From TGN: Wayland Games have announced that they are not going to be selling the current Citadel Finecast range due to excessive errors in the product range.


From their website: http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/games-workshop/finecast-resin-models/cat_955.html

We regret that we are not presently retailing the Citadel Finecast range.

Unfortunately, a randomly sampled assessment revealed what we feel to be an excessive level of actual and potential flaws that, if reflected across our entire stock of Finecast, could have resulted in unacceptable inconvenience to our customers. Although we will be returning our present stockholding to the manufacturer, please be assured that we remain committed to carrying the Finecast line and will be restocking in due course.

For your information, we sampled and then assessed 60 sealed blisters with 30 taken at random from each of two deliveries of stock. Failures were 17 (57%) of 30 and 16 (53%) of 30, making 33 (55%) of 60 in total. While failure doesn’t necessarily denote the blister content as being of less than merchantable quality, for our purposes it does categorise it as having a visible flaw that might be of sufficient concern to a customer such that the item might be returned. Details and images were provided to the manufacturer, with redacted copies of the images appearing below.

Please note, the blisters remain sealed and so images were taken through the product packaging.

Nice.

Kudos to Wayland for setting standards.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1770/369106.page

About half way down the page, there's already some discussion of this if you're interested.

yes thanks, I'd like to see their images too and what the flaws were. That was consistent with my experiment at a much smaller set size.

Interesting.

I don't believe anyone should accept significant defects in Finecast. GW will only improve the process if it makes economic sense, in that they are receiving too many returns.

niceguyteddy wrote:I don't believe anyone should accept significant defects in Finecast. GW will only improve the process if it makes economic sense, in that they are receiving too many returns.

Point out the "defects in Finecast" there for me.

Oh wait. There's none. It's hairs stuck inside the clamshell packaging.

While it's grody and kinda weird, it's not exactly "a defect in Finecast".

Looks more to me like Wayland's implementing their own version of "Quality Control" and deciding anything is a flaw.

nice, but I'm sure GW will just take those returns and ship them out to someone else who won't return them :( Hopefully if they get enough returns they'll step up their game and invest in some quality control.

Been thinking about getting a finecast hive tyrant but I've been really hesitant.. I know I can return it if it's bad, but I just don't wanna go through the hassle...

Augustus wrote:yes thanks, I'd like to see their images too and what the flaws were. That was consistent with my experiment at a much smaller set size.

Interesting.

http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/games-workshop/finecast-resin-models/cat_955.html

There are a lot of images so apologies to those at work if you cannot access the Wayland page

Edit: Also apologies for repeating the linky, am barely awake at the moment

by way of compensation a couple of examples:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh wait. There's none. It's hairs stuck inside the clamshell packaging.

While it's grody and kinda weird, it's not exactly "a defect in Finecast".

Looks more to me like Wayland's implementing their own version of "Quality Control" and deciding anything is a flaw.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in buying someone's pubes. I got enough of my own to worry about.

Necros wrote:nice, but I'm sure GW will just take those returns and ship them out to someone else who won't return them :( Hopefully if they get enough returns they'll step up their game and invest in some quality control.

Been thinking about getting a finecast hive tyrant but I've been really hesitant.. I know I can return it if it's bad, but I just don't wanna go through the hassle...

That's been my main put-off. I was curious to check out the new resin, but didn't want to go through all the hassle of returning it. This pretty much puts me off buying anything Finecast in the near future. Or ever, unless they pull their socks up on this one.

Kanluwen wrote:

niceguyteddy wrote:I don't believe anyone should accept significant defects in Finecast. GW will only improve the process if it makes economic sense, in that they are receiving too many returns.

Point out the "defects in Finecast" there for me.

Oh wait. There's none. It's hairs stuck inside the clamshell packaging.

While it's grody and kinda weird, it's not exactly "a defect in Finecast".

Looks more to me like Wayland's implementing their own version of "Quality Control" and deciding anything is a flaw.

I would have to agree with you there. seems a bit over the top to call that a manufacturing defect. I have no love for GW but I do think they will work out most of the kinks. From what I understand they are spin casting resin. This is far from ideal, they would have been better off using Reaction Injection Molding... It would have cost them a bundle to re-tool but the constant returns will cost them more financially as well as in customer approval.

Just my two cents.

Necros wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh wait. There's none. It's hairs stuck inside the clamshell packaging.

While it's grody and kinda weird, it's not exactly "a defect in Finecast".

Looks more to me like Wayland's implementing their own version of "Quality Control" and deciding anything is a flaw.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in buying someone's pubes. I got enough of my own to worry about.

Like I said: "it's grody and kinda weird" but it's not a defect in the material.

Unless Beasts of War was doing that as a joke, in which case I retract my statement and add in a "What were the actual flaws there?" because I'm not seeing anything that would make it "unsellable" necessarily.

There's some terrible casts in those photos. Good on Wayland for not expecting their customers to return a product they just purchased---and returning inferior products before selling to their customers.

Ouch.

Whats worse is how obvious the failures are in some.

Though at least we know where the guys with neckbeards end up.

Kanluwen wrote:

Looks more to me like Wayland's implementing their own version of "Quality Control" and deciding anything is a flaw.

Selective images are selective Kan. But I don't personally want to open a packet of 'the best toy soldiers in the world' and find a pube.

Now perhaps put up the rest of the images...

Like this one.

Notice that Theodin's mount's foreleg looks badly cast too.
Poor thing would be shot if at a steeplechase.

Kanluwen wrote:

niceguyteddy wrote:I don't believe anyone should accept significant defects in Finecast. GW will only improve the process if it makes economic sense, in that they are receiving too many returns.

Point out the "defects in Finecast" there for me.

Oh wait. There's none. It's hairs stuck inside the clamshell packaging.

While it's grody and kinda weird, it's not exactly "a defect in Finecast".

Looks more to me like Wayland's implementing their own version of "Quality Control" and deciding anything is a flaw.

2 out of 31, though. That still leaves 29 of those images that are depicting genuine flaws.

AgeOfEgos wrote:There's some terrible casts in those photos. Good on Wayland for not expecting their customers to return a product they just purchased---and returning inferior products before selling to their customers.

I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

The statement they make on their site is "While failure doesn’t necessarily denote the blister content as being of less than merchantable quality, for our purposes it does categorise it as having a visible flaw that might be of sufficient concern to a customer such that the item might be returned.".

The big question for me is the LOTR horse. The "flaw" there just looks like it's a mold line stretching from the barding to the horse itself--which isn't uncommon on the metals or even plastics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Looks more to me like Wayland's implementing their own version of "Quality Control" and deciding anything is a flaw.

Selective images are selective Kan. But I don't personally want to open a packet of 'the best toy soldiers in the world' and find a pube.

Now perhaps put up the rest of the images...

Like this one.

And I'm not disputing that some of them genuinely looked terrible. But the standard is seemingly all over the place.

Admittedly some of these are terrible and shouldn't have made it out of GW HQ but...

Having only had a quick scan through a random selection of the images, I would suggest that most of these 'defects' are no worse than the normal flash and/or pitting issues that everyone came to expect from the metal variants of these kits and there wasn't as much whinging about them.

