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.

 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.

Well if it's plastic it's probably going to be a lot lighter. Also if people break away from their fascination with light weight oval bases you can get better stability with a V shaped or tripod base that isn't really any larger than, say, an IK base. You can even go for something like a cast metal base like historic modellers sometimes use, the base is heavier than the model so it can be smaller without being at risk of toppling.

I think a plastic Thunderhawk would sell quite a few kits. If they price it at about $300 or less I'm sure a lot of people would buy it mostly for display and occasional gaming. I'm sure there's still a lot of people who are put off by both the resin and the price tag of the FW kit.

tneva82 wrote:

 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?

In general, once you factor in overhead cost, something like this has to make 300% of what it cost in revenue be profitable. This kit will need to be 10-11 large baneblade sized sprues... each of those molds even if made with relatively cheap aluminum instead of steal will cost ~$40k per mold... so not counting overhead, not counting the modeling time of designers, not counting the time to setup the molding machine, and not counting the material, labor, and fallout in manufacturing the kits, cost to package and warehouse... it'll already cost $440,000 for all the molds before that.

So IF GW's expenses for all those other costs exceeds $94,000 the Thunderhawk is not profitable at a $649.99 price point selling only 2500 kits.

Those 2500 kits, having 27500 sprues... even in China with a lot of cut corners the price per sprue would come in at $1.50-1.75... which is about half that remaining cost limit.

$45,000 balance. The cost to employer of a minimum wage employee, per year in the U.K. is £46000. I'd like to believe GW on average across different tiers of seniority, that they compensates their skilled labor better than that. Let's say it averages out to 1.5 times minimum... £58500 or $72000. This normalizes the labor, design, marketing overhead down to a hypothetical individual. So if you imagine this one average person doing all the work by themselves they'd have to complete it in 7.5 months to be profitable... realistically it's minimally a team of 3... which gives them 2.5 months to complete start to finish. This isn't outside the realm of possibility, but with how these numbers come out it points to one conclusion IF the Thunderhawk is profitable at a $649.99 price point it's just barely. This indicates that while the price is profit driven, the choice to make only 2500 was not.

So why 2500... my guess is that this is the number of this kit that fit into a standard production run. Dedicate one machine for this job, run it for a a block of time and it yield 2500 kits plus a few more for studio and marketing.

Thank you!

I remember from back in the day that a GW rep told us that the plastic Land Raider kit (current design, not the old one from the RT era) was such an investment for GW at the time that it took them several years to recoup the investment put into the whole process, from design to mold making.

Your welcome.

At $649.99 price point it's about recouping those costs all at once instead of over time. If they treated this like the baneblade, it could be profitable at $220 a kit, but they'd have to sell 10k+ units... I think they could, but my guess is that the manufacturing capacity that would be used and warehousing costs for such a large kit probably make them feel nervous about holding that kind of inventory for the time it'd take to sell 10k+.

Someone earlier on drew the comparison of this possible price to the forgeworld resin kit... and this is a perfect example of how production volume is everything. Simple put purely from a financial side this isn't a smart choice to manufacture so few of something in plastic.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Your welcome.

At $649.99 price point it's about recouping those costs all at once instead of over time. If they treated this like the baneblade, it could be profitable at $220 a kit, but they'd have to sell 10k+ units... I think they could, but my guess is that the manufacturing capacity that would be used and warehousing costs for such a large kit probably make them feel nervous about holding that kind of inventory for the time it'd take to sell 10k+.

Someone earlier on drew the comparison of this possible price to the forgeworld resin kit... and this is a perfect example of how production volume is everything. Simple put purely from a financial side this isn't a smart choice to manufacture so few of something in plastic.

I just can't believe them doing Thunderhawks as a short run kit, and I especially can't believe them doing it over $400.

Especially given that the Thunderhawk, as a kit, is something that could easily be fielded by 7 6 different armies.
Sisters of Battle, Space Marines, Grey Knights, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines.

That's a rather large player base to pull from.


Edit note:
Fixed the numbers. Thought SoB had Thunderhawks. My bad.

Since when do Sisters have the Thunderhawk? Is there a source for this?

 BrookM wrote:
Since when do Sisters have the Thunderhawk? Is there a source for this?

That's my bad. I thought I remembered them having access to Thunderhawks from the old IA2(the only version of it I own).

Still, 6 armies for 1 kit isn't bad.

