PDA

View Full Version : Isn't now a good time for a plastic Thunderhawk?



Herkamer63
09-06-2014, 14:38
As the title suggests,with the new edition, Lords of War are now in. While everyone else have more affordable units to buy for their Lords of War, Space Marines are stuck with the Thunderhawk. Not saying the Thunderhawk is bad at all (I'd love to get one), but the price is ridiculous and it's resin. I think the beloved giant flying turkey needs a long overdue update; all plastic and a price drop. I'm sure people have their own custom built Thunderhawk, but for people like me who have zero conversion or scratch buiding abilities, I'll buy one instead (unless if someone wants to just give me one).

Anyway, considering what's been coming out, I think a plastic Thunderhawk, would make sense. Not saying this will do anything to make GW make one, but it's food for thought. Anyone else want to add to this wishful thinking?

mightymconeshot
09-06-2014, 14:45
They are massive and I think beyond even GWs ability to convert into plastic at the moment. As the owner of one it is just a truly massive piece of resin and one of the biggest ones Forgeworld makes next to the titans and tau fliers. With the improvements in their plastic making and 3D printing and modelling it starting to become possible, but I think at the moment with their fallen stock prices and no reason to have a release for the main marine book I don't think it is going to happen at all. Maybe in a few years when they update the Space Marine codex and switch over the naming inconsistently...again. I think it is much more likely for the marines to get a larger tank something along the lines of a land raider/spartan assault tank when they get their eventual codex.

hobojebus
09-06-2014, 14:50
http://warllama40k.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/how-to-build-kit-bashed-thunderhawk.html

GW staff have kit bashed a thunderhawk using 3 kits for alot less than the price of the forgeworld one, if they can do it GW can make a plastic one.

Mauler
09-06-2014, 14:50
Unfortunately no, because Games Workshop don't pinch units from Forge World anymore. The Hydra is the recent exception as an open-topped variant to the harder FW model and was a side effect of GW developing the Wyvern on the same platform but not designing another new unit to dual-kit it with.

A plastic Thunderhawk (and Greater Daemons, for that matter) are a massive, massive pipe-dream that will never happen while the current policy is in place. There's probably technical reasons too, given that GW's plastic vehicles are hollow or simply the size, that makes the cost of converting to and the production of a model of that size in plastic. The things aren't small; they're over 1.5 feet long.


Give it up, it's not going to happen. :(

Hendarion
09-06-2014, 14:58
http://warllama40k.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/how-to-build-kit-bashed-thunderhawk.html

GW staff have kit bashed a thunderhawk using 3 kits for alot less than the price of the forgeworld one, if they can do it GW can make a plastic one.
Just that it took 3 kits as you said and it still looks like it.
Not going to happen.

OuroborosTriumphant
09-06-2014, 15:01
Unfortunately no, because Games Workshop don't pinch units from Forge World anymore. The Hydra is the recent exception as an open-topped variant to the harder FW model and was a side effect of GW developing the Wyvern on the same platform but not designing another new unit to dual-kit it with.

I am not remotely convinced that is the case. The FW Hydra has ceased to be available following the plastic Hydra release, which I think is fairly indicative that the plastic Hydra is intended to supercede and replace it. Further, if you look at the design on the Hydra/Wyvern dual-kit, it seems fairly apparent to me that several features of the overall design make much more sense for a anti-air gun than for an anti-infantry artillery piece. I'm 90% sure that "plastic Hydra" was the original objective and that the Wyvern emerged as a consequence of a "What can be a dual-kit with a Hydra" chain of thought.

What are your reasons for thinking it's the other way round?

Mauler
09-06-2014, 15:25
I am not remotely convinced that is the case. The FW Hydra has ceased to be available following the plastic Hydra release, which I think is fairly indicative that the plastic Hydra is intended to supercede and replace it. Further, if you look at the design on the Hydra/Wyvern dual-kit, it seems fairly apparent to me that several features of the overall design make much more sense for a anti-air gun than for an anti-infantry artillery piece. I'm 90% sure that "plastic Hydra" was the original objective and that the Wyvern emerged as a consequence of a "What can be a dual-kit with a Hydra" chain of thought.

What are your reasons for thinking it's the other way round?

Simply because they've not done it for years and when I asked the design studio guys at an open day they told me that it was corporate policy these days to not scavenge FW models. From the horse's mouth, so to speak. I also asked Jes Goodwin that same day about Eldar jetbikes and, with a rather frustrated expression, he explained to me why they didn't happen with the 6E codex.

I don't own the Imperial Guard IA book so I can't say if the enclosed Hydra is still an option, if it is and the Hydra/Wyvern box doesn't come with that option I suspect that FW may provide it again in the near future, even if it is just an enclosing cover.

However, I will say that I suspect that FW may be reviewing their options as their resin moulds age with use. I ordered a set of Shrike wings to make up a trio of Shrikes for my 'Nids, the first set of wings didn't turn up, if it was sent at all. After waiting the 28 days (thanks Royal Mail, FFS) I called FW again and enquired after my Shrike wings, only to be told that there would be a delay of a few months while the mould was recast as the existing one was knackered. A week later I got a mail from FW apologising for the inconvenience but the master models of the wings needed some work before the new mould could be taken and they'd made the descision to discontinue the product for the forseeable future given the work involved. No more Shrike wings. At least I was sent two pairs of new twin-linked devourers worth more than the wings as compensation.