Hendie wrote:Admittedly some of these are terrible and shouldn't have made it out of GW HQ but...

Having only had a quick scan through a random selection of the images, I would suggest that most of these 'defects' are no worse than the normal flash and/or pitting issues that everyone came to expect from the metal variants of these kits and there wasn't as much whinging about them.

Normal flash doesn't require you to resculpt missing parts, just trim excess material. For some reason, people are posting the least damaging pics here (like the pube blister) and not the ones missing crozius handles, sword tips, chains that disappear in the middle of the length to reappear a bit later, etc.. I don't mind taking a hobby knife to trim off a bit extra resin or metal (I've got the skill to do that) but I don't have the skill to resculpt a chain or decorative weapon handle. I also shouldn't at the price and hype associated with Finecast.

Re read Wayland's statement.
It sounds like they have been fair to me.

There is a difference between flash and some defects. Am in the middle of cleaning up a metal Citadel model at the moment and the cast is not pristine by a long chalk.
However it is a question of cleaning up and removing excess, some of which is awkward to get to.

However GW have made the claim that this is a top quality product and are charging a premium price for it.
It is to my way of thinking only fair that the product should therefore reflect that and anything less is not acceptable.
It will cost you some time and GS if you have the confidence and skill to make the unecessary repairs.



I dunno, you find a pair of waifs in the wild wood, take pity and raise em instead of eating the little blighters and they suck yer tits off as a reward!
Bloody Romans!

If you look closer at the horse at the point the neck makes contact with the chainmail there is an obvious 'well' where the surface has not formed. Regardless of how 'random' the faults are, Wayland are right to highlight their concern. Consider if they took the order and dispatched models to customers, only to have them returned. That way they are going to lose a lot of money in postal charges. Add to the fact that it looks like replacements are just as likely to be faulty, that is a hell of a lot of possible loss of revenue. When you buy anything you should expect it to be of really high quality, not covered in air bubbles and miscast parts. Well done Wayland.

And I'm not disputing that some of them genuinely looked terrible. But the standard is seemingly all over the place.

The standards were stated as anything that might make a customer return it. That would be a threshold that every one of those pics matched whether it was by an inch or by a mile (although the 2 with hair are kinda dubious inclusions at best). Some of the miscasts were minor, some were major, but all were miscast and cause for concern.

Hendie wrote:

Having only had a quick scan through a random selection of the images, I would suggest that most of these 'defects' are no worse than the normal flash and/or pitting issues that everyone came to expect from the metal variants of these kits and there wasn't as much whinging about them.

Erm, there are large parts of the miniature missing. That's not pitting or flash.

Chain disappears mid-length




Face missing




Crozius handle not formed




These are not acceptible for "Fine"cast miniatures at the current price point. I never had to deal with anything like that with the old metal lines. The worst I ever got was one or two figs with the mold misaligned less than a millimeter and an obvious line down each side out of over 100 metal GW minis (I've got a 90 man all metal 2nd/3rd edition marine army and used to have another 80 man metal 2nd edition IG infantry army... plus the usual smattering of other metals from specialist games and for mostly plastic 40k armies).

60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

Also since they are closed blisters, gods only know what more you would find by opening them.

That's the big shocker for me, 55% error rate and you're only looking at unopened blisters. Ones they couldn't find anything wrong with could actually have huge miscasts or bubbles you just can't see, the error rate is in all likelihood much higher than 55%.

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

And would likely render them unable to return the minis wholesale to GW because they're opened by the merchant. So, you think to prove a point that they should run their business into the ground?

At least Wayland are using quality control,are finecost?

Glad to hear Wayland Games is taking a stand. Some of the problems may not seem that serious, but in the end Wayland has to pay for extra shipping for unsatisfied customers, and they shouldn't have to cover the costs of a flawed products. Yes, that includes pubes. If a customer chooses to return that because they are disgusted, it costs Wayland the same as if pieces were missing. Apologizing to customers and covering the costs to keep a disgruntled customer is a waste of resources. GW set the bar of expectations with their metal minis, Wayland shouldn't be expected to offer any less.

As for the other models, I don't mind scraping flash; I get pretty testy when I'm expected to sculpt replacements for missing resin. That's unacceptable, particularly when GW is making the decision to switch materials. I like resin, but I don't expect to suffer a loss of quality for their experiment.

@warboss I said something about opening the blisters? Hmmm maybe re-read that post.

I think that this is a very sensible move. If Wayland can't guarantee to their customers that they are getting a serviceable model then they shouldn't stock them. Retailers (including GW's own) shouldn't have to sort through deliveries of stock for the good casts and certainly customers shouldn't. I think Citadel should hold off from the August wave until they get this sorted out. Aside from trying to restructure the company's marketing policy and trade pricing they should not be trying to launch a new line. I think it's just trying to do too much at once. I would love to see more finecast when it has been perfected but this shouldn't be on sale right now.

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

No. How many disgruntled customers can any business afford? GW set a standard of quality with their metals. Wayland has a reasonable expectation that 30 items shouldn't receive complaints.

Maybe it was sheer fluke that they happened to examine the worst 60 of the bunch, and found the only 30 or so that were flawed. But GW is responsible for the product they ship. Once it reaches Wayland, there is an expectation they haven't been screwed over by poor quality control.

This isn't a statistical problem, it's a trust issue.

When a customer finds a bit of mouse in their loaf of bread, no one really cares about the 16 million mouse-free loaves that shipped. It may be unfair statistically, but that's the world we live in.

Hendie wrote:Admittedly some of these are terrible and shouldn't have made it out of GW HQ but...

Having only had a quick scan through a random selection of the images, I would suggest that most of these 'defects' are no worse than the normal flash and/or pitting issues that everyone came to expect from the metal variants of these kits and there wasn't as much whinging about them.

I wouldn't.

I've rarely had a metal kit with flaws that serious and obvious. If I had one I would take it back for a refund.

I don't remember any serious whinging about how terrible metal is until Finecast came along to be much better. Then suddenly lots of people were all like, "I've hated metal for years".

Finally, if the GW metal models really were that terrible, it's a reflection on GW's poor QA on metal. I've got heaps and heaps of fantastic castings from lots of other companies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

They need to have taken a random blind sample of large enough size to be valid.

I find it hard to believe even the most hardcore apologist can hate on this... Wayland are interested in making sure you receive an item you don't have to return... this is bad because???

Not to mention all the extra work it causes wayland to go through the replacement/refund... it's a ton of lost profit and all of it lands on GW's poor QC. Come on guys, this is pretty black and white...

Kilkrazy wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

ancientsociety wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

They need to have taken a random blind sample of large enough size to be valid.

Again, we have no idea the total amount of minis received by Wayland. If this is 60 out of say 200, that's 30% of the total product.

Games Workshop claims these are the "finest miniatures on the market", if that is true, there's absolutely no reason why customers and retailers should be seeing these issues that most of their competitor's miniatures, even resin ones, do not have.

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

So what you are saying is that Wayland should check at the least 1000 blisters which would take a few days to do properly and during that time the person or people checking for defects should not process peoples orders, send out packages or anything like that. It's not Waylands job to make sure the products are defect free, they should not have to waste manpower or hire someone to make sure the products they receive are retailable. I'm sure if you call Wayland and say you will check their entire stock for free and within a a few days I'm sure they would be more than willing to offer you a contract to check the products for them.