That's why I think this rumoured choice is at least partially driven by manufacturing capacity and an unwillingness to hold enough in inventory. Keep in mind that last year GW completed a change in their inventory management regimen so they could convert warehouse space to the manufacturing space to support Specialist Games and FW with plastic kits but the consequence is that they can only keep on hand so much and they are forced to run many more smaller production runs. A Thunderhawk even limited in volume is never a "small" production run... making a Thunderhawk means not making 12 times as many tactical marine squads. GW's decision markers have always been reluctant to commit to new product without sales data to back it up. The sales data GW is looking at is probably the data that says FW has only sold ~2000 Thunderhawks ever.

 aka_mythos wrote:
That's why I think this rumoured choice is at least partially driven by manufacturing capacity and an unwillingness to hold enough in inventory. Keep in mind that last year GW completed a change in their inventory management regimen so they could convert warehouse space to the manufacturing space to support Specialist Games and FW with plastic kits but the consequence is that they can only keep on hand so much and they are forced to run many more smaller production runs. A Thunderhawk even limited in volume is not a "small" production run... making a Thunderhawk means not making 12 times as many tactical marine squads. GW's decision markers have always been reluctant to commit to new product without sales data to back it up. The sales data GW is looking at is probably the data that says FW has only sold ~2000 Thunderhawks ever.

The problem with that is there has always been certain big ticket items from FW that aren't actually stored/warehoused. They're cast to order. Thunderhawks, Mantas, the Fortress Walls, things like that.

Indeed, the really big stuff, aside from the very popular Warlord and its smaller cousins, are made to order, though it will specifically say so on the FW site.

What you're saying is actually the reason to make the decision GW did... GW would have to warehouse what FW never did. FW has sold relatively few. Why should GW make so many more that they think they can sell? GW is at least confident enough to say they can sell in month what's taken FW years to sell.

I know and you know GW could sell enough, but GW doesn't think it can. They have consistently been selling out of new releases... GW has clearly underestimated the demand for their plastic kits.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Since when do Sisters have the Thunderhawk? Is there a source for this?

That's my bad. I thought I remembered them having access to Thunderhawks from the old IA2(the only version of it I own).

Still, 6 armies for 1 kit isn't bad.

No harm done. Who knows, maybe they'll get access to it down the line, to even further market the kit to as many factions as possible.

But like I said before, if this happens, I so want one for my Solar Auxilia as a dropship of sorts.

Battle Bunnies will report from the HH event this weekend and if it will be something like a re-designed resin kit from FW we could know soon. Thanks for the numbers, Mythos, really interesting and it puts things into perspective.

 aka_mythos wrote:
What you're saying is actually the reason to make the decision GW did... GW would have to warehouse what FW never did. FW has sold relatively few. Why should GW make so many more that they think they can sell? GW is at least confident enough to say they can sell in month what's taken FW years to sell.

I know and you know GW could sell enough, but GW doesn't think it can. They have consistently been selling out of new releases... GW has clearly underestimated the demand for their plastic kits.

That's the rub though. They've been selling out of new releases(and actually, not as consistently as you're making it out to be. It took a week for the Triumvirate to sell out, the Disciples of Tzeentch stuff didn't sell out instantly, etc etc)...but they have also immediately been doing follow-up runs.

And again, there's no real evidence that this "decision" was actually made. We have one person saying $649 Thunderhawks and limited run.

If anything, if this ever happens at all, they'll limit the production run (say like 25,000 - 30,000 or so models) in order to make it profitable and and price it, I'd say, at a minimum of 299.99 and not a penny under (that's wishful thinking), but more likely $399.99+. You can do all your fancy cost/profit calculation matrix's if you'd like, but GW is an unstable pricing beast and logic doesn't figure in with them sometimes. When you have an Imperial Knight with 3 sprues priced at $157+ and your talking about a kit with at least 10X & double the size sprues, and thinking GW will price it at $200 or even $250 you're fooling yourself. IMHO... Don't get me wrong, I'd love a $200 kit for sure.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
What you're saying is actually the reason to make the decision GW did... GW would have to warehouse what FW never did. FW has sold relatively few. Why should GW make so many more that they think they can sell? GW is at least confident enough to say they can sell in month what's taken FW years to sell.

I know and you know GW could sell enough, but GW doesn't think it can. They have consistently been selling out of new releases... GW has clearly underestimated the demand for their plastic kits.

That's the rub though. They've been selling out of new releases(and actually, not as consistently as you're making it out to be. It took a week for the Triumvirate to sell out, the Disciples of Tzeentch stuff didn't sell out instantly, etc etc)...but they have also immediately been doing follow-up runs.

And again, there's no real evidence that this "decision" was actually made. We have one person saying $649 Thunderhawks and limited run.

I wasn't trying to say it had been made. I was just giving a break down to say its not an unrealistic price for an unusually small number of kits. I think its crazy if it is the decision they've made and represents a misappropriation of resources.