But given the above situation, it may be that the Hydra moulds were in a state of disrepair and GW figured it was more economical to use new tech to develop a plastic dual-kit instead? Speculation on my part but I think that may be the only way that we'll see plastic FW units.

Konovalev
09-06-2014, 16:18
and Greater Daemons, for that matter

Plastic Greater Daemons seem infinitely more likely to happen than plastic Thunderhawk. At this point, what's a greater daemon to a riptide as far as size and plastic mass? Or even an Imperial Knight for that matter?

Now that deamon summoning is something nearly everyone can do, and unbound exists; If they make decent looking greater daemons, they'll practically sell themselves.

Herkamer63
09-06-2014, 16:22
http://warllama40k.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/how-to-build-kit-bashed-thunderhawk.html

GW staff have kit bashed a thunderhawk using 3 kits for alot less than the price of the forgeworld one, if they can do it GW can make a plastic one.

thanks for the link. it's almost an exact match.so yeah, i think they should do it. i understand though that they have not brought another forge world into the GW line for a while, but with what they can do now, i see no reason why they shouldn't. from a sales perspective, it would be one the hottest, if not THE hottest, sellers in their line. the looks alone would sell, but more importantly the rules that come with it. carry a land raider into battle? yes ma'am! though the wishes still havn't been met, my fingers are still crossed.

mightymconeshot
09-06-2014, 16:52
I would say that looks similar but not close to the real thunderhawk. It is obvious what it is but it has a lot of style differences.

I don't think it would be the hottest release and a thunderhawk transport is so significantly different from the gunship I can't even see a possibility of it being a dual kit. And as others have said, it is a massive vehicle, a forge world one at that, and the sheer size required of the main hull is so massively large it probably can't be done.

Mauler
09-06-2014, 17:00
Plastic Greater Daemons seem infinitely more likely to happen than plastic Thunderhawk. At this point, what's a greater daemon to a riptide as far as size and plastic mass? Or even an Imperial Knight for that matter?

Now that deamon summoning is something nearly everyone can do, and unbound exists; If they make decent looking greater daemons, they'll practically sell themselves.

Possibly more likely, but both are still very improbable.

Why put money into funding new greater daemon sculpts & models when they're already on sale? When you've already got excellent models at a hefty 100 it doesn't pay to spend money on new models that will then sell for cheaper...

Wolf Lord Balrog
09-06-2014, 17:03
No



wftwg

Konovalev
09-06-2014, 17:15
Possibly more likely, but both are still very improbable.

Why put money into funding new greater daemon sculpts & models when they're already on sale? When you've already got excellent models at a hefty 100 it doesn't pay to spend money on new models that will then sell for cheaper...

Are you referring to the ForgeWorld Greater Daemons? You can't point at those and say - These are the official greater daemon model for Warhammer 40k. Their price, and construction complexity are far beyond that of a typical model. Those greater daemons, like FW Titans, are a niche product.

You don't honestly think GW is going to just drop their current (ugly) greater daemon sculpts when stock runs out and just start pointing people at FW do you?

MajorWesJanson
09-06-2014, 17:25
Dreadknight sized Greater daemons paired with the special characters seem like a given due to the shift away from finecast. And the fact that there are not many other kits left to make in plastic for the next Daemon release.

Would this be a good time for a plastic thunderhawk? Maybe. Or maybe not. It would be a big, expensive kit, using multiple different stompa/baneblade sized sprues, so probably end up at the $250-275 range at current pricing. It would sell well, but would require a massive number of new sprues, so would eat up about a month or two worth of production budget on it's own. And it seems like from a business point of view, it would be something used to prop up a weak quarter or centerpiece a major holiday. Rules editions and the SM codex sell plenty on their own, so a Thunderhawk would be better suited to an independent release with a bunch of books/supplements, ect like we saw with the Knight.

MajorWesJanson
09-06-2014, 17:30
Dreadknight sized Greater daemons paired with the special characters seem like a given due to the shift away from finecast. And the fact that there are not many other kits left to make in plastic for the next Daemon release.

Would this be a good time for a plastic thunderhawk? Maybe. Or maybe not. It would be a big, expensive kit, using multiple different stompa/baneblade sized sprues, so probably end up at the $250-275 range at current pricing. It would sell well, but would require a massive number of new sprues, so would eat up about a month or two worth of production budget on it's own. And it seems like from a business point of view, it would be something used to prop up a weak quarter or centerpiece a major holiday. Rules editions and the SM codex sell plenty on their own, so a Thunderhawk would be better suited to an independent release with a bunch of books/supplements, ect like we saw with the Knight.

Herkamer63
09-06-2014, 17:30
Well with how big the regular models are getting, why not a thunderhawk? For lords of war, everyone is getting a super heavy or gargantuan creature that are more affordable and can field right away, while marines can take the thunderhawk, not a lot of people can buy them. Plus, outside of FW, they don't have any super heavies. To me , if everyone else are getting the BIG stuff like baneblades and stompas, i wouldn't see a problem with a thunderhawk. Although I wouldn't have any complaints for a new marine super heavy, I think if there should be any unit that should get that treatment from GW, it should be the thunderhawk.