GW are stating that these miniatures are the best in the world and they are by far some of the most expensive miniatures on the market, yet we should accept that the models we buy might be missing half a gun, contain some dudes pubes or have parts bent to hell?

When I pay £10-£15 for a single miniature I expect it to be the center point of my army because it looks good, not because half the face is missing.

If you buy a christmas turkey for £15 and there are some small areas with mold on them, smells really bad and there are some dudes pubes on it do you just cut off the bad parts and pick off the pubes and then eat it or do you return it to the shop and complain?

If I have to pay a premium I damn well expect to receive a premium product!

I'm sure you'd be happy to pay $39AU (£25) for Lord Kaldor Dragio only to find you have to resculpt his sword and details on his shield.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1140003&prodId=prod1190020a

Mastiff wrote:Glad to hear Wayland Games is taking a stand. Some of the problems may not seem that serious, but in the end Wayland has to pay for extra shipping for unsatisfied customers, and they shouldn't have to cover the costs of a flawed products. Yes, that includes pubes. If a customer chooses to return that because they are disgusted, it costs Wayland the same as if pieces were missing. Apologizing to customers and covering the costs to keep a disgruntled customer is a waste of resources. GW set the bar of expectations with their metal minis, Wayland shouldn't be expected to offer any less.

As for the other models, I don't mind scraping flash; I get pretty testy when I'm expected to sculpt replacements for missing resin. That's unacceptable, particularly when GW is making the decision to switch materials. I like resin, but I don't expect to suffer a loss of quality for their experiment.

100% agree. Plus, extra hair in a package is sloppy and shows lack of control in the manufacturing environment... I'd refuse or return a finecast with a hair, especially considering the price paid. And that's the point, isn't it? At this price point hair in the package is unacceptable because it is unprofessional. I shouldn't gag when opening my bestest model evar!!!11!!

Having done incoming inspection on materials for work for years, including molded plastics: proclaiming a need to inspect 1000 pieces is not true. You'd need a shipment of about 500,000 pieces to justify that sample size (1000). And you know what? With that scenario, even 1 failure could be below the acceptability level (depending on the Acceptable Quality Level). You could inspect the first one, get a failure and reject at that point. We're not talking about determining the rate of failures in the entire batch. The purpose is determining the acceptability of the shipment received. Sampling and analysis (inspection and documenting) is not free, so theoretical has to balance with practical... in other words, don't spend all day or week re-documenting over and over something is crap when you've already established as such.

The fact that the sampled population has reject rate of over 50% is ridiculous. Wayland has sufficient data and absolutely send the stuff back. Bravo on them.

So a hair in clamshell packaging isn't a big deal, huh? Let me tell you a story.

When Van Halen was first touring, they had a huge long contract with an infamous contract rider that stated that a bowl of M&Ms had to be placed in their dressing room, with all the brown M&Ms removed. This story has been brought up as an example of rock stars being prima donnas.

The truth is that the rider was attached to a series of very specific instructions on how to properly set up their very large, very expensive, and very elaborate stage show. Failure to follow the instructions to the letter could be disastrous: electronics could fail to operate, power systems could be incompatible, stages not rated for the weight of their props could collapse, electronic cables not properly plugged in could ignite fires, giant metal props could fall over.

So if Van Halen walked into that dressing room, and they didn't see the bowl of M&Ms there with all the brown ones removed. . . or if they found a single brown M&M in that bowl? It was a red flag to them to check the entire stage set up themselves, piece by piece, and (if things turned out to be bad enough), refuse to do the show entirely.

Hairs in clamshell packaging might not be a big deal, but it's a red flag to me that someone over at GW is doing a sloppy job.

To me, 60 sounds like a reasonable sample size to represent the population, especially if we assume that they really just grabbed 30 at random from each shipment.

Some of the flaws are fairly minor, but then again, that's over half of the sample that would need to be returned, and that's not looking at the flaws that you can't see from outside the package. This makes me ask, if you were running a shop, what would be acceptable to you? How many pissed-off customers would you want banging down your door because the product you're selling (or passing along from GW in this case) is crap?

Personally, if it were my shop, I wouldn't even want a 25% failure rate. I know 0% isn't possible, but damn... 50%?
And if I saw hair in a package as a buyer, I wouldn't want it. It would become an unpurchasable product. I don't know where it came from and I don't know if it's even human... And that opens the door to what other bio-waste is there in those things? I'd rather not deal with it.


I admit I purchased the DA Company Master failcast model to see if things really were that bad. Yeah, mine was a defect, too. Nothing that can't be fixed with greenstuff (hole in the helmet, big chunk of foot missing), but I really shouldn't have to. GW needs to get the message that we won't put up with crappy quality. I'm going to call in and complain. Maybe the replacement will be better. ... That or I wind up with a slew of DA Company Masters!

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

Did you miss the part where I said they should have stated the percentage of the population the did QC? That is exactly what my post was about, it leaves that question unanswered. How many items did they recieve from GW? 60? 100? 200? 6000? They stated that 55% of what they sampled was faulty, if we the reader are not aware of the complete facts we can accidently start assumung that 55% of all finecast will be garbage.

Wayland Games is honestly taking that responsibility on themselves which is misinfoming the customer. If you are going to make such accusations you should provide your audience with as much information as possible.

Thanks for linking out the images and the good discussion!

Simply fibers (maybe it's not even hair? as a reason to not accept product, is absurd.

Everything else looks legitimate (as a bad claim for miscasts).

Good images BTW.

Also agree with the prior comment, filing mold lines, de treeing, knife work, any kind of removal etc. no problem, but ADDING, IE: re sculpting a bit of chain or a weapon handle or a clearly missing sphere from a storm bolter, essentially impossible.

EDIT:

It also makes me very concerned about the larger finecast models and groups that com in boxes, if you can't see whats in there you might really be in for a project if it runs out to need additive repairs, and you wont know till you have it opened.

Pael wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

Did you miss the part where I said they should have stated the percentage of the population the did QC? That is exactly what my post was about, it leaves that question unanswered. How many items did they recieve from GW? 60? 100? 200? 6000? They stated that 55% of what they sampled was faulty, if we the reader are not aware of the complete facts we can accidently start assumung that 55% of all finecast will be garbage.

Wayland Games is honestly taking that responsibility on themselves which is misinfoming the customer. If you are going to make such accusations you should provide your audience with as much information as possible.

Pael....I'll state this as simply as possible:

GW produces and markets Finecast as "the best miniatures on the market" and prices them accordingly. It is not Wayland's responsibility to do QC work for GW.

The responsibility does not lay on Wayland to QC all their incoming stock from GW. This incurs costs on Wayland, which is not in their best interest to take on.

They have provided evidence that, due to GW's lack of quality, Wayland would be forced to incur additional costs to reimburse the customer if they were to sell these pieces. As such, they have decided not to sell them, as it would be detrimental to their business. It does not matter how large or small their control group was, they made a decision that flaws within 55% of the stock is not viable for their profit margin.