I also said the concern with such a kit like a Thunderhawk could very well be a production capacity and warehouse limitation. Even 2500 thunderhawks will displace the creation and storage of 25,000 Tactical Marine sized kits. Its a lot of alternative cost risk, and GW is very risk adverse.

As far as selling out and warehousing product go, GW's old practice was to create enough product to last it about 3 years and warehouse it indefinitely. Where they would sometimes end up sitting on kits for a lot longer. Now they create enough product to last them 3 months, where by their book keeping the profitability of an individual model kit is determined by those peak sales in that first 3 months. If they sell out in the first 3 months of a product's release its a success. If it takes longer they just break even or write it off. There was some blog post by a GW designer on their private blog that said as much in explaining the decision making process of revisting certain kits. GW's shift comes from the realization that they were seeing 50% of all the sales of a given kit occur in the first 3 months after its release and so everything about their marketing, budgeting, planning, and now inventory is built around this time frame. So when they underestimate demand we reach that point too soon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

krazynadechukr wrote:
When you have an Imperial Knight with 3 sprues priced at $157+ and your talking about a kit with at least 10X & double the size sprues, and thinking GW will price it at $200 or even $250 you're fooling yourself. IMHO... Don't get me wrong, I'd love a $200 kit for sure.

Like I said my breakdown was based on what we get in the Baneblade kit. Proportional to the Baneblade kit $200-$220 is appropriate. That analysis was meant mostly to establish a grounded baseline of what we should expect.

The Renegade Knights game gives you an equivalent of 6 baneblade sized sprues for $200, as opposed to the 7 for $140 the Baneblade kit gives us. Based on that game we'd expect between $330-$360; based on the Knight kit alone it comes to $660.

All three a reasonable estimations of what it could cost and mine isn't anymore right or wrong than the others. I was just saying that at $200-$220 its just as profitable as a Baneblade, assuming they sell a comparable volume.

The $660 is close to the rumored price. If they did that it'd have to be out the sort of necessity of recouping the cost quickly, such as that very limited run.

$660 would be more than the FW Thunderhawk so they'd be limiting themselves to customers who want a plastic kit but weren't willing to buy the resin one for less money. At that price I think they'd struggle to sell 1000.

I think there's only very limited value in comparing to existing kits. It really just comes down to how much GW think people will pay and whether at that price they think they'll sell enough to make money off it.

I reckon the spot they'd want to aim for is around the $300 mark give or take and targeting around 4 to 5000 sales, which probably amounts to selling a few through each retail store and a couple at the larger FLGS's and maybe a few hundred to a thousand-ish through the webstore.

I think if we look at different GW products we can get a sense of their pricing tiers and what they think marks different levels of accessibility. The Realm of Battle Boards are what?-$360 that would put it in line with estimates based on the sprue count to price of the Renegade Knights boxed games.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
$660 would be more than the FW Thunderhawk so they'd be limiting themselves to customers who want a plastic kit but weren't willing to buy the resin one for less money.

Well, it would be a more detailed, and lighter, model, or has options for multiple TH builds & or 30k & 40k options? What if FW agrees to retire the resin one in unison, or before, with the release of the newer plastic? I had the resin FW Valk way back in the day, and it vanished from FW right before the plastic one came out. It happens. Just a thought....

krazynadechukr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
$660 would be more than the FW Thunderhawk so they'd be limiting themselves to customers who want a plastic kit but weren't willing to buy the resin one for less money.

Well, it would be a more detailed, and lighter, model and also what if it is a dual kit (TH or SB), or has options for multiple TH builds & or 30k & 40k options? What if FW agrees to retire the resin one in unison, or before, with the release of the newer plastic? I had the resin FW Valk way back in the day, and it vanished from FW right before the plastic one came out. It happens. Just a thought....

How often do you see a HUGE price bump for a "dual kit"?

Just a thought...

 Kanluwen wrote:
Especially given that the Thunderhawk, as a kit, is something that could easily be fielded by 7 6 different armies.
Sisters of Battle, Space Marines, Grey Knights, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines.

That's a rather large player base to pull from.

Correction: it can sit on the display shelf of 6 different armies. Zero armies can use it in an actual game of Warhammer 40k.

 Kanluwen wrote:

krazynadechukr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
$660 would be more than the FW Thunderhawk so they'd be limiting themselves to customers who want a plastic kit but weren't willing to buy the resin one for less money.

Well, it would be a more detailed, and lighter, model and also what if it is a dual kit (TH or SB), or has options for multiple TH builds & or 30k & 40k options? What if FW agrees to retire the resin one in unison, or before, with the release of the newer plastic? I had the resin FW Valk way back in the day, and it vanished from FW right before the plastic one came out. It happens. Just a thought....

