No more FW Thunderhawks ? page 15 new resin model inbound

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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

**SickSix**

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).

**Kirasu**

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.

**morgoth**

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.

**Kirasu**

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

**angelofvengeance**

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.

**Verviedi**

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.

**Kirasu**

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.

**kronk**

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?

**cuda1179**

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.

**ZebioLizard2**

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.

**Azreal13**

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.

**Slayer-Fan123**

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.

**angelofvengeance**

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.

**Verviedi**

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

**kronk**

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!

**angelofvengeance**

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.

**gungo**

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!!!

**kronk**

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.

**BrookM**

200 would be better, just to be sure.

**Azreal13**

From orbit.

**Kirasu**

angelofvengeance wrote:
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.

Which is useless since it's too big to actually land and it doesn't have the Storm raven rules for disembarking in the air. I realize people love the Thunderhawk but I've owned one since like 2008 and played it in dozens of games. It's basically total garbage and you only use it because you own it..

You're right, good stuff doesnt need grav weapons but it DOES Need to be able to accomplish its battlefield purpose.

When it comes mass produced then its rules will actually matter, and currently it really only outclasses the even more terrible Thunderhawk Transporter (which seriously has 0 purpose given it can carry less models than a normal thunderhawk without assault ramps!). It doesnt matter how much you love a model, I'm talking about GW selling more of them and if it had playable rules it would sell (which is in their best interest).

**changemod**

Kirasu wrote:
angelofvengeance wrote:
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.

Which is useless since it's too big to actually land and it doesn't have the Storm raven rules for disembarking in the air. I realize people love the Thunderhawk but I've owned one since like 2008 and played it in dozens of games. It's basically total garbage and you only use it because you own it..

You're right, good stuff doesnt need grav weapons but it DOES Need to be able to accomplish its battlefield purpose.

When it comes mass produced then its rules will actually matter, and currently it really only outclasses the even more terrible Thunderhawk Transporter (which seriously has 0 purpose given it can carry less models than a normal thunderhawk without assault ramps!). It doesnt matter how much you love a model, I'm talking about GW selling more of them and if it had playable rules it would sell (which is in their best interest).

You realise you don't need to take your model off it's flight stand to change it to hover mode, right?

**AndrewGPaul**

The Thunderhawk fits (just) on the official landing pad kit.

**Ragnar69**

As I expect that rules and points for most models will change soon with 8th edition I don't really care about it's current rules.

If they wouldn't release it in plastic I would have converted one from 2 Stormravens and a vindicator like that guy did on facebook.

But as I haven't even my Knight thus far in a game I probably wouldn't use a Thunderhawk either. Doesn't stop me from wanting one though

**Kijamon**

It's got rear armour 10 by default in 30k (and I believe 40k), end of discussion. What other super heavies can be boltered to death?

That's a terrible state!

Wonder if it'll get it's launch or preview at Warhammer Fest

**krazynadechukr**

Kirasu wrote:
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.

Like I said, "All logic aside."

However, in a similar thread months ago, there was a poster ( dakka user aka_mythos ) who is in the industry who calculated costs of making each kit (down to the amount of plastic/sprues/boxes/etc!) and said they'd need to sell it at a minimum of $220 & a minimum of 10,000 units to break even from production costs. It'll be in the $200 range for sure (that's broad though, 199.99-299.99) & most likely either 10-20,000 initially made & then might just go to "made to order." IMHO

**Kirasu**

Yeah I sorta ignored that since why have any discussion if you say "all logic aside" as it provides 0 useful input.

All logic aside but GW could instead make all their models out of jello. Sure it doesnt make any fiscal sense but all logic aside :p

**JustaerinAtTheWall**

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. 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.

Something t-hawk sized is just gonna fly in one turn, do a thing, and fly off the next.I

**H.B.M.C.**

Yeah I don't know why you guys are worried about the rules. Assuming this thing even gets 7th Ed rules they're not going to be the same as FW's ones.