As for "misinforming the customer", GW continues to hype this material/casting process as "the best", yet it is obvious that (as of right now) there are severe flaws within the medium and its production, that do not occur in their competitor's product. It's obvious to even a casual observer that, at the present time, this is NOT the gold standard in miniatures and GW is the one who is "misinforming" customers re: this issue.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I've rarely had a metal kit with flaws that serious and obvious. If I had one I would take it back for a refund.

I don't remember any serious whinging about how terrible metal is until Finecast came along to be much better. Then suddenly lots of people were all like, "I've hated metal for years".

Finally, if the GW metal models really were that terrible, it's a reflection on GW's poor QA on metal. I've got heaps and heaps of fantastic castings from lots of other companies.

I don't understand that part either. In all sincerity, the only issues I've ever had with GW metal products was the occasional bent spear that was difficult to straighten back out properly. Other than that, the models have always appeared crisp and I had no complaints about the quality.



Again, kudos to Wayland for taking the initiative in place of their customers.

Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

Ozymandias wrote:Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

And also way to throw out models with hairs on the blisters!

The hairy packagers at GW were ruining the Finecast release!

Kanluwen wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

And also way to throw out models with hairs on the blisters!

The hairy packagers at GW were ruining the Finecast release!

I love how you continue to gloss over the other, more serious problems these minis show.

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

And also way to throw out models with hairs on the blisters!

The hairy packagers at GW were ruining the Finecast release!

I love how you continue to gloss over the other, more serious problems these minis show.

And I love how you act as though the idea of "random standards of quality" is foreign.

Going from "hair in the packaging" to "misaligned mold" is such a stupidly high amount of quality assurance that it makes this entire announcement a joke.

I don't consider myself a GW apologist, and I do recognize that there are some problems with the models. But to be honest, I probably wouldn't care about these supposed "miscasts" if I purchased the product.

Just a few at random:

Draigo: Would return.
Black Ork Big Boss: Wouldn't return.
Lelith Hesperax: Wouldn't return.
Tyrannid Broodlord: Would return.
Uruk Hai: Would return.
Grimgor Ironhide: Wouldn't return.

I don't know if other people simply have higher standards than I do for models (possible) or they're just looking for a reason to complain about the Finecast models (also possible, less likely), but to me Wayland was being a little picky. At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.

Then again, Wayland is within their right not to accept perfect tender. And they've probably made a business decision that they'll lose money selling and having to replace bad castings.

There's actually another thing I'm curious about.

Are these actually recent, right off the truck miscasts or is it stuff that hasn't sold from the Finecast 'release day'?

Because if it's the latter, that's like using the launch 360s as an example for why to not buy the 'current' production run of 360.

Pael wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

Did you miss the part where I said they should have stated the percentage of the population the did QC? That is exactly what my post was about, it leaves that question unanswered. How many items did they recieve from GW? 60? 100? 200? 6000? They stated that 55% of what they sampled was faulty, if we the reader are not aware of the complete facts we can accidently start assumung that 55% of all finecast will be garbage.

Wayland Games is honestly taking that responsibility on themselves which is misinfoming the customer. If you are going to make such accusations you should provide your audience with as much information as possible.

OK well besides that you really do not understand statistics its all fine. They made a point estimate based on a sample size of 60. You do not need to know the population size to get a reasonable estimates and confidence intervals. It doesn't matter if they sample 1% or 20% the confidence interval remains the same. Just FYI

I believe Wayland has misunderstood these blister defects. These aren't defects in the product, they are intentional hobby challenge models. Select packages sent out to test the hobbist skills in modelling so they have a more involve experience with the minis.

tiekwando wrote:

OK well besides that you really do not understand statistics its all fine. They made a point estimate based on a sample size of 60. You do not need to know the population size to get a reasonable estimates and confidence intervals. It doesn't matter if they sample 1% or 20% the confidence interval remains the same. Just FYI

And there's another variable that you're not accounting for, which is which "generation" of casts these were. The first production run was riddled with miscasts and things of that nature, but quality has reportedly improved since the "launch" of FineCast.

Kanluwen wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

And also way to throw out models with hairs on the blisters!

The hairy packagers at GW were ruining the Finecast release!

I love how you continue to gloss over the other, more serious problems these minis show.

And I love how you act as though the idea of "random standards of quality" is foreign.

Going from "hair in the packaging" to "misaligned mold" is such a stupidly high amount of quality assurance that it makes this entire announcement a joke.

I've bought probably 300+ minis over the past 15 years and never once had a hair in the packaging. I've also had about the same amount of second-hand trades over on Bartertown in 5 years and have still never received a hair in either a box or blister pack. Additionally, I've never had a miniature lack a face, have a chain stop halfway through its arc, 1-3mm wide holes in the center of the miniature, in either metal, plastic, or resin figures.

Again, these miniatures are being marketed by GW as THE best miniatures on the market. It stands to reason that they should therefore BE the best miniatures on the market and NOT have these issues.

I fail to see how you cannot understand that. Would you buy a computer marketed as "top-of-the-line" with its HDD missing, cracks in the monitor, and dust inside the case?

The hair is an amusement and cause of some joshing.
Whether you would take the miscasts back or not is irrellavent Biccat.

I might think to just get on with mending lesser problems myself, but would not be happy about it.
As said by myself and others these are being sold as, and costed as a premium product and not everyone feels that they can or ought solve the problems with GS

To be fair to GW they are exchanging the faulty goods so they are inclined by action to disagree with your laissez faire attitude.

Kanluwen wrote:

tiekwando wrote:

OK well besides that you really do not understand statistics its all fine. They made a point estimate based on a sample size of 60. You do not need to know the population size to get a reasonable estimates and confidence intervals. It doesn't matter if they sample 1% or 20% the confidence interval remains the same. Just FYI

And there's another variable that you're not accounting for, which is which "generation" of casts these were. The first production run was riddled with miscasts and things of that nature, but quality has reportedly improved since the "launch" of FineCast.

Does it matter?

Yes, I agree with you they are improving.. Its the nature of resin casting that you need to adjust the size and location of the gates and vents until you get it right.

Sending out mis-casts regardless of the casting "generation" is a problem. It shows a QC issue. Will there be miscasts? sure, always are with resin. It depends on what level you feel is acceptable. Filling a bubble is no much of an issue, but re-sculpting missing parts due to mold fill problems... not acceptable.

Kanluwen wrote:There's actually another thing I'm curious about.

Are these actually recent, right off the truck miscasts or is it stuff that hasn't sold from the Finecast 'release day'?

Because if it's the latter, that's like using the launch 360s as an example for why to not buy the 'current' production run of 360.

While I agree with this, the Finecast models they recieved were still of poor quality, and there's no point in selling them untill they get some in without rampant defects.

MajorTom11 wrote:I find it hard to believe even the most hardcore apologist can hate on this... Wayland are interested in making sure you receive an item you don't have to return... this is bad because???

Not to mention all the extra work it causes wayland to go through the replacement/refund... it's a ton of lost profit and all of it lands on GW's poor QC. Come on guys, this is pretty black and white...

This.