How often do you see a HUGE price bump for a "dual kit"?

Just a thought...

Erm.... Dark elf witches and sisters of slaughter? I don't want to agree with him, but gw HAS done this before....

 Lockark wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

krazynadechukr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
$660 would be more than the FW Thunderhawk so they'd be limiting themselves to customers who want a plastic kit but weren't willing to buy the resin one for less money.

Well, it would be a more detailed, and lighter, model and also what if it is a dual kit (TH or SB), or has options for multiple TH builds & or 30k & 40k options? What if FW agrees to retire the resin one in unison, or before, with the release of the newer plastic? I had the resin FW Valk way back in the day, and it vanished from FW right before the plastic one came out. It happens. Just a thought....

How often do you see a HUGE price bump for a "dual kit"?

Just a thought...

Erm.... Dark elf witches and sisters of slaughter? I don't want to agree with him, but gw HAS done this before....

So, one example so far.

Compare that to the Baneblades, Knights, Stormhawk/Stormtalon, and a slew of other options that didn't see a huge price jump when they went from being "single kits" to "multikits"..

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

krazynadechukr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
$660 would be more than the FW Thunderhawk so they'd be limiting themselves to customers who want a plastic kit but weren't willing to buy the resin one for less money.

Well, it would be a more detailed, and lighter, model and also what if it is a dual kit (TH or SB), or has options for multiple TH builds & or 30k & 40k options? What if FW agrees to retire the resin one in unison, or before, with the release of the newer plastic? I had the resin FW Valk way back in the day, and it vanished from FW right before the plastic one came out. It happens. Just a thought....

How often do you see a HUGE price bump for a "dual kit"?

Just a thought...

Erm.... Dark elf witches and sisters of slaughter? I don't want to agree with him, but gw HAS done this before....

So, one example so far.

Compare that to the Baneblades, Knights, Stormhawk/Stormtalon, and a slew of other options that didn't see a huge price jump when they went from being "single kits" to "multikits"..

I believe they all did see a price rise? Looks like the Stormtalon went up by ~$10, not sure about the Baneblade? The Imperial Knight is probably unique in that you can still buy a "basic" one, usually they just remove the option to do so.

Maybe not 'uuuuuge price rises, but I guess it depends what you consider 'uuuuuuuge to be. If you believe GW base their prices solely on sprue area, then you'd think those are actually bargains.... I tend to think sprue area is actually one of the smaller elements when it comes to GW choosing a price. For many kits (especially popular ones like Knights) they'd rather be earning less per sprue but more per box.

GW is littered with kits that are overpriced when you consider them on a per model basis and seemingly the reason being they're dual kits. Wildwood Rangers/Eternal Guard, Wild Riders/Sisters of Thorn, Ripperdactyls/Terradons, Hearthguard Berzekers/Auric Hearthguard, Tempestus Scions/Tempestus Command Squad.

It was GW's trend for a while has been to split what probably could have been considered a weapon option for 1 unit in to 2 separate units, bump up the price by X% to account for being able to make 2 units out of it, but you actually just end up paying X% more per model.

I'd actually love to know what GW does pay to cut a mould these days. Someone did an estimate on getting the Land Raider moulds cut some 10 years ago and only estimated about ~$20k for the kit moulds themselves, which I thought was a bit of an underestimate. But based on how GW have been running their business in the past 10 years I would have guessed the cost of mould cutting costs in general aren't as significant as they once were.

Outside of GW I've noticed plastic kit manufacturers seem more willing to make physically larger limited run kits (like Eduard, Special Hobby) for prices that aren't massively higher than the standard run kits (Tamiya, Airfix, etc).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

krazynadechukr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
$660 would be more than the FW Thunderhawk so they'd be limiting themselves to customers who want a plastic kit but weren't willing to buy the resin one for less money.

Well, it would be a more detailed, and lighter, model and also what if it is a dual kit (TH or SB), or has options for multiple TH builds & or 30k & 40k options? What if FW agrees to retire the resin one in unison, or before, with the release of the newer plastic? I had the resin FW Valk way back in the day, and it vanished from FW right before the plastic one came out. It happens. Just a thought....

How often do you see a HUGE price bump for a "dual kit"?

Just a thought...

Erm.... Dark elf witches and sisters of slaughter? I don't want to agree with him, but gw HAS done this before....

So, one example so far.

Compare that to the Baneblades, Knights, Stormhawk/Stormtalon, and a slew of other options that didn't see a huge price jump when they went from being "single kits" to "multikits"..