On a side note, I think all the lords of war for regular games have to come from escalation right now until further notice so the IA LR variants can't be a lords of war option. Although a LR spartan would be awesome.

Mauler
09-06-2014, 18:05
Are you referring to the ForgeWorld Greater Daemons? You can't point at those and say - These are the official greater daemon model for Warhammer 40k. Their price, and construction complexity are far beyond that of a typical model. Those greater daemons, like FW Titans, are a niche product.

You don't honestly think GW is going to just drop their current (ugly) greater daemon sculpts when stock runs out and just start pointing people at FW do you?

Nope, they'll probably just manufacture more of the plastic types.

mightymconeshot
09-06-2014, 18:14
Well with how big the regular models are getting, why not a thunderhawk? For lords of war, everyone is getting a super heavy or gargantuan creature that are more affordable and can field right away, while marines can take the thunderhawk, not a lot of people can buy them. Plus, outside of FW, they don't have any super heavies. To me , if everyone else are getting the BIG stuff like baneblades and stompas, i wouldn't see a problem with a thunderhawk..

Because it is still 2 or 3 times bigger than these. It is 2 knights wide and 2 and a half knights long. It is much more massive than a baneblade or stompa and is a much more challenging construction process. Its sheer size make it nearly impossible to do a plastic kit. It isn't that marines don't deserve or they shouldn't have a superheavy, it is just that there are many other choices out there that would be more cost effective and possible for GW to produce and release.

Kijamon
09-06-2014, 18:48
I could see it one day but I don't think it'll be son.

The FW model is nice but it's definitely not worth 400. You get much more customisation, detail and many more pieces in a warhound titan (or indeed some of the GW kits).

I expected a little more when I finally got my hands on one, not that I'm upset at owning such a great piece of SM history, I just though it'd have a bit more oomph.

insectum7
09-06-2014, 20:15
For all those claiming that a plastic model that big is "impossible", I'm just going to call ************ on that. I used to build 1/32 scale fighter jets which were about as big as the FW Thunderhawk, and had a 1/48 scale B1-B (about 3" long) hanging from my ceiling as a teenager.

And the plastic in those models is crappier than the stuff GW uses.

If they wanted to do it, they could. They just aren't for whatever reason.

Konovalev
09-06-2014, 21:01
For all those claiming that a plastic model that big is "impossible", I'm just going to call ************ on that. I used to build 1/32 scale fighter jets which were about as big as the FW Thunderhawk, and had a 1/48 scale B1-B (about 3" long) hanging from my ceiling as a teenager.

And the plastic in those models is crappier than the stuff GW uses.

If they wanted to do it, they could. They just aren't for whatever reason.


To be fair, I've a 1/16 motorized Jagdpanther and it is quite large but the plastic itself is fairly thin all over. Compare that to GW tank models, the plastic is much thicker. I don't know anything about injection mould plastics but maybe there are physical constraints that prohibit making a model of that size in plastic with GW's usual thickness?

Obviously GW models are thicker and have more plastic to them because they are meant to be handled, so I don't think thinning a potential model out would make it any more viable.

insectum7
09-06-2014, 21:44
To be fair, I've a 1/16 motorized Jagdpanther and it is quite large but the plastic itself is fairly thin all over. Compare that to GW tank models, the plastic is much thicker. I don't know anything about injection mould plastics but maybe there are physical constraints that prohibit making a model of that size in plastic with GW's usual thickness?

Obviously GW models are thicker and have more plastic to them because they are meant to be handled, so I don't think thinning a potential model out would make it any more viable.

The thicker plastic should make it easier to do, not harder. There might be some problem with doing the side of the T-hawk as a single large sheet, but there's no requirement to make it out of single large pieces anyways. The engineering of their models is really quite good, and I'm impressed every time I put together even the lowly Rhino just how well those pieces fit together. Instead of making the hull of the T-hawk one big piece, a number of smaller sections that fit together is well within their ability, pretty much every other kit they've made is a testament to that.

It's definitely not their technical capabilities that are holding them back.

AndrewGPaul
09-06-2014, 21:51
The individual body panels aren't going to be any bigger than the walls of the Shrine of the Aquila or the Fortress of Redemption. On the other hand, those kits are of noticeably lower detail than the vehicle kits. I suppose you could arrange matters so that the basic panels are large, low-detail panels and all the greeblies are add-on extras.

Thicker plastic could be an issue, depending on cooling rates and whatnot. But I agree with insectum7, it's not that they can't, just that they don't want to.

duffybear1988
09-06-2014, 23:29
Oh gods no.

Beppo1234
10-06-2014, 00:26
They are massive and I think beyond even GWs ability to convert into plastic at the moment. As the owner of one it is just a truly massive piece of resin and one of the biggest ones Forgeworld makes next to the titans and tau fliers. With the improvements in their plastic making and 3D printing and modelling it starting to become possible, but I think at the moment with their fallen stock prices and no reason to have a release for the main marine book I don't think it is going to happen at all. Maybe in a few years when they update the Space Marine codex and switch over the naming inconsistently...again. I think it is much more likely for the marines to get a larger tank something along the lines of a land raider/spartan assault tank when they get their eventual codex.