After all the negative feedback regarding Finecost, any retailer would be cautious. Wayland did the logical thing by nipping any possible issue in the bud before they reach the customer. It's simply good business practice. Wayland also did a good job by basing their decision on firsthand data via random sampling. Wayland's not the first company to be cautious with Finecost, the combat company is also avoiding Finecost as well. Hell, it would be smart for any retailer to avoid Finecost until the quality issues are sorted.

Some of the "degrees of inferiority" arguments are getting pretty ridiculous. At the end of the day, with a premium brand, you expect a premium product.

biccat wrote:I don't consider myself a GW apologist, and I do recognize that there are some problems with the models. But to be honest, I probably wouldn't care about these supposed "miscasts" if I purchased the product.

Just a few at random:

Draigo: Would return.
Black Ork Big Boss: Wouldn't return.
Lelith Hesperax: Wouldn't return.
Tyrannid Broodlord: Would return.
Uruk Hai: Would return.
Grimgor Ironhide: Wouldn't return.

I don't know if other people simply have higher standards than I do for models (possible) or they're just looking for a reason to complain about the Finecast models (also possible, less likely), but to me Wayland was being a little picky. At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.








Are you mad - a quater would be acceptable to most customers!!!!!!! I for one will not be spending any money on these products until the quality improves - if ever.



Then again, Wayland is within their right not to accept perfect tender. And they've probably made a business decision that they'll lose money selling and having to replace bad castings.

biccat wrote:I don't know if other people simply have higher standards than I do for models (possible) or they're just looking for a reason to complain about the Finecast models (also possible, less likely), but to me Wayland was being a little picky. At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.

You've hit upon a good point.

If I had purchased the damnable thing, my likelihood of getting pursuing a replacement are only governed partly by how bad the problem is.

Scenario 1: I am in a hurry and need the model for an event: In this case, I would likely grit my teeth and attempt to fix it. Models beyond my ability to fix, such as Draigo, would really piss me off and cause me to change my list. The unusable model, would be returned in this case and not exchanged.

Scenario 2: I am NOT in a hurry, and returning it would take less hassle than repairing it. In this case, I'd probably exchange it.

Scenario 3: I am NOT in a hurry and fixing it would take less hassle than returning it. Be it a drive, a phone call, mail out etc... sometimes, it takes less effort just to fix it. Should it require fixing right out of the box? Definitely not. I just bought 2 resin battle engines for Warmachine and one has some anoying mould slippage on a part of the undercarriage. I can still fix it, and in this case - I will, because I know that my FLGS (a) doesn't have any more to exchange, and (b) I don't have time to wrangle with PP customer service right now, considering how overburdened they are at the moment. I'm not happy about this, as the engines cost a fortune and shouldn't need this degree of fixing - (The first one was almost perfect - some minor damage and a few air bubbles), but it happens, and should only take around 5 minutes of greenstuff to fix.

Nonetheless, getting a defective product is a bit of a turnoff towards the product line IRRESPECTIVE of if I acted to return it or not. Getting CONSISTENT defects is a HUGE turn off. GW points to all those people that didn't return and claims that they are representative of satisfied customers... Quiet maybe, but if they think that they are all satisfied, they are just fooling themselves.

OK well besides that you really do not understand statistics its all fine. They made a point estimate based on a sample size of 60. You do not need to know the population size to get a reasonable estimates and confidence intervals. It doesn't matter if they sample 1% or 20% the confidence interval remains the same. Just FYI

What are you talking about? Ever heard of a confidence interval calculator? Two numbers 95% and 99% confidence can be decided by the sample size taken based on the population size.

To back up my point http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

@ancientsociety Thanks for breaking it down for me. I totally missed the fact that it isn't Wayland games responsibilty to QC GW but then why did they? hmmmm Looks like they bit off more than they could chew with making a statment of "For your information, we sampled and then assessed 60 sealed blisters with 30 taken at random from each of two deliveries of stock. Failures were 17 (57%) of 30 and 16 (53%) of 30, making 33 (55%) of 60 in total." Quoted from OP.

Kanluwen wrote:
And there's another variable that you're not accounting for, which is which "generation" of casts these were. The first production run was riddled with miscasts and things of that nature, but quality has reportedly improved since the "launch" of FineCast.

The reasons for the miscasts aren't the issue though, are they? GW saw fit to ship to their retailers a product that has flaws. That's a trust issue, with Wayland Games caught in the middle of a supplier who isn't conducted sufficient Quality Assurance, and customers who are likely to return products if they aren't satisfied.

If they've dealt with the issue, that's excellent news. But bad casts should be written off as GW's Research and Development costs, not part of their product rollout.

Wayland made their decision based on the percentage of the sample they believe their customers would have returned.

I'm inclined to believe Wayland know their customers a bit better than some random posters on Dakka, so if they believe a hair in the packaging is going to lead to a customer returning the product, that's their call to make. If they're wrong, then they'll suffer the consequences, If they're right, their customers will see Wayland is looking out for them, and their reputation gets a boost.

I think they made a good call. If they estimate the hassle of handling customer returns on a product line will outweigh the potential revenue generated, then they should drop the line.

I guess finecast ... isn't so fine after all ...

For me this is an issue of confidence and trust. I like this hobby and spend a lot of hard earned money on whatever my latest project is. GW do sell some of the bets minatures in the genre. Their plastic stuff is much better than any of their competitors and to some degree justifies the price. Added to which it is easy to assemble etc,

However, Finecast, at the moment, at least is not!! I dont have the necessary skills to use green stuff etc to repair defaults and as i order most stuff off the internet, frankly cant be bothered with taking the risk whatever i buy is defective and would need to be replaced. Im sure im not in the minority with this and many people will be put off by these horror stories.

what would be helpful would be something official from GW refencing these issues, either to dispel this critcism or to acknowledge it rather than waxing lyrical about how great it is.

However this will not happen, and i for one will look for ebay bargains for metal versions of the models i want and will steer clear of Finecast - like many others i assume.



PS - for all those apologists for poor quality - you know who you are, we shouldnt have to pay top dollar for rubbish just to get a hobby fix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Pael wrote:
@ancientsociety Thanks for breaking it down for me. I totally missed the fact that it isn't Wayland games responsibilty to QC GW but then why did they? hmmmm Looks like they bit off more than they could chew with making a statment of "For your information, we sampled and then assessed 60 sealed blisters with 30 taken at random from each of two deliveries of stock. Failures were 17 (57%) of 30 and 16 (53%) of 30, making 33 (55%) of 60 in total." Quoted from OP.

You're working a little too hard to shift the blame to Wayland Games. They made a good business decision, and decided to provide their customers with the reasoning behind their decision, backed up by empirical evidence. You feel they should have kept their findings secret? Who exactly does that serve?

I must applaud Wayland for taking initiative in customer satisfaction. Hopefully this will cause GW to rethink their whole Finecast line and come out with something much better.

On the subject of the current debate, I should note that if two hairs out of 33 is bad enough for anyone to claim that the entire assessment should be thrown out the window or taken with a grain of salt, then wouldn't that also mean that the remaining 31 models, who do show actual, serious miscasts, be good enough of a percentage to condemn the remainder of the line?

