing a game of 40k, but similarly I just can't imagine why anyone would want to.

40k is a mess, but don't compare it to self-mutilation. That will end poorly.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Looky Likey wrote:
The problem with the Thunderhawk is not its damage output, it is nowhere near the most OP unit in its points range, the problem is how you maneuver the thing on the average 6'*4' table that has the correct amount of scenery on it. Mine is rarely used as it is such a pain to game with, I would rather game with any of my other super heavies, even my Ordinatus or Reaver are easier to play with. The Thunderhawk takes up most of a FW gaming tile.

I'm glad GW are making the Thunderhawk, I just hope people who buy one get to enjoy lots of games with it.

This. I don't have a Thunderhawk but I do have a Marauder and it's just not a practical model for 28mm games. It needs a huge base to be stable, a completely flat spot to put it down on to avoid tipping, and extreme caution any time you're doing anything even close to the model. Even with a lot of bending the rules on the actual model placement ("it's really over there") just getting the thing on the table is a massive pain. So I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed at wasting their money on a Thunderhawk kit once the initial hype fades.

I have always wanted one even if its just to be a shelf warmer. i'd say im more of a collector/painter than gamer 60/40. In the years I've pondered buying the FW resin one and issues regarding using it on the table I have seen pictures of gamers using multiple clear plastic rods and smaller bases instead of one big base, this let them place the model and its bases over/around terrain, as apposed to trying to balance a large base on top of anything. That's the way I would be interested in doing it if I ever end up with one.

The thunder hawk was something I use to want. But after playing the game for so long and owning some smaller super heavies.... I just don't care to see it in game or on the table. I need smaller games now a days.

I can only justify something that huge as terrain to tell the truth.

Wow. In the past everyone has been eager to see a plastic Thunderhawk. Now that hastings has supposedly given this rumor credence, people are suddenly lining up to drink the Hateraid.

Even if the model isn't suited for anything less than an apoc game, it's still a showpiece for those of us who love GW model kits. I expect it will still sell enormously well and even those bitchin and whining here will buy one or two early on.

I guess we'll file this under, "You can't please everybody."

Gods forbid the model company people make a model, eh?

I look forward to buying a couple Thunderhawks to paint and display on my shelf with the rest of my models that I don't play with. Games are for nerds.

Honestly, depends on the price and execution. If it looks like modern FW for a reasonable price, that'd probably be too tempting to say no to as a centerpiece (probably one for my collection, not army). If it's not an awesome price and/or doesn't look great, I don't need to break the bank on not-spectacular.

It'll be an awesome model. If anything else matters to you, you're in the wrong hobby.

Are their concerns, worries, or apprehensions? -Sure. Don't like playing with it, don't play with it.

Was this the original picture that started the rumor few months ago?

Yes it was.

 Breotan wrote:
Wow. In the past everyone has been eager to see a plastic Thunderhawk. Now that hastings has supposedly given this rumor credence, people are suddenly lining up to drink the Hateraid.

Yeah I don't get it. And it's not even "I would have no use for this!", rather "This shouldn't exist because it would be too difficult to use!!!"

Imagine if we took that attitude towards everything? Yikes...

I hope this is true, I want one to add to my Space Hulk layout

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Wow. In the past everyone has been eager to see a plastic Thunderhawk. Now that hastings has supposedly given this rumor credence, people are suddenly lining up to drink the Hateraid.

Yeah I don't get it. And it's not even "I would have no use for this!", rather "This shouldn't exist because it would be too difficult to use!!!"

Imagine if we took that attitude towards everything? Yikes...

It's not difficult to understand. A large number of players saw the embiggening of 40k with large, awkward and unrealistic models as part of its downfall and a plastic TH would be the largest and most awkward model released by GW proper so far. There's plenty of people who think flyers shouldn't exist in 40k at all, let alone superheavy ones.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah I don't get it. And it's not even "I would have no use for this!", rather "This shouldn't exist because it would be too difficult to use!!!"

Imagine if we took that attitude towards everything? Yikes...