194653

nonsense... GW could do it now, it would just be GW scaled, not FW scaled. The forgeworld one may be 'true scaled', but it's size makes it utterly useless. Hell, they could do it now, marketed as an advanced kit. All it would take is a single direct only sprue, and two stormraven kits. The directly only sprue would contain all the parts needed to assemble two stormravens into a thunderhawk. Done, for the price of a 30-40$ sprue. GW could sell it as a bundle that doesn't save you any money, or as separate items.

So doable right now... and they fly

ehlijen
10-06-2014, 00:28
The Hydra stayed in the guard codex because it was already in the 5th one and the guard needed to have some AA unit. It's the last leftover from a policy that actually started quite a bit before. Chaos got the helldrake, not the helltalon or hellblade. Marines got the stormtalon, not the landspeeder storm. Tau got the riptide and new broadsides, not the XV9 or anything that looks like the FW suits. Eldar got the Crimson hunter, not their FW flyer.

GW has stopped taking models from FW, probably because trying to sell a new model that quite a few people already have wasn't giving them the numbers they hoped for?

If you sell a popular FW model in plastic, you're cutting down on your target market. In fact, you're cutting out the segment GW wants the most (those who want the model and are willing to pay a lot of money for it).
If you sell an unpopular FW model, you're trying to sell a model that you know is unpopular. Why?

Beppo1234
10-06-2014, 00:40
If you sell a popular FW model in plastic, you're cutting down on your target market. In fact, you're cutting out the segment GW wants the most (those who want the model and are willing to pay a lot of money for it).
If you sell an unpopular FW model, you're trying to sell a model that you know is unpopular. Why?

yes, but if you sell more plastic model kits of FW models, than FW sells of the resin, in terms of $$$, then you bank more money. Yes you cut down one market (the high spenders), but you open another, arguable larger market, with a more accessible cheaper plastic version. One also has to account for the age of the FW Thunderhawk... and how many FW models from its time are still in production.

ehlijen
10-06-2014, 00:50
yes, but if you sell more plastic model kits of FW models, than FW sells of the resin, in terms of $$$, then you bank more money. Yes you cut down one market (the high spenders), but you open another, arguable larger market, with a more accessible cheaper plastic version. One also has to account for the age of the FW Thunderhawk... and how many FW models from its time are still in production.

First, you are assuming GW wants to open the market to the lower price bands. I am not convinced they have any interest in that.

Second you have to compare that to releasing a new model that no one has, yet. The potential market is greater there yet again, and you have to design new sprues anyway.

Beppo1234
10-06-2014, 01:48
First, you are assuming GW wants to open the market to the lower price bands. I am not convinced they have any interest in that.

Second you have to compare that to releasing a new model that no one has, yet. The potential market is greater there yet again, and you have to design new sprues anyway.

yeah, but gw/fw don't have to worry about alienating those customers who already own the FW one... given the price, they are/will be long term customers regardless if their older model is replaced by a newer better plastic one. Chances are they will buy one if it is significantly cheaper anyways, even if they already own the FW one (they have the disposable income already, and fanatic enough already to already have sold a kidney for the current thunderhawk(s)). That's my opinion of the 40k market, but I don't think it's an invalid one. That being said, I don't think previous sales of the $750 FW TH would affect the sales of a GW TH, that falls into the $2-300 range. That's within reasonable Christmas present price range, which IMO is really the target price for any large GW model.

ehlijen
10-06-2014, 02:38
yeah, but gw/fw don't have to worry about alienating those customers who already own the FW one... given the price, they are/will be long term customers regardless if their older model is replaced by a newer better plastic one. Chances are they will buy one if it is significantly cheaper anyways, even if they already own the FW one (they have the disposable income already, and fanatic enough already to already have sold a kidney for the current thunderhawk(s)). That's my opinion of the 40k market, but I don't think it's an invalid one. That being said, I don't think previous sales of the $750 FW TH would affect the sales of a GW TH, that falls into the $2-300 range. That's within reasonable Christmas present price range, which IMO is really the target price for any large GW model.

But what if you can keep selling the $750 FW one AND put a successful new, different $2-300 model out to get the money from the christmas shoppers? No need to give up one to get the other.

Beppo1234
10-06-2014, 03:11
But what if you can keep selling the $750 FW one AND put a successful new, different $2-300 model out to get the money from the christmas shoppers? No need to give up one to get the other.

more models is better, they can keep selling the 750 one if they want, all depends on what expense it is to keep it alive, if a newer cheaper plastic one is a more attractive to both classes of customer.

ehlijen
10-06-2014, 05:28
more models is better, they can keep selling the 750 one if they want, all depends on what expense it is to keep it alive, if a newer cheaper plastic one is a more attractive to both classes of customer.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Why would anyone buy the $750 T-Hawk if a $300 one is available? And keeping that in mind, why should GW release a $300 T-Hawk if FW's $750 is still popular enough to sell?

T10
10-06-2014, 08:22
Anyway, considering what's been coming out, I think a plastic Thunderhawk, would make sense. Not saying this will do anything to make GW make one, but it's food for thought. Anyone else want to add to this wishful thinking?

