Plastic Thunderhawk Sighted?

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.

**pretre**

theninjabadger wrote:
If it is real thats stupid marines 3 flyers, tau 2 crons 2 orks 3, DA 2, chaos 1,deldar 1, eldar none

Let's make this SUPER clear.
It
is
a
Forge
World
model.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Grey-Knights/THUNDERHAWK_GUNSHIP.html

**spiralingcadaver**

BrotherVord wrote:
Forgeworld couldn't be selling more than a few dozen thunderhawks per year at the $600 pricepoint. At least it would seem so given the rarity of the model. Warhound titans seem to be their most popular big ticket items. Even readers seem to be more common than thunderhawks.

If eh made a plastic model at 1/3 of the cost it would still run $200.00. Is that a. Price that people wild be willing to pay?

Yeah, not at this point b/c I'm not that active w/ 40k, but a $200 THawk would be high on my list of stuff to buy, while the $600 model in the category of "I could never justify a $600 toy space ship to myself"

However, yeah, I think the OP just got too excited about a thunderhawk picture.

I remember the WD when that giant metal beast came out...

**pities2004**

pretre wrote:
theninjabadger wrote:
If it is real thats stupid marines 3 flyers, tau 2 crons 2 orks 3, DA 2, chaos 1,deldar 1, eldar none

Let's make this SUPER clear.
It
is
a
Forge
World
model.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Grey-Knights/THUNDERHAWK_GUNSHIP.html

Prove it

**Platuan4th**

pities2004 wrote:
pretre wrote:
theninjabadger wrote:
If it is real thats stupid marines 3 flyers, tau 2 crons 2 orks 3, DA 2, chaos 1,deldar 1, eldar none

Let's make this SUPER clear.
It
is
a
Forge
World
model.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Grey-Knights/THUNDERHAWK_GUNSHIP.html

Prove it

Prove it isn't.

The burden of proof is more on the believers than the FW advocates, since everyone with a FW one that has posted in both threads has already given very good evidence that it's the FW model.

**pities2004**

Platuan4th wrote:
pities2004 wrote:
pretre wrote:
theninjabadger wrote:
If it is real thats stupid marines 3 flyers, tau 2 crons 2 orks 3, DA 2, chaos 1,deldar 1, eldar none

Let's make this SUPER clear.
It
is
a
Forge
World
model.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Grey-Knights/THUNDERHAWK_GUNSHIP.html

Prove it

Prove it isn't.

touché

**Lt.Soundwave**

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Prove it is. You make the assertion you must provide evidence to back it up.

**Just Dave**

When a plastic Thunderhawk isn't released next month or the month after, I'm pretty sure that would prove it is the Forgeworld version.

**warboss**

theninjabadger wrote:
If it is real thats stupid marines 3 flyers, tau 2 crons 2 orks 3, DA 2, chaos 1,deldar 1, eldar none

LOL, yeah... it's not like the marines sell better as a group than all other armies combined or anything, right?

**Necros**

Don't you kids realize by now that GW makes photos like that on purpose just because they want to see people arguing on Dakka?

If you look closely you'll see it's actually made out of play dough.

**Rainyday**

The joke's on everyone when it turns out to be a finecast thunderhawk

**kronk**

Rainyday wrote:
The joke's on everyone when it turns out to be a finecast thunderhawk

I don't know this guy, but that's fething funny!

Well played, sir.

**decker_cky**

Rainyday wrote:
The joke's on everyone when it turns out to be a finecast thunderhawk

...for only $700.

**Howard A Treesong**

Trasvi wrote:
Devils advocate: there could became plastic thunderhawk and the one in the pic could be the forgeworld one.

It would take some grasping at straws to argue that.

**MajorWesJanson**

Edit: Double post

**Myrthe**

Umm ... an early April Fool's launch maybe ??

**MajorWesJanson**

BrotherVord wrote:
Forgeworld couldn't be selling more than a few dozen thunderhawks per year at the $600 pricepoint. At least it would seem so given the rarity of the model. Warhound titans seem to be their most popular big ticket items. Even readers seem to be more common than thunderhawks.

If eh made a plastic model at 1/3 of the cost it would still run $200.00. Is that a. Price that people wild be willing to pay?

For something nearly twice the size of the baneblade? I'd buy 2, maybe 3.

As for why Titans are more popular, I do have one minor answer to that- Titans can stand just fine, Thunderhawks need a fairly heavy duty flying stand of some sort to use them.

theninjabadger wrote:
If it is real thats stupid marines 3 flyers, tau 2 crons 2 orks 3, DA 2, chaos 1,deldar 1, eldar none

Superheavy Flier- look at superheavy kits so far: IG 2, Orks 1, everyone else, including marines, 0.
Plus a thunderhawk kit could be used easily by 8 armies:
SM
BT
BA
DA
SW
GK
CSM
Orks

**G. Whitenbeard**

Rainyday wrote:
The joke's on everyone when it turns out to be a finecast thunderhawk

HAHAHAHAHA!

**deleted20250424**

I'm not saying it is or isn't, however...

The FW model would be the basis of the Plastic, if there is to be one.