Imagine, we might have a game that is less of an awkward mess of things that don't work at 28mm scale.

 Breotan wrote:
Wow. In the past everyone has been eager to see a plastic Thunderhawk. Now that hastings has supposedly given this rumor credence, people are suddenly lining up to drink the Hateraid.

I don't know where you're getting this idea from, I've been consistently saying that a plastic Thunderhawk kit is a complete waste and most people who buy one are going to end up disappointed once they try to use it in a real game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah I don't get it. And it's not even "I would have no use for this!", rather "This shouldn't exist because it would be too difficult to use!!!"

Imagine if we took that attitude towards everything? Yikes...

Imagine, we might have a game that is less of an awkward mess of things that don't work at 28mm scale.

 Breotan wrote:
Wow. In the past everyone has been eager to see a plastic Thunderhawk. Now that hastings has supposedly given this rumor credence, people are suddenly lining up to drink the Hateraid.

I don't know where you're getting this idea from, I've been consistently saying that a plastic Thunderhawk kit is a complete waste and most people who buy one are going to end up disappointed once they try to use it in a real game.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you're putting too much credit into how much you spoke against the T-hawks. I can't recall reading about someone against having them be plastic, but a lot of people asking for them to be so, same warhound titans.

Personally, I think it'd be cool. I probably wouldn't use it, but I would love to paint one.

 Peregrine wrote:

I don't know where you're getting this idea from, I've been consistently saying that a plastic Thunderhawk kit is a complete waste and most people who buy one are going to end up disappointed once they try to use it in a real game.

I think the error there is assuming everyone that wants a T-Hawk wants to use it in game, it sounds like a lot of people want one just for the collection aspect.

 Blitza da warboy wrote:
I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you're putting too much credit into how much you spoke against the T-hawks. I can't recall reading about someone against having them be plastic, but a lot of people asking for them to be so, same warhound titans.

Probably just because if you have a wishlist thread people who don't agree are less likely to step in and say something, but when you have a thread talking about how that item is now a real possibility, those people are more likely to say something.

People like to pretend other people are fickle, but more than likely it's just a different subset of people posting in different topics demonstrating that, shock horror, not everyone always agrees on everything.

It's kind of like spending all your time in a mosque and observing that "everyone" agrees allah exists then being surprised when you enter the rest of the world and suddenly some people are atheists. The atheists always existed, they just weren't hanging out in the mosque.

 Breotan wrote:
Wow. In the past everyone has been eager to see a plastic Thunderhawk. Now that hastings has supposedly given this rumor credence, people are suddenly lining up to drink the Hateraid.

Even if the model isn't suited for anything less than an apoc game, it's still a showpiece for those of us who love GW model kits. I expect it will still sell enormously well and even those bitchin and whining here will buy one or two early on.

I guess we'll file this under, "You can't please everybody."

Complainers must get rid of all miniatures they painted or converted for fun, cannot use it in the game get rid of it!

Plastic one would be a cool showpiece, diorama, conversion and so on.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Blitza da warboy wrote:
I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you're putting too much credit into how much you spoke against the T-hawks. I can't recall reading about someone against having them be plastic, but a lot of people asking for them to be so, same warhound titans.

Probably just because if you have a wishlist thread people who don't agree are less likely to step in and say something, but when you have a thread talking about how that item is now a real possibility, those people are more likely to say something.

People like to pretend other people are fickle, but more than likely it's just a different subset of people posting in different topics demonstrating that, shock horror, not everyone always agrees on everything.

It's kind of like spending all your time in a mosque and observing that "everyone" agrees allah exists then being surprised when you enter the rest of the world and suddenly some people are atheists. The atheists always existed, they just weren't hanging out in the mosque.

Ah, good point. good point

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
I think the error there is assuming everyone that wants a T-Hawk wants to use it in game, it sounds like a lot of people want one just for the collection aspect.

I want to turn it into terrain, where it's enormous bulk will be an asset.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
I think the error there is assuming everyone that wants a T-Hawk wants to use it in game, it sounds like a lot of people want one just for the collection aspect.