I'm currently working on the Forge World resin Thunderhawk, so a cheaper, lighter, beautifully detailed plastic Thunderhawk where all the pieces fit together would be just the thing to push me over the edge and have me curl up in a crying fetal ball.

-T10

Mauler
10-06-2014, 09:26
The thicker plastic should make it easier to do, not harder. There might be some problem with doing the side of the T-hawk as a single large sheet, but there's no requirement to make it out of single large pieces anyways. The engineering of their models is really quite good, and I'm impressed every time I put together even the lowly Rhino just how well those pieces fit together. Instead of making the hull of the T-hawk one big piece, a number of smaller sections that fit together is well within their ability, pretty much every other kit they've made is a testament to that.

It's definitely not their technical capabilities that are holding them back.


194653

nonsense... GW could do it now, it would just be GW scaled, not FW scaled. The forgeworld one may be 'true scaled', but it's size makes it utterly useless. Hell, they could do it now, marketed as an advanced kit. All it would take is a single direct only sprue, and two stormraven kits. The directly only sprue would contain all the parts needed to assemble two stormravens into a thunderhawk. Done, for the price of a 30-40$ sprue. GW could sell it as a bundle that doesn't save you any money, or as separate items.

So doable right now... and they fly

I think it would be better for someone who actually has a clue about plastic injection moulds and manufacturing to speculate rather than take wild stabs along the lines of "X did something like it so can GW".

I remember reading some posts by someone who seemed to be familiar with manufacturing plastic models, I'll see if I can find them.

PS - Most super-heavies are made for Apoc, not standard games. Apoc games aren't always played on a standard 6'x4' table and so the models for it are designed accordingly. They'll not make a unit considerably smaller than it should be just to fit in a normal game, especially when it's a 30+ man transport.

MajorWesJanson
10-06-2014, 09:44
Why would GW use Stormraven kits to make a thunderhawk? That would just be a poor looking kludge, when they could make a full one from scratch.
It's not impossible, but it is currently unfeasable from a business point of view.

carldooley
10-06-2014, 13:12
anyone think it would be more plausible for plastic warhounds? with them, they would still sell like hot cakes, and you open up more people for customers - more armies that they could possibly support - orks, chaos, imperium.

insectum7
10-06-2014, 15:05
I think it would be better for someone who actually has a clue about plastic injection moulds and manufacturing to speculate rather than take wild stabs along the lines of "X did something like it so can GW".

I remember reading some posts by someone who seemed to be familiar with manufacturing plastic models, I'll see if I can find them.


There's no "wild stabbing" here. GW can make parts the size of Baneblade parts. GW can also make parts that fit together, because every model has parts that fit together. Ergo, GW can make a Thunderhawk.

They just ain't.

Now if someone has a piece they wrote up about injection moulds and incompatibility with larger sheets, I'd be interested to see why it might be difficult for GW to do, especially when Revell did it in the 80's. But as explained above, huge sheets aren't required to make a Thunderhawk.

MajorWesJanson
10-06-2014, 15:34
There's no "wild stabbing" here. GW can make parts the size of Baneblade parts. GW can also make parts that fit together, because every model has parts that fit together. Ergo, GW can make a Thunderhawk.

They just ain't.

Now if someone has a piece they wrote up about injection moulds and incompatibility with larger sheets, I'd be interested to see why it might be difficult for GW to do, especially when Revell did it in the 80's. But as explained above, huge sheets aren't required to make a Thunderhawk.

The problem with large sheets is that they have to be broken up so they fit into defined sprues, which are limited by the machines GW uses to inject the sprues. The largest ones are in the Stompa and baneblade kits. And if you look at the baneblade, the single largest part is the upper hull, at about 7" long and 5" wide. The sides and belly are longer, and all of those parts are split into two sections each. The Thunderhawk is quite a bit larger- and has a number of large, long, flat sections- both sides of the fuelage and both wings are massive,

If they took a few liberties with a redesign, they could probably design the wings to be identical top and bottom, and split them into two parts along the length, so making 1 sprue that is repeated 4 times. Maybe add a few of the other options that are repeated as well, like the heavy bolters and missiles, and half an engine. But that is one sprue design, printed 4 times, just for the wings. The fuselage would probably take 4-5 sprues itself, mostly different (though a bit of redesign and they could duplicate parts of both sides) more if they want to make a full interior. And then another sprue or two for the weapons, rear engine and tail, and other accessories. So for number of sprues needed, imagine the Stompa and Tesseract vault combined.

AndrewGPaul
10-06-2014, 15:58
The sprues for the Shrine of the Aquila are the same size as those for the Baneblade, but the individual parts are much larger (10" x 5.5", apparently (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?238008-Shrine-of-the-Aquilla-size&p=4262223&viewfull=1#post4262223)). Admittedly those have lower detail than the vehicle kits.