I believe they all did see a price rise? Looks like the Stormtalon went up by ~$10, not sure about the Baneblade? The Imperial Knight is probably unique in that you can still buy a "basic" one, usually they just remove the option to do so.

Maybe not 'uuuuuge price rises, but I guess it depends what you consider 'uuuuuuuge to be. If you believe GW base their prices solely on sprue area, then you'd think those are actually bargains.... I tend to think sprue area is actually one of the smaller elements when it comes to GW choosing a price. For many kits (especially popular ones like Knights) they'd rather be earning less per sprue but more per box.

GW is littered with kits that are overpriced when you consider them on a per model basis and seemingly the reason being they're dual kits. Wildwood Rangers/Eternal Guard, Wild Riders/Sisters of Thorn, Ripperdactyls/Terradons, Hearthguard Berzekers/Auric Hearthguard, Tempestus Scions/Tempestus Command Squad.

Minor quibble, Eternal Guard and the Wild Riders got cheaper when they became dual kits. They initially were metals(in the case of Wild Riders, metal/plastic hybrid kits) and the Eternal Guard were one of those that later got split into the 5 model half-boxes with command figures sold separately.

It was GW's trend for a while has been to split what probably could have been considered a weapon option for 1 unit in to 2 separate units, bump up the price by X% to account for being able to make 2 units out of it, but you actually just end up paying X% more per model.

The Wood Elf options you gave were not ever weapon options. Sisters of Thorn and Wildwood Rangers didn't exist before they became part of the dual kit.

Scions and Hearthguard are stupidly priced, period.

Firewarriors didn't used to be AUD$85 per box. Pretty sure that at their peak they were AUD$50-$55. Now they cost significantly more because, what, they're a dual kit? Box still only makes one squad.

"There's a turret in there now!"

And that's worth a further thirty bucks?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Minor quibble, Eternal Guard and the Wild Riders got cheaper when they became dual kits. They initially were metals(in the case of Wild Riders, metal/plastic hybrid kits) and the Eternal Guard were one of those that later got split into the 5 model half-boxes with command figures sold separately.

Yeah I'm aware of that, but they're still expensive for 10 plastic Wood Elf infantry models or 5 plastic Wood Elf cavalry models. Compare them to Glade Guard that are less dollars for twice the models, or the Glade Guard (that I can't remember the price of but were a hell of a lot cheaper than Wild Riders.

The Wood Elf options you gave were not ever weapon options. Sisters of Thorn and Wildwood Rangers didn't exist before they became part of the dual kit.

It's a good thing I never said they were previously weapon options then! I said...

"It was GW's trend for a while has been to split what probably could have been considered a weapon option"

Well...

More fuel for the fire and Forgeworld refusing to talk about said image!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Firewarriors didn't used to be AUD$85 per box. Pretty sure that at their peak they were AUD$50-$55. Now they cost significantly more because, what, they're a dual kit? Box still only makes one squad.

"There's a turret in there now!"

And that's worth a further thirty bucks?

It's great that we can have these discussions without me even having to be involved.

Yeah, Fire Warriors are stupidly priced. $50 for a squad of 10 is ridiculous. Same with the $75 for 3 Crisis Suits. It's why I'm not buying either of those kits individually, just going for the Start Collecting set whenever I want one or the other unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Minor quibble, Eternal Guard and the Wild Riders got cheaper when they became dual kits. They initially were metals(in the case of Wild Riders, metal/plastic hybrid kits) and the Eternal Guard were one of those that later got split into the 5 model half-boxes with command figures sold separately.

Yeah I'm aware of that, but they're still expensive for 10 plastic Wood Elf infantry models or 5 plastic Wood Elf cavalry models. Compare them to Glade Guard that are less dollars for twice the models, or the Glade Guard (that I can't remember the price of but were a hell of a lot cheaper than Wild Riders.

Glade Riders weren't that much cheaper than Wild Riders from what I can remember. It was something like $36 for a box of 5. I can't say for sure as I never bought any by themselves, I only got the Wood Elf Battalions when I wanted Glade Riders and more Scouts/Glade Guard.

Also, Glade Guard give you 16 not 20. The sprues for them are exceedingly weird though.

The Wood Elf options you gave were not ever weapon options. Sisters of Thorn and Wildwood Rangers didn't exist before they became part of the dual kit.

It's a good thing I never said they were previously weapon options then! I said...

"It was GW's trend for a while has been to split what probably could have been considered a weapon option"

That's me misunderstanding what you were going for then, Skink.

 zedmeister wrote:
Well...

More fuel for the fire and Forgeworld refusing to talk about said image!

Thanks for linking I have somehow missed it, will add it to the 1st post