I think there are a lot of people who think they want this. Whether they'll still want it when it's time to pay hundreds of dollars for a display piece that will never be used in a game remains to be seen. And TBH, since resin kits have better detail and are better display pieces, how many of these supposed collectors don't already own a Thunderhawk?

Yeah, it's not like ForgeWorld ever sold a single Reaver or Warlord Titan. I mean those things would never be used on the table top.

Well, if I'm sure of one thing, its that I'm not gonna buy one of those beautys.

Basically because I can't afford one

 SickSix wrote:
Yeah, it's not like ForgeWorld ever sold a single Reaver or Warlord Titan. I mean those things would never be used on the table top.

Those are much, much easier to use in real games.

 Peregrine wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
I think the error there is assuming everyone that wants a T-Hawk wants to use it in game, it sounds like a lot of people want one just for the collection aspect.

I think there are a lot of people who think they want this. Whether they'll still want it when it's time to pay hundreds of dollars for a display piece that will never be used in a game remains to be seen. And TBH, since resin kits have better detail and are better display pieces, how many of these supposed collectors don't already own a Thunderhawk?

Being a collector doesn't mean you can buy something you want no matter the cost. Some people might have wanted one for display but not been able to afford one. Plus, the Thunderhawk is fairly old now and plastics have come a long way, I wouldn't be surprised if the details on a plastic one are at least very close.

I see the Thunderhawk in much the same way as i do my FOR and Aquila Strongpoint. They very rarely see battle as part of a list, but they make stonking good scenery for a battlefield.

I might just buy one purely for scenery use, or build a crashed scenery section with one, like a larger version of the crashed Aquila Lander scenery piece.

Dude... have you ever tried building a resin super heavy flyer?

Dealing with Finecast is child's play compared with dealing with a resin titan.

And dealing with a resin titan is child's play compared with building a resin SH flyer.

In the time that I've spend prepping my Eldar Vampire Hunter, I reckon I could've built 4 Revenant Titans in dynamic poses... and I'm not even finished with that flyer.

I had the dubious pleasure of building one of the pewter ones

God that was unpleasant.

morgoth wrote:
Dude... have you ever tried building a resin super heavy flyer?

Yes. It's not that hard.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Yeah, it's not like ForgeWorld ever sold a single Reaver or Warlord Titan. I mean those things would never be used on the table top.

Those are much, much easier to use in real games.

That depends on the specifics. For a start, plastic lends itself to a base that doesn't need to support as much weight and can therefore have a smaller footprint. There's also the interesting fortification idea to encourage more use. GW may even adjust the scale slightly with a more mainstream version.

Also I'd definitely question that statement for a warlord titan. They're basically the size of a small child (only better behaved).

 Peregrine wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Dude... have you ever tried building a resin super heavy flyer?

Yes. It's not that hard.

It's not that hard for someone who's already building any kind of super heavy in their sleep.
For regular people, who have little to no resin experience, building a ThunderHawk is beyond crazy, they're unlikely to be done in any reasonable amount of time, they won't know how to pin it properly and unwarping such large pieces properly without extended resin experience is just nearly impossible, meaning the overall assembly will suck balls - and that's before considering prepping, which they have likely never done.
Maybe I should've said "properly building", like no seams, re-sculpting the missing detail, handling all bubbles and surface texture, etc.

I've seen professional commission modelers say that it took them over 10 hours to prep and assemble an Eldar Vampire Hunter - there's literally no other model that even comes close to taking so much time, and I personally attributed that to poor cast quality and long supposedly flat pieces - maybe the ThunderHawks were better cast...

Hell I'm going to build 6 Lynxes and 2 Scorpion Mk2's soon and I'm fairly sure it will take less time overall than a single Eldar SH Flyer.

