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.

I have no doubt whatsoever that there has been a computer model of the Thunderhawk ready to go for plastic tooling for years now.
There are just too many reasons to not actually make it all this time.

And I don't see all of those reasons going away anytime soon. It's too big of a model. The only way I can see GW doing it that could somehow be even close to $250 would be to take the same route they did with the Aquila Strongpoint and make the core of the model a few giant, solid pieces of plastic (the body and wings) with several sprues of parts to tack onto them. It would be like the equivalent of the Aquila Strongpoint kit plus a Baneblade kit in parts and sprues.

GW could still surprise us all and actually do it, and it would be a very pleasant surprise to me (I'd buy at least one, possibly two). But it's not a surprise I'm going to hold my breath waiting for.

krazynadechukr wrote:

 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.

I like your reasoning, however, consider this -

Smaug, 42 piece miniature. Weighing 2.4kgs, the height of the miniature from the bottom of the base to the tip of Smaug’s™ wing is 8.4 inches (or 21.4 cm). The base is 9.2 inches (or 23.1 cm) long and 5.4 inches (or 13.3 cm) wide. $490.

Anyhoo, I still doubt that a CAD image, a background image at that, is anything to even potentially hope and reach for to back up a rumor of a new kit.

Smaug is a resin kit.

 Lockark wrote:

krazynadechukr wrote:

 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.

I like your reasoning, however, consider this -

Smaug, 42 piece miniature. Weighing 2.4kgs, the height of the miniature from the bottom of the base to the tip of Smaug’s™ wing is 8.4 inches (or 21.4 cm). The base is 9.2 inches (or 23.1 cm) long and 5.4 inches (or 13.3 cm) wide. $490.

Anyhoo, I still doubt that a CAD image, a background image at that, is anything to even potentially hope and reach for to back up a rumor of a new kit.

Smaug is a resin kit.

Fantastic! GW will never go below $550 (FW price) if they ever make a plastic &/or FW makes a new resin TH. Period. The stormbird is a friggin $940! Just saying. (This thread should be locked by now)

 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.

Just one point, wouldn't we assume that the interior is detailed and possibly two separate pieces as well? Don't doubt your numbers, but they would probably detail the hell out of the interior as well.

Also, don't think a baneblade released now would retail for $140, probably closer to $200 these days.

*edit* don't doubt your logic just thinking you may need to increase your surface area estimates.

 BrookM wrote:
Truly a genius at work! Ah yes, let's make a several thousand Pound plastic kit limited, so they'll never recoup the investment made.

It's like they don't want to make money...

 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.

Imperial Knight Gallant

3 sprues

$157

Smaug was resin and compared to FW Harridans and Thunderhawks was a pretty decent deal on the price. With a manufacturing meathod like injection molding surface area is good enough for a good estimate of cost however with resin casting its volume that affords a comparably worth while estimate.

 aka_mythos wrote:
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.

Whilst your reasoning is sound, you've forgotten the "GW" of it all.

They'll price it at some stupid price, and us Aussies will have to pay fething double.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Smaug was resin and compared to FW Harridans and Thunderhawks was a pretty decent deal on the price. With a manufacturing meathod like injection molding surface area is good enough for a good estimate of cost however with resin casting its volume that affords a comparably worth while estimate.

Imperial Knight Gallant

3 sprues

$157

krazynadechukr wrote:


Imperial Knight Gallant

3 sprues

$157

Minor details, the Imperial Knight kit is technically 5x 8-1/2"x11" sprues and a base.

Imperial Knights Renegade: 9x Knight Sprues, 2x bases, 3x terrain sprues, and the game's contents for $200.

Simply put GW charges a higher premium on Knights than most of there other kits. Consider the Deathwatch Land Raider kit which has roughly the same amount of sprue in the kit as the Knight kit for half the price. Like I said in my estimate, that baseline is as the price relative to the Baneblade. That GW can always charge more, but that regardless of what they charge by that comparison it is a $200-$220 kit. GW can always charge more as that is their prerogative, but it doesn't alter the reality that they could sell it for that $200-$220 and still be as profitable per kit as the Baneblade.

Sometimes GW is kind and sometimes they are not.

 aka_mythos wrote:

krazynadechukr wrote:


Imperial Knight Gallant

3 sprues

$157

Minor details, the Imperial Knight kit is technically 5x 8-1/2"x11" sprues and a base.

Imperial Knights Renegade: 9x Knight Sprues, 2x bases, 3x terrain sprues, and the game's contents for $200.

Simply put GW charges a higher premium on Knights than most of there other kits. Consider the Deathwatch Land Raider kit which has roughly the same amount of sprue in the kit as the Knight kit for half the price. Like I said in my estimate, that baseline is as the price relative to the Baneblade. That GW can always charge more, but that regardless of what they charge by that comparison it is a $200-$220 kit. GW can always charge more as that is their prerogative, but it doesn't alter the reality that they could sell it for that $200-$220 and still be as profitable per kit as the Baneblade.

Sometimes GW is kind and sometimes they are not.

That's my point. anyone's mathematical calculation is irrelevant when it comes to GWs pricing logic. They come out with the most sought after model they'll go high.