I feel I must also point out again (although several before me had) that Wayland is doing this on their own. They have no responsibility to do this and really shouldn't have to. They also mentioned that they've checked two shipments, possibly because they heard GW tried to fix the miscasts. They possibly heard of the backlash on the internet and decided to see for themselves. if GW products were as good as they say, it should have passed with flying colours. Evidently that did not happen.

They also listed that they do not consider the blisters to be of unsellable quality, but may cause concern with their customers. Going back to the Hair, this could show that the blister was tampered with somehow (the human hair being evident that it was not done in a clean enviroment). If a customer received that, they might feel Wayland was the one doing the tampering and had opened the blister, either taking something out or inserting something in, which would in turn damage Wayland's reputation where they had no fault in.

Just my two cents.

Pael wrote:

@ancientsociety Thanks for breaking it down for me. I totally missed the fact that it isn't Wayland games responsibilty to QC GW but then why did they?

...because there's been tons of detailed reviews over the past few weeks pointing out major issues with this product, they recognize it might be an issue for their customers, and they took the initiative to vet the product?

It's a little thing called customer service. A GW apologist like you wouldn't understand it.

Mastiff wrote:

Pael wrote:
@ancientsociety Thanks for breaking it down for me. I totally missed the fact that it isn't Wayland games responsibilty to QC GW but then why did they? hmmmm Looks like they bit off more than they could chew with making a statment of "For your information, we sampled and then assessed 60 sealed blisters with 30 taken at random from each of two deliveries of stock. Failures were 17 (57%) of 30 and 16 (53%) of 30, making 33 (55%) of 60 in total." Quoted from OP.

You're working a little too hard to shift the blame to Wayland Games. They made a good business decision, and decided to provide their customers with the reasoning behind their decision, backed up by empirical evidence. You feel they should have kept their findings secret? Who exactly does that serve?

Let me first apologize I do not mean to come across as argumentitive.

My first post was just to say that Wayland's "numbers" should not be taken seriously. This news should be considered anecdotal not as fact, since more information is needed.

I don't mind the GW bashing I just mind that the facts are straight and concise.

*edit for spelling...

Charax wrote:Wayland made their decision based on the percentage of the sample they believe their customers would have returned.

I'm inclined to believe Wayland know their customers a bit better than some random posters on Dakka, so if they believe a hair in the packaging is going to lead to a customer returning the product, that's their call to make. If they're wrong, then they'll suffer the consequences, If they're right, their customers will see Wayland is looking out for them, and their reputation gets a boost.

I think they made a good call. If they estimate the hassle of handling customer returns on a product line will outweigh the potential revenue generated, then they should drop the line.

Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

biccat wrote:.
At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.

I disagree. If I am paying $22.25 for a single miniature, it better be damned near perfect. Good on Wayland for doing what they're doing. Maybe others, like-minded, can get GW to step up in the QC department.

Also I, like others, am surprised to see any backlash at all over this. Course, it is Kanluwen.

Just from reading some of the opinions and rationales being posted in here, it's really no wonder that GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....

With regard to Finecast - some things are just indefensible. I would suggest even the most pro-GW fan would be at the least slightly peeved at receiving a mini with some of the defects that Wayland have highlighted. Trying to suggest that Wayland haven't been 100% scientific in their sample size or whatever is just missing the point completely. For a mini to be marketed as premium and for the price they are sold at, there should not be this type and range of defects, let alone pubes in the pack.

Kanluwen wrote:

Charax wrote:Wayland made their decision based on the percentage of the sample they believe their customers would have returned.

I'm inclined to believe Wayland know their customers a bit better than some random posters on Dakka, so if they believe a hair in the packaging is going to lead to a customer returning the product, that's their call to make. If they're wrong, then they'll suffer the consequences, If they're right, their customers will see Wayland is looking out for them, and their reputation gets a boost.

I think they made a good call. If they estimate the hassle of handling customer returns on a product line will outweigh the potential revenue generated, then they should drop the line.

Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

Hmmm, that's funny, not according to their returns policy:

"Returns Policy

You may return all unopened items purchased at Wayland Games within 7 days of the original delivery. We will pay the return shipping costs if the product is defective or the return is a result of our error. If the item is returned for any other reason you are responsible for the return shipping amount. No returned merchandise will be accepted without a Return Material Authorization (RMA). We will credit you in the same manner as your original payment within 7 days of receiving the returned item.

Instructions for returns will be supplied in response to an email. For questions regarding our return policy please use the "Contact Us" form link on this website."

http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/returns-policy/info_5.html

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Charax wrote:Wayland made their decision based on the percentage of the sample they believe their customers would have returned.

I'm inclined to believe Wayland know their customers a bit better than some random posters on Dakka, so if they believe a hair in the packaging is going to lead to a customer returning the product, that's their call to make. If they're wrong, then they'll suffer the consequences, If they're right, their customers will see Wayland is looking out for them, and their reputation gets a boost.

I think they made a good call. If they estimate the hassle of handling customer returns on a product line will outweigh the potential revenue generated, then they should drop the line.

Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

Hmmm, that's funny, not according to their returns policy:

"Returns Policy

You may return all unopened items purchased at Wayland Games within 7 days of the original delivery. We will pay the return shipping costs if the product is defective or the return is a result of our error. If the item is returned for any other reason you are responsible for the return shipping amount. No returned merchandise will be accepted without a Return Material Authorization (RMA). We will credit you in the same manner as your original payment within 7 days of receiving the returned item.

Instructions for returns will be supplied in response to an email. For questions regarding our return policy please use the "Contact Us" form link on this website."

http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/returns-policy/info_5.html

GW has a great customer service where you can call them up and return any product for defects. All they ask is where you bought the item. Also just call me little Jervis cause I really don't care if I am viewed as a "GW apologist" I know where I spend my money.

knightdrake wrote:I believe Wayland has misunderstood these blister defects. These aren't defects in the product, they are intentional hobby challenge models. Select packages sent out to test the hobbist skills in modelling so they have a more involve experience with the minis.

I had a GW Troll (back when they still had them) try to feed me this line of bullfeces once. I was amazed that he actually tried it. Got to give him credit for having some spine and gall, I'll give him that.

Ultimately, one thing that is pretty interesting to me is how different sources seem to have different occurances of FAIL in Finecast. Mikhaila was reporting, a few weeks ago I think, that he was receiving few pieces that had issues. My FLGS back home tells me they have had very few issues, and yet here is Wayland taking sweeping action due to high rates of FAIL in the product they received. Ultimately, if it's bad, get it replaced; if it's good then paint it up.

What kind of experience are other sources reporting? DIfferent online sources and B&M?

Kanluwen wrote:
Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

No, they return it to the company that provided the item. They may ALSO have the option of returning to GW, but Wayland has a returns policy in place, which means Wayland pays twice to ship a defective product.

Of course, Wayland Games risks losing a customer, wondering why WG didn't notice the missing bolter. It takes much more effort to gain new customers than it does to keep existing customers, it makes perfect sense not to take unavoidable risks.

puma713 wrote:
I disagree. If I am paying $22.25 for a single miniature, it better be damned near perfect. Good on Wayland for doing what they're doing. Maybe others, like-minded, can get GW to step up in the QC department.