I think you're seriously understating the difficulty in building plastic kits well. Even with plastic kits you're going to be spending quite a bit of time removing mold lines, straightening warped parts, filling gaps, etc. And a plastic Thunderhawk is going to be an intimidating kit for a newbie for that reason, just like a resin Thunderhawk would be. The only real difference is that you probably don't have to pin the plastic kit, but that's a pretty minor advantage.

And really, how many newbies do you think are going to spend $2-300 on a plastic Thunderhawk when they're still learning how to build and paint much smaller kits?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xttz wrote:
For a start, plastic lends itself to a base that doesn't need to support as much weight and can therefore have a smaller footprint.

Maybe a bit smaller, but not by much. The geometry of the situation still requires a larger than normal flying base since superheavy flyers look really stupid unless you put them on 8-12" poles instead of the standard flyer base. That's a big model high off the table, there's no way around that being awkward.

Also I'd definitely question that statement for a warlord titan. They're basically the size of a small child (only better behaved).

The difference is that once you deploy the Warlord (in the nice convenient space you left for it in your deployment zone) you never have to move it. The issue with flyers is that they have awkward movement rules and (usually) fixed-arc weapons, so every turn you're struggling to find a place to put the model where it can actually do something.

If this had come out a few years back, I'd have been all over it.

Unfortunately, I've reached the point where I'm having to seriously purge my collections, and I just don't have the space - or money - for it anymore.

Such a shame, it would make an excellent display piece, I'm sure.

yeah,
I already have one!... oh wait it crashed.


I need a new one

Panic...

I'll be buying one.

I have a forgeworld one, also have an original forgeworld baneblade too. Never used either one on a tabletop. They are just cool models.

For the record, last Christmas I treated myself to a Tamiya F4U-4 Corsair in 1/32 scale, it was £100 or so, and while GW lacks the finesse of tamiya when it comes to kit designs, the thunderhawk is quite a bit bigger than that, so it would even be reasonable value if the £125 price proves accurate, that's about £100 from wayland or element games.

 Peregrine wrote:
I think you're seriously understating the difficulty in building plastic kits well. Even with plastic kits you're going to be spending quite a bit of time removing mold lines, straightening warped parts, filling gaps, etc. And a plastic Thunderhawk is going to be an intimidating kit for a newbie for that reason, just like a resin Thunderhawk would be.

Have you built any of the recent Tamiya kits? They go together like a bloody dream. No straightening warped parts, minimal mould line removal, the pieces just fit together so well that gap filling is very minor and sometimes non existent. The size of GW's panel lines, they could hide the fit points in the panel lines and you'd have nothing at all to fill.

I doubt GW will be able to put out a kit as good as Tamiya's, probably not, but even if it's half as good I'd still prefer a plastic one over a resin one.

Hell, even if it's Airfix quality I'd still rather a plastic one over a resin one.

Resin can be more detailed than plastic, but that's not a big deal on a model like a Thunderhawk. The common thing with some scale aircraft is to make the aircraft plastic but have resin cockpit/engine details, as those are the only areas where the extra detail is typically needed.

Oh feth, not every day I hear someone prefer Airfix over resin. Even their recent kits are utter gak to put together.

But then again, I am spoiled by the likes of Tamiya's and Games Workshop in general.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Have you built any of the recent Tamiya kits?

Nope, but I should clarify that I'm talking about GW's plastic kits. Other manufacturers may do better, but we can expect GW's new Thunderhawk kit to follow the trend of their other plastic kits.

I'll get one, no hesitation.

I don't play the game, and haven't since 3rd (4th?) edition, but would love to have one to paint.

I've been watching eBay for the old metal model, but if plastic is soon to be released...

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Have you built any of the recent Tamiya kits?

Nope, but I should clarify that I'm talking about GW's plastic kits. Other manufacturers may do better, but we can expect GW's new Thunderhawk kit to follow the trend of their other plastic kits.

What other plastic GW kits are you talking about? I haven't built any of their recent kits so mostly I'm hoping they've improved since days gone by


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrookM wrote:
Oh feth, not every day I hear someone prefer Airfix over resin. Even their recent kits are utter gak to put together.