On the other hand, there's no individual panels on the Thunderhawk that need to be that big. The largest single panels are the top of the front fuselage behind the cockpit and the main fuselage sides under the folding stabiliser wings. Even there, they could add detail to allow those parts to be split up.

insectum7
10-06-2014, 16:11
The problem with large sheets is that they have to be broken up so they fit into defined sprues, which are limited by the machines GW uses to inject the sprues. The largest ones are in the Stompa and baneblade kits. And if you look at the baneblade, the single largest part is the upper hull, at about 7" long and 5" wide. The sides and belly are longer, and all of those parts are split into two sections each. The Thunderhawk is quite a bit larger- and has a number of large, long, flat sections- both sides of the fuelage and both wings are massive,

If they took a few liberties with a redesign, they could probably design the wings to be identical top and bottom, and split them into two parts along the length, so making 1 sprue that is repeated 4 times. Maybe add a few of the other options that are repeated as well, like the heavy bolters and missiles, and half an engine. But that is one sprue design, printed 4 times, just for the wings. The fuselage would probably take 4-5 sprues itself, mostly different (though a bit of redesign and they could duplicate parts of both sides) more if they want to make a full interior. And then another sprue or two for the weapons, rear engine and tail, and other accessories. So for number of sprues needed, imagine the Stompa and Tesseract vault combined.

So what you're saying, is it's a big model. :) (Does GW produce on a scale identical to FW here? Or more "game-sized" as others have suggested?)

I'm glad you mentioned the Tesseract Vault, it's a good model to look at for big sheets. And looking at the sprues on the website I'm thinking your estimate of requiring four sprues for the wings alone is off. I'm thinking two, myself and if you're clever two identical sprues that had the secondary wings in there as well. Now, the Vault appears to use four identical sprues, and I bet that lowers the cost of production considerably. But I don't think anyone here thought the mythical plastic T-Hawk would be cheap. GW may have just run the numbers at some point and decided that it wouldn't be a cost effective model to make. . . and that's fine.

A big model? Sure. A complicated model? Could be. A costly model? One would assume. But technically impossible? A T-hawk is certainly not.

Mauler
10-06-2014, 16:21
So what you're saying, is it's a big model. :) (Does GW produce on a scale identical to FW here? Or more "game-sized" as others have suggested?)

I'm glad you mentioned the Tesseract Vault, it's a good model to look at for big sheets. And looking at the sprues on the website I'm thinking your estimate of requiring four sprues for the wings alone is off. I'm thinking two, myself and if you're clever two identical sprues that had the secondary wings in there as well. Now, the Vault appears to use four identical sprues, and I bet that lowers the cost of production considerably. But I don't think anyone here thought the mythical plastic T-Hawk would be cheap. GW may have just run the numbers at some point and decided that it wouldn't be a cost effective model to make. . . and that's fine.

A big model? Sure. A complicated model? Could be. A costly model? One would assume. But technically impossible? A T-hawk is certainly not.

I can't comment on the manufacturing stuff, but FW designs are 1:1 scale with the plastic kits. Those which are based on an existing pattern (Warp Hunters, Wasps, TX Piranhas, etc) use the plastic kit as a base with resin parts that fit to it. Which is why, if you're clever, with units like a Warp Hunter you can buy the FW unit which is the Fire Prism kit with extra resin parts and just get crystal & cockpit sprues, magnetise the turret/D-Cannon and use the model as either one without buying both :)

MusingWarboss
12-06-2014, 17:01
The realm of battle boards are 2' square plastic, so they must have something that can cast panels in plastic of that size. They're also supported underneath by struts. So that stability sorted. There's no reason GW can't make a plastic Thunderhawk at the moment it just seems as though it's an expense they don't want to incur. Perhaps once the resin moulds have died they'll consider it but for now they have a model and it's ok.

Sorry chaps, don't think its gonna happen anytime soon.

Inquisitor Kallus
12-06-2014, 17:46
Its cost and the machines used to produce them I believe. It takes a large amount of psi or similar to do larger sprues and get them cast well as opposed to having warping or buckling of parts. I dont knowspecifically how it works or if theyd to buy another machine for the task

Mauler
12-06-2014, 18:00
The realm of battle boards are 2' square plastic, so they must have something that can cast panels in plastic of that size. They're also supported underneath by struts. So that stability sorted. There's no reason GW can't make a plastic Thunderhawk at the moment it just seems as though it's an expense they don't want to incur. Perhaps once the resin moulds have died they'll consider it but for now they have a model and it's ok.

Sorry chaps, don't think its gonna happen anytime soon.

Sorry man, to correct you; the ROB boards are sold by FW, not GW. They're resin, not plastic. :(

Inquisitor Kallus
12-06-2014, 18:04
Sorry to correct you Mauler
but GW do plastic ROB, I own one and sold quite a few
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Citadel-Realm-of-Battle-Gameboard


http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Citadel-Realm-of-Battle-Gameboard-Extension

though FW do additional sections as well which are in resin

Mauler
12-06-2014, 18:14
Sorry to correct you Mauler
but GW do plastic ROB, I own one and sold quite a few
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Citadel-Realm-of-Battle-Gameboard


http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Citadel-Realm-of-Battle-Gameboard-Extension

though FW do additional sections as well which are in resin

Well I stand corrected! Where the bloody hell were those when I checked out 40k scenery on the GW site?! lol Must be under Citadel Terrain instead :shifty:

MusingWarboss
12-06-2014, 18:48
Well I stand corrected! Where the bloody hell were those when I checked out 40k scenery on the GW site?! lol Must be under Citadel Terrain instead :shifty:

Indeed you do! ;) The RoBB is under Citadel Scenery and is plastic. FW do also make addon board sections for it.