Hell, it could be the same mold, or a copy of the mold that FW uses. Sure the mold might be made of different material, one for Resin and one for whatever GW would cast it in. I doubt the mold would be made any differently than the FW mold.

So of course a plastic version made by GW would look just like, if not exactly like, the FW one.

Why reinvent the wheel and all that.

**yakface**

The 'parting shot' on the last page of each WD (since the WD overhaul) has not been a preview of anything upcoming, but rather just a 'cool' looking picture.

As others have pointed out in this thread, the #1 way you know that this is not a plastic Thunderhawk is because the canopy is not clear plastic, which is something all the SM flyers have in common.

**Platuan4th**

@ TalonZahn, You mean like how the Plastic Baneblade looks exactly like the FW version and is the same size?

Oh, right.

**yakface**

TalonZahn wrote:
I'm not saying it is or isn't, however...

The FW model would be the basis of the Plastic, if there is to be one.

Hell, it could be the same mold, or a copy of the mold that FW uses. Sure the mold might be made of different material, one for Resin and one for whatever GW would cast it in. I doubt the mold would be made any differently than the FW mold.

So of course a plastic version made by GW would look just like, if not exactly like, the FW one.

Why reinvent the wheel and all that.

Because a plastic version of the Thunderhawk would have to be wildly different (mould-wise) to accommodate the restrictions of plastic casting. There is literally no way they could simply use the FW mould and somehow utilize it for plastic. They are two completely different processes.

**godswildcard**

You'd have to put me solidly in the 'shut up and take my money for my Ultramarines Battle Company' Camp.

Seriously, this would be a reason to start entirely new chapters, just so I could have more Thunderhawks!

**deleted20250424**

The age of the FW Baneblade vs. the newer Baneblade wouldn't play a factor in it at all either right?

@ Yak - painting the canopy would never occour either right?

I'd point to some anecdotal evidence concerning 3 types of molds I've had made for 3 types of materials made to cast the same parts in different materials, but that wouldn't give me any tread on these forums. Despite the fact the same CAD model was used for each.

I'm in the camp of "I'll believe it when I see it."

I'm saying the outright dismissal that it isn't plastic based on observations of a cropped shot in the back of a magazine is kind of silly.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Compel wrote:
The only differences I can see are:

1) The blacked out canopy - this could just have been done for the photo, or someone just blacked out the window.

The canopy looks clear to me, it's just the angle of the light is such that it's reflecting instead of passing through. Look at the other fliers in the picture and it makes sense.

2) The light at the end of the wing beside the heavy bolters. - Though that might just be because the forgeworld photos aren't the right angle.

You mean the landing light slightly inboard of the heavy bolters? That's on the forge world kit, you can clearly see it on the images in the FW site.

As far as I can see it's identical to the FW one so therefore the safe bet is that it IS the FW one and not a plastic one.

**Smitty**

A thought just occurred to me: people are saying it's a forgeworld thunderhawk. Currently, the only way to field a thunderhawk is how?

Apocalypse.

Alright ladies and gents...

Discuss.

**l0k1**

This is not a plastic Thunderhawk. It's obviously a Storm Raven with the Chapter house upgrade kit :p

In all honesty it wouldn't surprise me that they would do more plastic super heavy kits, especially if Apocalypse is getting updated/rereleased this summer, but I'll believe it when I see it.

**Kroothawk**

pities2004 wrote:
pretre wrote:
theninjabadger wrote:
If it is real thats stupid marines 3 flyers, tau 2 crons 2 orks 3, DA 2, chaos 1,deldar 1, eldar none

Let's make this SUPER clear.
It
is
a
Forge
World
model.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Grey-Knights/THUNDERHAWK_GUNSHIP.html

Prove it

If GW were to release a Plastic Thunderhawk soon, would they give us a sneak peek to raise interest?

That said, this pic is indeed in WD April. It shows all rivets the FW model has. And I wouldn't completely rule out a Plastic Thunderhawk sometime in the future, even with the rumoured Apocalypse supplement in June/July. But then GW still wouldn't show the plastic Thunderhawk more than a week early.

BTW theAmbit over at faeit212 found the exact same model on a GW Apocalypse display 2008 (5 years ago), and there hasn't been a plastic Thunderhawk release since then

**kronk**

Smitty wrote:
A thought just occurred to me: people are saying it's a forgeworld thunderhawk. Currently, the only way to field a thunderhawk is how?

Apocalypse.

Alright ladies and gents...

Discuss.

The same can be said of the Plastic Stompa, the Plastic Baneblade, and the Plastic Shadowsword

What is your point? I'm not trollilng. I'm just honestly not following you.

**tarnish**

Overthinking a picture and calling it a rumor is pretty far fetched.
Borderline wishlisting like this is hardly news worthy.....

**Peregrine**

TalonZahn wrote:
I doubt the mold would be made any differently than the FW mold.

So of course a plastic version made by GW would look just like, if not exactly like, the FW one.

Except that precedent says otherwise. Even the Valkyrie, which duplicated the original FW kit instead of redesigning it like the Shadowsword/Baneblade had subtle differences and you can look at a picture of them side by side and tell which is which. If every single detail on the Thunderhawk is exactly like the FW kit, and you can't find even a single difference between the two, it's the FW kit.