Airfix is a real mixed bag, some are great some are terrible. Airfix have a real problem with warpage on some of their kits that other companies seem to avoid.

Still rather have them over resin though Especially for something that's basically a giant box.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Have you built any of the recent Tamiya kits?

Nope, but I should clarify that I'm talking about GW's plastic kits. Other manufacturers may do better, but we can expect GW's new Thunderhawk kit to follow the trend of their other plastic kits.

So highly detailed, a decent price.
10% of people complaining that it's not for there army, 10% of people complaining about how it looks, 20% of people just complaining for the hell of it and the rest of us will either buy it or keep quiet because nobody wants to read through pages and pages of the same people up on their soapboxes.

A sturdy kit that goes together without too much hassle or trouble. They've come a long way since.

 Rolsheen wrote:
nobody wants to read through pages and pages of the same people up on their soapboxes.

And yet apparently that doesn't apply to people spending page after page on their soapbox about how bad it is to criticize GW, and how a plastic Thunderhawk is the greatest thing ever.

Has anyone ever had GW plastic warped, if so on which kits?

morgoth wrote:
Has anyone ever had GW plastic warped, if so on which kits?

I had an awful Ophidian Archway. It was twisted and didn't fit in the slightest. I didn't buy a second to find out if it was a one off.
However. I have a feeling this was one of those models made in China and not at GW.

My only complaint with the latest GW kits is the poor location of mould lines. There was a time when I thought GW were getting very clever with hiding mould lines, for example those snap fit chaos cultists needed barely any work. Some of the newest models take an age to clean up and although the detail is more intricate, the mould line placement is much less thought out.

Anyway, I can imagine the largest flat panels of the Thunderhawk to be slightly warped, but with rubber bands and good plastic glue will fit together as well as the large pieces of the old warhammer fortress - was that GW or China made?

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Has anyone ever had GW plastic warped, if so on which kits?

I had an awful Ophidian Archway. It was twisted and didn't fit in the slightest. I didn't buy a second to find out if it was a one off.
However. I have a feeling this was one of those models made in China and not at GW.

From the screens I've seen, that's not GW plastic or even a regular GW sprue.

Yesterday, I posted about the challenges of building a kit like this.

Today, I'm giving some thought to painting the Thunderhawk.

Apart from the practical problems of how to hold the damn thing, and having to paint it in sub assemblies as it were, getting the colour scheme right will also be a challenge.

In my experience, painting big kits in say, the Ultramarine colours, can often leave you with a wall of colour, or in this case, a blue brick

So I'm hoping that there will be plenty of secondary details such as engines for example, that can be painted in a different colour, in order to break up the chapter colour that will dominate the model.

Hopefully, there will be space for chevrons, battle markings, heraldry etc etc

Weathering and other battle damage does help, but you don't want to be OTT with that. A balance is needed.

The thunderhawk should have a rule like drop chute insertion, to represent it flying low and the marines diving out.

You break up the single colour by using weathering.

Preshading, that is, painting a dark colour along the panel gaps and so on before laying down the main colour leaves the edges of panels looking darker.

Post shading uses a lighter mix of the main colour to further lighten the centers of panels, so there is a lot of tonal variations.

Do an image search for tamiya f-16 to see how what is in reality a block of grey can look interesting and varied using this.

NoggintheNog wrote:
You break up the single colour by using weathering.

Preshading, that is, painting a dark colour along the panel gaps and so on before laying down the main colour leaves the edges of panels looking darker.

Post shading uses a lighter mix of the main colour to further lighten the centers of panels, so there is a lot of tonal variations.

Do an image search for tamiya f-16 to see how what is in reality a block of grey can look interesting and varied using this.

Wise words

morgoth wrote:
Has anyone ever had GW plastic warped, if so on which kits?

Every Rhino or Land Raider I've ever put together has been warped. Granted, the more recent kits have been better.

morgoth wrote:
Has anyone ever had GW plastic warped, if so on which kits?

Not in a very long time.

Perry is dramatically overstating the difficulty of plastic kits, especially GW ones as their plastic technology has advanced.