Which leads to the interesting observation that whilst a Thunderhawk costs about 300, a crashed Thunderhawk on a 2' square tile costs 90!! Way to go FW with your pricing disparity!!!

Chem-Dog
12-06-2014, 19:23
Look at the Space Marine Armoured Might (http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Armoured-Might)bundle, I see no significant difference between releasing a single model that requires 20+ sprues to build and something like this. They could even box them in separate boxes for sub assemblies (Left wing, right wing, fuselage, cockpit, whatever) to avoid having to cut a new box size.

GW have proved that they are perfectly capable of producing a panel that's larger than a single sprue (http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Skyshield-Landing-Pad) without sacrificing detail (not that this is an issue with the limitless potential for glue-on detail).

So I'm not convinced that it's beyond GW's capabilities to do, simply that they don't currently have an interest in releasing such a kit, it might be that it represents too great of an investment and that the returns on it aren't rewarding in the short-term, I don't know. But it's not absent from shelves due to a lack of ability.

Sildani
12-06-2014, 21:44
When the RBB came out, there was talk that its production was outsourced to an outside company. Perhaps GW aren't willing to do that with something as iconic as the T-Hawk, but they're not willing to do it themselves for whatever reason.

Flame Boy
13-06-2014, 02:26
I've got to agree with the consensus here, The kit could be designed, other companies produce kits like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUos-mhzvkw

It might not be a gaming piece like a Baneblade, but kits like this are more technically ambitious than a Thunderhawk would be. I think the most awkward part would be making a flying base big enough to keep it in place without having to displace all the other models/scenery on the table when you need to move it.

Gungo
13-06-2014, 02:30
I've got to agree with the consensus here, The kit could be designed, other companies produce kits like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUos-mhzvkw

It might not be a gaming piece like a Baneblade, but kits like this are more technically ambitious than a Thunderhawk would be. I think the most awkward part would be making a flying base big enough to keep it in place without having to displace all the other models/scenery on the table when you need to move it.
I fully expect two new lords of war to be released this spring as they have done the last two years. Whether that's a thunder hawk or something new I have no clue But we will see. If anything I think dark elder need a lord of war first. It's silly they share the same LOW as the eldar.

Beppo1234
13-06-2014, 02:50
I've got to agree with the consensus here, The kit could be designed, other companies produce kits like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUos-mhzvkw

It might not be a gaming piece like a Baneblade, but kits like this are more technically ambitious than a Thunderhawk would be. I think the most awkward part would be making a flying base big enough to keep it in place without having to displace all the other models/scenery on the table when you need to move it.


I personally would scale it down to the same scale as the Rhino (ie. if a rhino of this size can hold 11 marines, then a thunderhawk that holds 32 would be 'this' big). That gives GW a lot of wiggle room to scale the TH down to a more playable size. Somewhere in between the old Metal Hawk and the FW one. Like I said before, mine work and look great IMO, and fly, and are big enough to look the part, without getting stupid big (like the FW one).

as far as capacity. The Fortress of Redemption has about the same mass as the FW thunderhawk. So there is nothing standing in the way of them doing a FW sized one (but why? when you could make a smaller more useful one) in plastic, apart from the cost, risk and investment.

Smooth Boy
13-06-2014, 04:29
I think GW could easily make the mythical beast of 40K but as others have pointed out it would be a vanity project and not be very cost effective. They try to keep new models at a maximum of three unique sprues. I think a thunderhawk would be double or more of this and cost too much to design when compared to the number of people who will buy it. So it'll likely happen when GW is under new management or their stock holders are reaping mega rewards.

I personally say let the day never come. It looks ridiculous on a 6x4 board, keep it as a display piece in 28mm and as a usable unit in 6mm. Stormraven fills its role better I believe.

AndrewGPaul
13-06-2014, 12:34
The realm of battle boards are 2' square plastic, so they must have something that can cast panels in plastic of that size.


GW have proved that they are perfectly capable of producing a panel that's larger than a single sprue (http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Skyshield-Landing-Pad) without sacrificing detail

I haven't looked at my Skyshield for a while, but the other large building kits (for example, the Shrine of the Aquila and the Wall of Martyrs pieces) and the Realm of Battle tiles do sacrifice detail compared to the smaller vehicle kits. I don't know if that's for technical capability reasons or to make mould manufacture cheaper.


I personally would scale it down to the same scale as the Rhino (ie. if a rhino of this size can hold 11 marines, then a thunderhawk that holds 32 would be 'this' big).

Haven't Forge World already done this? The Thunderhawk Transporter is in scale with the standard Thunderhawk and the Land Raider and Rhino kits - as are all the other vehicles, since they tend to share common parts such as weapons and hatches.

Beppo1234
13-06-2014, 13:35
I haven't looked at my Skyshield for a while, but the other large building kits (for example, the Shrine of the Aquila and the Wall of Martyrs pieces) and the Realm of Battle tiles do sacrifice detail compared to the smaller vehicle kits. I don't know if that's for technical capability reasons or to make mould manufacture cheaper.