Also I, like others, am surprised to see any backlash at all over this...

I agree. If I'm forking out that much money for a model, I should be able to open that model, paint it up, and set it on the table.

If Wayland games sells finecast models that are lacking quality, what does that say about wayland? What about their other products? This would enter my mind the instant I opened up my package and spotted a problem: "Not ordering from there anymore, this model sucks." But, as well, it's not wayland's fault for the miscasts, it is GW's.

I appreciate all the previous examples of "well, it's not that bad" in comparison to whatever. If I pay for a $700 computer, it better be in pristine condition, ready to run when I want it to. I forked out the cash, paid for it's capabilities, it better have them.

Same goes for miniatures: $22.50 + S&H for a messed up mini? No way. Hair or not.

filbert wrote:Just from reading some of the opinions and rationales being posted in here, it's really no wonder that GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....

That's completely unnecessary, thanks. Trying to blame GW for your name-calling doesn't make them less insulting.

grizgrin wrote:
What kind of experience are other sources reporting? DIfferent online sources and B&M?

Try:

Google-Fu
http://frothersunite.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=683659#683659
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=87820
http://piratevikingpainting.blogspot.com/2011/05/finecast-review.html
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/371719.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/371720.page#2856689
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=234667
http://www.fantasyladen.de/cgi-bin/frameset/link.pl?LINK=http://www.fantasyladen.de/ausgepackt/110615/finecastfolterer.html

I've yet to find an entirely positive review...

Also consider that this is the same type of resin Mantic is currently using and customers are reporting no issues.

Mastiff wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

No, they return it to the company that provided the item. They may ALSO have the option of returning to GW, but Wayland has a returns policy in place, which means Wayland pays twice to ship a defective product.

Of course, Wayland Games risks losing a customer, wondering why WG didn't notice the missing bolter. It takes much more effort to gain new customers than it does to keep existing customers, it makes perfect sense not to take unavoidable risks.

Just adding on: Many companies perform seemingly redundant checks and all to ensure that they're not liable for damages they didn't incur. Wayland has the return policy, so does GW. But GW doesn't ask for the product back (usually). Someone could potentially exploit this and tell GW of the miscast, keeping the miscast pieces, then sending them back to Wayland for a refund, while still getting an essentially free miniature from GW. This also puts Wayland in the firing line for potential legal damages (being accused of exploiting the system to get free products. Even if Wayland had nothing to do with it and was to have found to not be at fault, it's still a legal battle with costs).

Mastiff wrote:

filbert wrote:Just from reading some of the opinions and rationales being posted in here, it's really no wonder that GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....

That's completely unnecessary, thanks. Trying to blame GW for your name-calling doesn't make them less insulting.

My name calling? I suggest you read and inwardly digest the following threads:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/420/369325.page#2981277

http://www.infinitythegame.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=5052&pid=96428#pid96428

Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

So stores have no obligation to insure that the products that they sell to their clients are of good quality? GW never should have let these things leave the factory. As a shop owner I have returned product back to the warehouse if it was not fit for my customers. I'm not losing customers because of your faults. I will not allow you to inconvenience my customers, I worked hard to get them.

With the prices that GW charge I expect nothing but perfection, if they can't deliver then they better stop charging like they can. I don't mind flash so much, but if I ever have to GS something I'm returning it. I don't care if it's a bubble nose, I must now spend extra time and material on a product that is priced for perfection.

The hairs while not a quality call on the miniature scream no QC, and while I might be able to get over the hair other people wont. I'd take it if it was the last one, but you can bet if there was another one there I'd grab it. Any defect is a defect.

Ultimately, one thing that is pretty interesting to me is how different sources seem to have different occurances of FAIL in Finecast. Mikhaila was reporting, a few weeks ago I think, that he was receiving few pieces that had issues. My FLGS back home tells me they have had very few issues, and yet here is Wayland taking sweeping action due to high rates of FAIL in the product they received. Ultimately, if it's bad, get it replaced; if it's good then paint it up.

They may not know unless they checked themselves. If I got a bad one I'd call GW and get a new one while keeping the old one for bits. My retailer would never know. Unless I then decided to return the miscast to the retailer also.

Pael wrote:
GW has a great customer service where you can call them up and return any product for defects. All they ask is where you bought the item. Also just call me little Jervis cause I really don't care if I am viewed as a "GW apologist" I know where I spend my money.

Oh, I love GW too. You know why? The quality of their miniatures. I haven't complained once about the consistently rising prices for the last 25 years because I've seen an equal improvement in quality over that time.

But I won't stand for letting quality slide. They aren't a newcomer to the game, so they don't get to take a pass on first run mistakes. Quality Assurance needs to be part of their R&D costs, not just handed over to their customers.

htj wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Looks more to me like Wayland's implementing their own version of "Quality Control" and deciding anything is a flaw.

2 out of 31, though. That still leaves 29 of those images that are depicting genuine flaws.

I swear, you guys are a bunch of bellyachers. Just smear some superglue over the problem spots like GW said and stop being such sissies about it.

Mastiff wrote:

Pael wrote:
GW has a great customer service where you can call them up and return any product for defects. All they ask is where you bought the item. Also just call me little Jervis cause I really don't care if I am viewed as a "GW apologist" I know where I spend my money.

Oh, I love GW too. You know why? The quality of their miniatures. I haven't complained once about the consistently rising prices for the last 25 years because I've seen an equal improvement in quality over that time.

But I won't stand for letting quality slide. They aren't a newcomer to the game, so they don't get to take a pass on first run mistakes. Quality Assurance needs to be part of their R&D costs, not just handed over to their customers.

I agree I am pretty surprised with this release/switch in general.

1- A complete overhaul of their lines with little to no announcement of the change to customers.
2- No information after the fact. Just hey guys to "save money" we are switching to this "stuff" we aren't going to tell you about. No a thing, nothing nope. Not even hey we would but you know trade secrets and all.
3- Amateur production, yes we barley even noticed the switch. One minute metal the next “finecast” but a lot of their product seems shoved out the door.

It would be real interesting to see the numbers GW has for their QC. If any are even taken.

I may just go out and purposely by a bunch of miscasts. If GW sends me new ones, I just got a bunch of free minis and I'll return the miss casts to the store. Winning!

Doesn't matter what generation something is. If it's a miscast it's a miscast. Even if castings will get better over time, is like 3 weeks enough for that to happen? Even if there's been a 10% improvement since the very first cast, it doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be selling an inferior product when they claim it's the bestest in the whole wide world.

Kanluwen wrote:

I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.



I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense".

lol for best talkback ever.

filbert wrote:

Mastiff wrote:

filbert wrote:Just from reading some of the opinions and rationales being posted in here, it's really no wonder that GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....

That's completely unnecessary, thanks. Trying to blame GW for your name-calling doesn't make them less insulting.

My name calling? I suggest you read and inwardly digest the following threads:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/420/369325.page#2981277

http://www.infinitythegame.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=5052&pid=96428#pid96428

I had to laugh at the top line of the page in your second link: "So are you a whore?". I would suggest that shows exactly what people can get away with when people understand the context of the insults. Throwing the terms you used in an argument, without context (until after the fact) really doesn't help, does it?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The hair is an amusement and cause of some joshing.
Whether you would take the miscasts back or not is irrellavent Biccat.