I heard horror stories about the Plasma Cannon emplacement.

Then I got one.

No issues with it.

Always possible I got lucky (and I am noted for my jamminess). Even then, quick warming from a hair dryer sorts many ills.

 NivlacSupreme wrote:
The thunderhawk should have a rule like drop chute insertion, to represent it flying low and the marines diving out.

you wouldn't really need a big model to represent a rule like that.

Vorian wrote:
Given that Smaug was their #1 model in the year it was released... and that I doubt they were bought as gaming pieces (!) and yet GW somehow survived this.... I'm going to guess they'll survive the piles of money this thunderhawk will bring.

It's also a pretty safe bet that most people paying £125+ for one are going to have some idea of the size and understand it's really not much of a gaming piece

Smaug would have been bought almost exclusively by collectors/painters. For gaming i did not like Smaug's pose or base outside using it for RPGs. To my knowledge we never had clear feedback from GW if it was the best selling model by volume or by profit or something else.

While a good portion of people will buy a plastic Thunderhawk to collect/paint, a significant number of buyers will want to game with it at some point. Even if the model is significantly lighter and you use a CD sized heavy lead base due to the footprint of the actual model it is going to take up a large portion of a tile and be a hazard to be knocked. The longer the flight stand stem the greater the leverage, the lower the stem the more it impedes scenery/movement for other models. I regularly game with smaller flyers such as Storm Eagles or Lightning and those are prone to knocks when the action becomes close quarters, something that never happens to my super heavy tanks.

I'm certainly not saying that GW shouldn't make it, nor am I saying don't buy one, just carefully consider if you'll get more use out of something else as I haven't had much use out of my Resin Thunderhawk but I do get a lot of use out of my other super heavies.

Ok, I've covered assembly and painting, but I suppose the final question is this:

What's the best way to transport this damn thing around without breaking it?

Is there a big enough carry case out there, or will people have to build their own?

For people on a budget, factoring in the carry case question is something to consider...

Convert it to make it an RC vehicle and fly it to battles.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ok, I've covered assembly and painting, but I suppose the final question is this:

What's the best way to transport this damn thing around without breaking it?

Is there a big enough carry case out there, or will people have to build their own?

For people on a budget, factoring in the carry case question is something to consider...

Mount it as a hood ornament on the front of your car?

I'm pretty sure KR has a case for the Thunderhawk.

https://www.krmulticase.com/product/trays/SM18?m=GW&s=WHLM&a=SMP

Battlefoam used to, but it seems to be discontinued now. They'll probably bring it back if/when there's a lot of new Thunderhawk owners out there to sell to.

morgoth wrote:
Has anyone ever had GW plastic warped, if so on which kits?

Every muther hugging single Chimera purchased before about 2012? Maybe later. Buggers didn't let the sprew cool in the mold would be my guess.

Worse than airfix wings from the 70's and eighties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I bet those grave Falcons at the bottom of the Atlantic are fine kits though

I'm excited to see what Hastings meant by "a few options." Will we see a totally new variant? Maybe something akin to Jervis's Thunderhawk Annihilator from Epic Armageddon? Maybe just sponson upgrades? I know I'm excited, but not about the price in NZ dollars though!

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Convert it to make it an RC vehicle and fly it to battles.

Building and flying radio controlled aircraft is a hobby of mine, so I have the equipment to do that if I chose


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Erren wrote:
Battlefoam used to, but it seems to be discontinued now. They'll probably bring it back if/when there's a lot of new Thunderhawk owners out there to sell to.

Shameless profiteering.

On that subject, I wonder if they still have high GW prices in Australia?

With the British pound being low, perhaps I could cash in by flogging the Aussies a few thunderhawks?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NivlacSupreme wrote:
The thunderhawk should have a rule like drop chute insertion, to represent it flying low and the marines diving out.

Don't Assault marines have that rule already? I.e. their jetpacks let them jump out of a thunderhawk at low altitudes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jadenim wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ok, I've covered assembly and painting, but I suppose the final question is this:

What's the best way to transport this damn thing around without breaking it?