Haven't Forge World already done this? The Thunderhawk Transporter is in scale with the standard Thunderhawk and the Land Raider and Rhino kits - as are all the other vehicles, since they tend to share common parts such as weapons and hatches.

are they really, or are they about 25% bigger than they need to be? Just because FW chose a larger scale, does not mean GW have to follow suit. Like I said, the FW Hawk as it is now can't fly on a stand, takes up a 2x2 section of a 6x4 standard table when down... and is basically too big to transport from its lodging without some transport issues.

I'm currently plotting a third kitbashed thunderhawk, in an attempt to build a TH transporter. The double stormraven build is definitely large enough to act as a 'rhino' scaled thunderhawk transporter, and could acceptibly accept an underslung landraider, without looking too ridiculous:

194818

the double stormraven came to $275, 2 Stormravens and a few orders of bits to fill out the weapon systems + a little plasticard. GW could easily do it for $300 as a newly designed kit based on the SR aesthetic.

BigDuke6
14-06-2014, 06:47
For all those claiming that a plastic model that big is "impossible", I'm just going to call ************ on that. I used to build 1/32 scale fighter jets which were about as big as the FW Thunderhawk, and had a 1/48 scale B1-B (about 3" long) hanging from my ceiling as a teenager.

And the plastic in those models is crappier than the stuff GW uses.

If they wanted to do it, they could. They just aren't for whatever reason.

I must agree with this. I had a 1/48 scale B-52and C-130 when I was a teenager and they where just as big. The detail on the Herk wasexcellent, being revell. So yeah they could t and ot bat an eye, question is will they?

Chem-Dog
14-06-2014, 10:01
I haven't looked at my Skyshield for a while, but the other large building kits (for example, the Shrine of the Aquila and the Wall of Martyrs pieces) and the Realm of Battle tiles do sacrifice detail compared to the smaller vehicle kits. I don't know if that's for technical capability reasons or to make mould manufacture cheaper.

Could be a lot to do with not wanting to, or needing, oodles of detail on scenery. Though I have to say that the level of detail we're talking about needing isn't exactly high, SM vehicles aren't reknowned for being highly textured, certainly not beyond what a few stick-on pieces can add.

Mini77
14-06-2014, 14:22
The realm of battle boards are 2' square plastic, so they must have something that can cast panels in plastic of that size. They're also supported underneath by struts. So that stability sorted. There's no reason GW can't make a plastic Thunderhawk at the moment it just seems as though it's an expense they don't want to incur. Perhaps once the resin moulds have died they'll consider it but for now they have a model and it's ok.

Sorry chaps, don't think its gonna happen anytime soon.

No idea if this is still the case but at one point most of the terrain was actually made in China, not by Games Workshop themselves.

MusingWarboss
14-06-2014, 15:03
No idea if this is still the case but at one point most of the terrain was actually made in China, not by Games Workshop themselves.

I've no idea personally if that's the case or not. Still wouldn't alter the fact that they can get it done, whether in house of elsewhere.

As for detail on scenery. I just don't think scenery is supposed to be that detailed, especially the RoBB. Mores the pity because some gritty texture on the hills might have made them less slippy.

There's not a lot of detail on most SM vehicles as their mostly flat panels and has been said, you could just glue on details like Aquillas etc anyway. The only other detail would be rivets and panel lines, which are hardly going to be that difficult to do.

I think the bigger question isn't so much to do with the fabled Thunderhawk but more "when will GW release more plastic Escalation models". It's not just SM players who are stuck in resin on this issue.

DoctorTom
14-06-2014, 22:12
As the title suggests,with the new edition, Lords of War are now in. While everyone else have more affordable units to buy for their Lords of War, Space Marines are stuck with the Thunderhawk. Not saying the Thunderhawk is bad at all (I'd love to get one), but the price is ridiculous and it's resin. I think the beloved giant flying turkey needs a long overdue update; all plastic and a price drop. I'm sure people have their own custom built Thunderhawk, but for people like me who have zero conversion or scratch buiding abilities, I'll buy one instead (unless if someone wants to just give me one).

Anyway, considering what's been coming out, I think a plastic Thunderhawk, would make sense. Not saying this will do anything to make GW make one, but it's food for thought. Anyone else want to add to this wishful thinking?

Make yourself one out of balsa wood. Then, you could decide if you want to put a propellor on the front and an R/C rig in it to have an actual flying Thunderhawk.

Litcheur
15-06-2014, 13:39
Now would be a good time to release plastic nuns with guns. And then, plastic space dorfs. And plastic space rats. And plastic lizards in Spaaaace. And plastic space hippies.

But plastic Thunderhawk ? Hell, no. Just, no. If I wanted to play with Thunderhawks, I'd just play Epic. :o

MusingWarboss
15-06-2014, 15:00
Now would be a good time to release plastic nuns with guns. And then, plastic space dorfs. And plastic space rats. And plastic lizards in Spaaaace. And plastic space hippies.

But plastic Thunderhawk ? Hell, no. Just, no. If I wanted to play with Thunderhawks, I'd just play Epic. :o

Well given that they're wanting to unbind everything and you can just field any models you want then there really should be no problem releasing all of the above, much of the restrictions GW placed on them before was that they weren't popular armies, or were difficult to form a cohesive look for the army. Well, thanks GW, your Militarum Tempestus release proves that you don't need above five models for an "army" now, especially if you shove some command bits in. Then just ally them with whatever.

Cheaper to do than a Thunderhawk.