There is what it "can" cost, which is anything, and there is what it "should" cost... GW's rationale is not always rational, so we can talk about the infinite possibilities of their irrationality or we can talk through it rationally and walk away with a clear sense of how unreasonable GW actually is if and when they release a plastic Thunderhawk.

If they do a plastic kit...$219.95.

 Verviedi wrote:
It's because modern GW only makes art of models. They view art as a marketing tool. As my GW manager says, loosely paraphrased.

When a customer looks at the art, and they like it, we can show them the models and tell them "look, you can make that exact guy in the art!" Customers get disappointed and tend to complain if they see something awesome in the art, and they can't replicate it as a model.

What a load of rubbish.

With that attitude, we'd never have gotten many of the amazing 2nd ed codex covers, at least half of all the incredible pieces by artists like Wayne England and Adrian Smith would have never seen the light of day, and classic productions like the Mordheim rulebook with its mental margin art would never have happened.

It's sentiments like that which make me hesitant to fully get behind GW again despite all the little positive moves they've been making recently, because they illustrate that the underlying attitudes at the company probably haven't actually moved on all that much from those that originally saw them focus on churn & burn rather than customer retention.

 silent25 wrote:

 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.

Just one point, wouldn't we assume that the interior is detailed and possibly two separate pieces as well? Don't doubt your numbers, but they would probably detail the hell out of the interior as well.

Also, don't think a baneblade released now would retail for $140, probably closer to $200 these days.

*edit* don't doubt your logic just thinking you may need to increase your surface area estimates.

Depending on the design, and how the parts are cut, there is enough bilateral symetry that they could do 1-2 duplicate sprues. I can think of several ways to make both wings and side engines work using the same parts duplicated twice, the attack wings are ridiculously easy to design to work for either side, parts of the main hull could also be cut in a way that they use duplicate parts.

 Yodhrin wrote:
What a load of rubbish.

It's not though, or at least it isn't now.

It's a more recent trend. GW artwork is starting to only be of the miniatures. It was really obvious with the latest Tzeentch release.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's not though, or at least it isn't now.

It's a more recent trend. GW artwork is starting to only be of the miniatures. It was really obvious with the latest Tzeentch release.

I think the point there is that GW's attitude is a load of rubbish, not that the comment that GW only uses model photographs was rubbish. And it's obviously true, the fluff would be a lot less interesting if you take away all the art that has been produced over the years and replace it with nothing more than catalog pictures borrowed from their online store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

krazynadechukr wrote:
They come out with the most sought after model they'll go high.

I think you're overstating the desire for the plastic Thunderhawk a bit. Yeah, a lot of people say they like the idea, but how many people are going to spend hundreds of dollars on a model that is too big to use in a normal game? Baneblade-size models are bad enough as it is, trying to use a Thunderhawk model in a game is a nightmare. I love my Marauder, but it is not in any way a practical gaming piece. So the primary market for a plastic Thunderhawk is the dedicated collectors who will buy expensive models just to admire them on their display shelf, but how many of those people haven't already bought the resin Thunderhawk? Finding enough buyers for the new kit is going to be hard enough at a semi-reasonable price, if GW makes it really expensive because "OMG PLASTIC THUNDERHAWK SPACE MARINES ARE THE BESTEST" most of them are just going to collect dust on the shelf.

Lot of these arguments are similar to the "GW will never do plastic heresy models" arguments of a couple of years ago.

I'm still not convinced this is a thing, for reasons I've already said, but if it was then it would sell. Bigger and fewer games is a common thing now, Forgeworld could make tons of add ons, it's as energy piece as well, plus a lot of people are not so much put off by the price of the FW thunder hawk but by the thought of assembling it.

Bear in mind the model originally began years ago as a metal limited edition in a wooden case that cost more than the average PC and basically required massive skills to even get together , and had no rules either. And sold out.

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
plus a lot of people are not so much put off by the price of the FW thunder hawk but by the thought of assembling it.

This. I have a Warlord, Reaver, and 2 Warhounds. I know how old the Thunderhawk design is, and have no intention of building one myself. If they make a new one, I will buy that one. If it is a new FW resin, I'll save up and get it. If it is GW plastic, I will likely get 2 instead- one for my 40K chapter, and one for 30K ultramarines.

 Peregrine wrote:


I think you're overstating the desire for the plastic Thunderhawk a bit. Yeah, a lot of people say they like the idea, but how many people are going to spend hundreds of dollars on a model that is too big to use in a normal game? .

Sorry, Peregrine, but I have to disagree here - I think a lot of customers would shell out for what is, after all, an icon of GW's best-selling range of sci-fi miniatures.

I mean, impracticality isn't the barrier to sales that it might have been once. Look at the sales for the Warlord Titan...440 at least, and probably a lot more by now...

I suppose time will tell, but I just hope GW does come to the party one day.

I've always said that I'd buy two, one to build and use, the other to build and put in a big plastic bag (thanks Kyoto!) and throw off my friend's third story balcony a few times.

Why? To break it up naturally to make crashed Thunderhawk terrain set!