Is there a big enough carry case out there, or will people have to build their own?

For people on a budget, factoring in the carry case question is something to consider...

Mount it as a hood ornament on the front of your car?

I don't want to have to explain that to the police if I get pulled over

 Peregrine wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Yeah, it's not like ForgeWorld ever sold a single Reaver or Warlord Titan. I mean those things would never be used on the table top.

Those are much, much easier to use in real games.

Are they big? Are they heavy? Are they hard to transport? Do they see more time on display than on the table? Are they really expensive?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

I think a plastic Thunderhawk will sell just fine and see more use than either big titan. Oh and it won't weigh as much or be as hard to transport (more durable, and easier to magnetize into sub assemblies).

Hopefully the "new" options mean it's getting Fire Raptor type weapons such as the quad heavy bolter or autocannons. Thunderhawk is just entirely underpowered for a vehicle of its point cost.

They also need to redo the rules for super heavy flyers that have transport capacity to make them playable. However, I don't see them even understanding the problem.

 Kirasu wrote:
Hopefully the "new" options mean it's getting Fire Raptor type weapons such as the quad heavy bolter or autocannons. Thunderhawk is just entirely underpowered for a vehicle of its point cost.

In case you haven't noticed, that's like almost everything from ForgeWorld.

That said, a flying 2-shot D-weapon costing the same price as a walking 4-shot D-weapon would be about right.
At least your super heavy flyer isn't made of cardboard armor.

All that is irrelevant though, since now it's going to be a 40K model, it'll be plenty powerful for its price.

Oh I'm aware of the power level of FW models since I own every SM super heavy.

 Kirasu wrote:
Hopefully the "new" options mean it's getting Fire Raptor type weapons such as the quad heavy bolter or autocannons. Thunderhawk is just entirely underpowered for a vehicle of its point cost.

They also need to redo the rules for super heavy flyers that have transport capacity to make them playable. However, I don't see them even understanding the problem.

You mean apart from the giant turbolaser (or battlecannon), missiles and heavy bolters on it? Yes. Very under powered.

It's 900 points. Far too expensive for what it does. Look past the superficial traits. It enters the board at a random time, has the standard flyer fire arc pains, and is equipped with one large fixed forward D blast (for 30 points, otherwise its gun is just S8 AP3 Massive). Its bombs are S6 AP4, and its other weapons are all heavy bolters and lascannons. Really, not powerful at all.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Hopefully the "new" options mean it's getting Fire Raptor type weapons such as the quad heavy bolter or autocannons. Thunderhawk is just entirely underpowered for a vehicle of its point cost.

They also need to redo the rules for super heavy flyers that have transport capacity to make them playable. However, I don't see them even understanding the problem.

You mean apart from the giant turbolaser (or battlecannon), missiles and heavy bolters on it? Yes. Very under powered.

You really think that a battlecannon or heavy bolters make something powerful? I got a bunch of leman russ battle tanks to sell you then. Yes, it has terrible weaponry for a vehicle for its point cost.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Hopefully the "new" options mean it's getting Fire Raptor type weapons such as the quad heavy bolter or autocannons. Thunderhawk is just entirely underpowered for a vehicle of its point cost.

They also need to redo the rules for super heavy flyers that have transport capacity to make them playable. However, I don't see them even understanding the problem.

You mean apart from the giant turbolaser (or battlecannon), missiles and heavy bolters on it? Yes. Very under powered.

...at it's points cost. For the same points, you can field 3 Wraithknights or 4 Riptides (plus some change).

Which does more damage? Which is underpowered for the same point costs?

Well... It is still a flyer, so it is extremely hard to kill. What does it have now? 12 hull points? Comparing anything to a wraitknight makes that thing look over costed.

 kronk wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Hopefully the "new" options mean it's getting Fire Raptor type weapons such as the quad heavy bolter or autocannons. Thunderhawk is just entirely underpowered for a vehicle of its point cost.

