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.

**Peregrine**

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

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

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

**zedmeister**

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

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

**Alpharius**

Agreed!

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

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:
Agreed!

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

A rare occasion when I find myself in agreement with you

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Looky Likey wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address a number of points.

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

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

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

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

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

That's a knee to the groin.

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

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

An excellent point, which I had overlooked.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address a number of points.

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

To my mind, the gamers outweigh the other two groups, so they should be the main priority.
I think there's a large number of gamers who don't really care, are happy seeing absurd models on the table and/or like the idea of a game more than they actually care about the game itself.

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

**Vorian**

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

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

**Inquisitor Kallus**

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

**morgoth**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address a number of points.

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

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

I don't think you're right.

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

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

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

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

**AllSeeingSkink**

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

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

**morgoth**

Alpharius wrote:
Agreed!

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

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

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

**AllSeeingSkink**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address a number of points.

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

To my mind, the gamers outweigh the other two groups, so they should be the main priority.
I think there's a large number of gamers who don't really care, are happy seeing absurd models on the table and/or like the idea of a game more than they actually care about the game itself.

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

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

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

**hypnoticeris**

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

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

**krazynadechukr**

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

**Azreal13**

Also the warhound is not iconic

You what Dave?

**Kirasu**

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.

**Tamereth**

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

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

**JustaerinAtTheWall**

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

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

**deleted20250424**

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

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

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

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

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

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

NERD ALERT!

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

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

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

**AllSeeingSkink**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Crimson**

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

**General Kroll**

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

That's actually a very cool idea.

**TwilightSparkles**

JustaerinAtTheWall wrote:

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

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

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

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

**Perfect Organism**

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

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

**AnomanderRake**

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

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

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

**Inquisitor Kallus**

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

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

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

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

**Verviedi**

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

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

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

**General Kroll**

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

**jreilly89**

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

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

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

**lord_blackfang**

jreilly89 wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I said, the Thunderhawk being used in the game hinders the game, because the rules are so badly in need of an overhaul.

The game is unplayable regardless of Thunderhawks.

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

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

**Verviedi**

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