I just hope that it comes with a good flying stand or the like.

 BrookM wrote:
I just hope that it comes with a good flying stand or the like.

I just hope that it comes at all!!!

 Padre wrote:
I mean, impracticality isn't the barrier to sales that it might have been once. Look at the sales for the Warlord Titan...440 at least, and probably a lot more by now...

Two things on this:

1) The Warlord is considerably more practical than the Thunderhawk. Yeah, it's big, but all you have to do is put it in the corner and shoot stuff. But superheavy flyers are just terrible from a practicality point of view. I own a Marauder and I'd barely consider it a viable gaming model. Transporting it to a game requires its own special box which is larger than the cases some people use for their entire armies. It requires its own huge (and heavy) base to have any kind of stability, and it has to be perfectly flat on the table or it's going to fall over and break. Because of this it's virtually impossible to move it around the table without resorting to "just pretend it's over there", but because it's a flyer you have to move it every turn. And the Thunderhawk is (IIRC) somewhat larger than the Marauder, so all these problems only get worse. GW's best hope is that most people don't understand what they're getting into until they've bought the Thunderhawk kit and it's too late to back out.

2) The Warlord never had a model. If you wanted one you had to build it yourself, and virtually all of the "scratchbuilds" were trash. When an official model finally arrived it got the benefit of the full built-up demand from people with lots of money to spend and a desperate need for a Warlord titan. The Thunderhawk, on the other hand, doesn't have that advantage. There's been a model available for years for anyone who wants to buy one, and a lot of people have bought them. That initial built-up demand was satisfied a long time ago and all that's left is a handful of people stubbornly refusing to deal with resin.

So, of course it's going to sell some copies, but I don't think it's going to be a game-changing event for GW. If they're smart they'll consider it a nice bonus that maybe should be done someday if everything lines up right, and I suspect that's why we haven't seen a plastic Thunderhawk yet.

If they make one in plastic and it costs $350 or less I'm buying one for my Grey Knights army.

I have MANY armies. I generally have two rules for all my armies. They must all be over 3000 points, and they must all contain a flier and a super heavy.

If a thunderhawk actually happens and it's in plastic I will be getting at least three (Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Angels)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Padre wrote:
I mean, impracticality isn't the barrier to sales that it might have been once. Look at the sales for the Warlord Titan...440 at least, and probably a lot more by now...

Two things on this:

1) The Warlord is considerably more practical than the Thunderhawk. Yeah, it's big, but all you have to do is put it in the corner and shoot stuff. But superheavy flyers are just terrible from a practicality point of view. I own a Marauder and I'd barely consider it a viable gaming model. Transporting it to a game requires its own special box which is larger than the cases some people use for their entire armies. It requires its own huge (and heavy) base to have any kind of stability, and it has to be perfectly flat on the table or it's going to fall over and break. Because of this it's virtually impossible to move it around the table without resorting to "just pretend it's over there", but because it's a flyer you have to move it every turn. And the Thunderhawk is (IIRC) somewhat larger than the Marauder, so all these problems only get worse. GW's best hope is that most people don't understand what they're getting into until they've bought the Thunderhawk kit and it's too late to back out.

2) The Warlord never had a model. If you wanted one you had to build it yourself, and virtually all of the "scratchbuilds" were trash. When an official model finally arrived it got the benefit of the full built-up demand from people with lots of money to spend and a desperate need for a Warlord titan. The Thunderhawk, on the other hand, doesn't have that advantage. There's been a model available for years for anyone who wants to buy one, and a lot of people have bought them. That initial built-up demand was satisfied a long time ago and all that's left is a handful of people stubbornly refusing to deal with resin.

So, of course it's going to sell some copies, but I don't think it's going to be a game-changing event for GW. If they're smart they'll consider it a nice bonus that maybe should be done someday if everything lines up right, and I suspect that's why we haven't seen a plastic Thunderhawk yet.

I completely agree. I bought my Thunderhawk when it first came out, I enjoyed building and painting it, but I have only used it as a gaming piece a handful of time since then as it requires a large board without scenery if you plan on using it as a flyer, it simply takes up far too much room. Mine has a footprint of approx 18" * 19", that is most of a realm of battle tile.

I have used my Titans far more than I have ever used my Thunderhawk just because they take up less space on the table making them less painful to game with. I would much rather see a plastic Warhound than a plastic Thunderhawk as you would see far more of the Warhounds in games.

I really hope if they do push ahead with the Thunderhawk they make a smaller variant for the plastic kit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
What a load of rubbish.

It's not though, or at least it isn't now.

It's a more recent trend. GW artwork is starting to only be of the miniatures. It was really obvious with the latest Tzeentch release.

I meant the idea - I know it's happening, but it's stupid, hence the comments that followed.

 Looky Likey wrote:
I would much rather see a plastic Warhound than a plastic Thunderhawk as you would see far more of the Warhounds in games.

Well, I could cheerfully live with that alternative too!

 BrookM wrote:
Truly a genius at work! Ah yes, let's make a several thousand Pound plastic kit limited, so they'll never recoup the investment made.

How expensive kit to do is that 1.6 millions in sales doesn't give profit?