They also need to redo the rules for super heavy flyers that have transport capacity to make them playable. However, I don't see them even understanding the problem.

You mean apart from the giant turbolaser (or battlecannon), missiles and heavy bolters on it? Yes. Very under powered.

...at it's points cost. For the same points, you can field 3 Wraithknights or 4 Riptides (plus some change).

Which does more damage? Which is underpowered for the same point costs?

If we are using those as baselines we are going to end up with S: D bolters.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well... It is still a flyer, so it is extremely hard to kill. What does it have now? 12 hull points? Comparing anything to a wraitknight makes that thing look over costed.

But it's AV12? Not the hardest to damage, and it has to spend a time in hover mode to allow for the use of the large transport capacity that's factored into its cost, and if it jinks that means you're forfeiting the majority of its firepower for a turn at least, and are still vulnerable to all sorts of ignore cover shenanigans. Or you run it empty, making it relatively even more overcosted and a deeply underwhelming gunship for its points cost.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited this is happening, if it comes in at Hastings' suggested price point at least, and I don't think taking it down in-game is nothing, but let's not pretend it's anything more than barely average as a gaming piece for its points.

Even not considering Eldar or Riptides, the Thunderhawk is garbage. Still a legacy piece though so I can see people getting one to paint and stuff.

 Kirasu wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Hopefully the "new" options mean it's getting Fire Raptor type weapons such as the quad heavy bolter or autocannons. Thunderhawk is just entirely underpowered for a vehicle of its point cost.

They also need to redo the rules for super heavy flyers that have transport capacity to make them playable. However, I don't see them even understanding the problem.

You mean apart from the giant turbolaser (or battlecannon), missiles and heavy bolters on it? Yes. Very under powered.

You really think that a battlecannon or heavy bolters make something powerful? I got a bunch of leman russ battle tanks to sell you then. Yes, it has terrible weaponry for a vehicle for its point cost.

On top of that, it has a pretty great transport capacity (I forgot the lascannons.. ooops sorry folks!)

Not too shabby at the end of the day. Christ. Don't need to slap grav cannons everywhere to make something great ya know. Heavy bolters can kill most infantry and light vehicles without a problem.

It can't jink, due to being a superheavy, IIRC.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


If we are using those as baselines we are going to end up with S: D bolters.

Heavy bolters should have rending, but we're way off topic!

 kronk wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


If we are using those as baselines we are going to end up with S: D bolters.

Heavy bolters should have rending, but we're way off topic!

And fleshbane. Let's be honest. If you're getting shot with really large mass reactive rounds, then you will come apart like tissue paper.

 kronk wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Hopefully the "new" options mean it's getting Fire Raptor type weapons such as the quad heavy bolter or autocannons. Thunderhawk is just entirely underpowered for a vehicle of its point cost.

They also need to redo the rules for super heavy flyers that have transport capacity to make them playable. However, I don't see them even understanding the problem.

You mean apart from the giant turbolaser (or battlecannon), missiles and heavy bolters on it? Yes. Very under powered.

...at it's points cost. For the same points, you can field 3 Wraithknights or 4 Riptides (plus some change).

Which does more damage? Which is underpowered for the same point costs?

people need to stop comparing everything and anything to the wraithknight it's entirely undercosted by at least 100 pots even compared to most other usable equivilants superheaby or gargantuans. The thunderhawk is overcosted and should cost about the price of two wraithknights before weapon upgrade Options are added to the thunderhawk. If it gets redone especially with new weapon options I expect like every fw to gw transfer before it's going to get severally undercosted at first. Oh how I miss my IG vendetta spam army!!!

gungo wrote:
people need to stop comparing everything and anything to the wraithknight it's entirely undercosted by at least 100 pots even compared to most other usable equivilants superheaby or gargantuans.

Until it gets fixed, sorry but no. It's an existing model/unit that is heavily used in the meta that we have to play against, so it's fair game.

I agree that it should get hit with a 100 pt nerf, though.

200 would be better, just to be sure.