How is it irrelevant? I am willing to accept those quality of models at that price. In fact, in the "minor fail" cases, I probably wouldn't even notice the defect unless it was specifically pointed out to me.

I'm a GW customer (occasionally...ok, once in a great while, but whatever) so my opinion certainly counts.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I might think to just get on with mending lesser problems myself, but would not be happy about it.
As said by myself and others these are being sold as, and costed as a premium product and not everyone feels that they can or ought solve the problems with GS

They're not a "premium" product by a long shot. GW may claim they're the "porche of miniatures" or whatever the line is this week, but they're far from the best miniatures on the market. Ultimately, I'm buying them not for the artistic value but for their game value. For that purpose, they work for me, even with minor defects.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:To be fair to GW they are exchanging the faulty goods so they are inclined by action to disagree with your laissez faire attitude.

Bwah? If I'm satisfied with something, they won't replace it. Not sure what your point is.

puma713 wrote:

biccat wrote:.
At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.

I disagree. If I am paying $22.25 for a single miniature, it better be damned near perfect. Good on Wayland for doing what they're doing. Maybe others, like-minded, can get GW to step up in the QC department.

So if you received a package with a hair in it (roughly 1/4 of the models have that) or a tuft fur in the groin area of a worg (whatever the heck it was) missing, you would honestly wait the 1-2 weeks to return the model and receive a new one? I find that hard to believe.

I understand the desire for perfect miniatures, and I understand that people expect GW to provide the best quality models. I also agree that the metal models were significantly better than the finecast stuff that they've been putting out, given the samples shown here and elsewhere.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the models shown are unsellable, or that most of GW's customers wouldn't notice the defects. I sure as heck wouldn't notice most of the minor failures here unless they were specifically pointed out. Even then, I'd probably just deal with it.

Saw some of these at my gw retailer. The flashing on some of them was beyond unacceptabe. For gw to jack up the prices of the finecast and have them turn out poorly is a insult. As long as people buy the products gw will have free reign over there policy. online complaints mean nothing, retailers doing stuff like this is what sparks change from within gw, or any company

Kudos to Wayland! I hope this gets GW to up their quality (to Kan's point, its already improving, though I haven't seen it locally).

Anecdotally, I bought a Deathmaster Snikch in Finecast for a friend. The model was extremely flashy, the detail on the venom of his weeping blades was not crisp at all, and the rat coming out the back of the helmet on his base was missing his face.

I dealt with the above (i.e. - didn't return the product), as the store I purchased it from was a ways away and I got it as a gift. YMMV, though it did concern me.

I hope they get better at this.

Thanks for the comments guys. Some are intriguing. This took alot of effort on our part and some difficult choices. The cost of having someone assess the products and then catalogue the issues was not insignificant when added to the lost sales. The reason for the delay in reacting to this is simply we have been overwhelmed with the orders from the end of May.

What we cannot do as a retailer is knowingly pass defective product to our customers. And if we are aware of issues that might cause concern, returns or a loss of custom then we must act.

The sampling obviously can only see approx 50 % of the surface of each Blister, the boxes were left unopened.

I don't want to be sending defective product out, it costs us in all sorts of ways and I wont allow Wayland to knowingly do it.

Kudos to Wayland!

I'm seriously having trouble understanding how anyone can complain about what they have done. Yeah sure, maybe you wouldn't have gone so far and maybe you're happy with inferior miniatures. But surely we haven't sunk so far as a community as to criticize a company for expecting to be provided with non-defective product!

We don't have to get all console-wars over this. I'm more than happy to give GW credit when they do something well, and I frequently have on this site (even recently). Surely everyone else can at least be willing to admit when GW has done something badly.

Necros wrote:Doesn't matter what generation something is. If it's a miscast it's a miscast. Even if castings will get better over time, is like 3 weeks enough for that to happen? Even if there's been a 10% improvement since the very first cast, it doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be selling an inferior product when they claim it's the bestest in the whole wide world.

Maybe GW considers themselves the "whole world".. Thus being the only people in said world, they are automatically the best

Good for Wayland. This won't do it alone, but something needs to bring GW back to reality.

Kirasu wrote:
Maybe GW considers themselves the "whole world".. Thus being the only people in said world, they are automatically the best

That doesn't fit either because Finecast are still worse than the metal miniatures. Also, what they said were that they were the best miniatures on the market. Maybe by that they meant that (Finecast) miniatures were the best miniatures on the (Finecast) market?

NoseGoblin wrote:Wayland Games

Who?

Pael wrote:Did you miss the part where I said they should have stated the percentage of the population the did QC? That is exactly what my post was about, it leaves that question unanswered. How many items did they recieve from GW? 60? 100? 200? 6000? They stated that 55% of what they sampled was faulty, if we the reader are not aware of the complete facts we can accidently start assumung that 55% of all finecast will be garbage.

There are around a hundred codes in the finecast range currently. Since retailers are limited to purchasing 3 of each per order, that would make a total batch size of 300 or so (if they ordered and received every code) ... Less however many of those are boxes, since Wayland said they didn't open those.

So at a bare minimum the sample of 30 pieces would be 10 percent of the batch. More when you factor in boxes and codes not ordered or received.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Wayland+Games

Kanluwen wrote:Going from "hair in the packaging" to "misaligned mold" is such a stupidly high amount of quality assurance that it makes this entire announcement a joke.

Hair in the packaging is far from 'stupidly high quality assurance'... It may not make the item unusable, but it is unacceptable for a professional manufacturer.

Just curious, how big of a supplier is Wayland Games? Is Wayland Games refusing to stock Finecast models actually going to have any sort of impact on GW?

Pael wrote:
Did you miss the part where I said they should have stated the percentage of the population the did QC? That is exactly what my post was about, it leaves that question unanswered. How many items did they recieve from GW? 60? 100? 200? 6000? They stated that 55% of what they sampled was faulty, if we the reader are not aware of the complete facts we can accidently start assumung that 55% of all finecast will be garbage.

Wayland Games is honestly taking that responsibility on themselves which is misinfoming the customer. If you are going to make such accusations you should provide your audience with as much information as possible.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand statistically analysis. They only thing they did wrong was not to quote the margin of error. +/- X%. Of-course you are also forgetting that a store is infact a sub-sample of GW Finecast btw so we are talking about a sample of a sample.

See, the thing is, for a shop with typical numbers of blisters (which we can all imagine) if this is the result of sample from a small population or a very large population the results are very very bad. If the sample of 60 is large (say out of 1000 blisters) then I am truely horrified at the QC. When we audit to gain and idea of the quality of information we allow one or maybe two failures out of a sample (zero if test a control, but that isn't applicable here) out of 20 or so from a population of 1000+

If the sample was 60 out of 100 blisters, then again that is just as bad - because the sample is still random and independent. Each element has the same chance of being selected.

The only probably that most people would be concerned with is trying to extrapolate sample results of the 60 out of a population of 100 to the entire GW population v's extrapolating the 60 out of a 1000 blister sample - but that is when your margin of error comes in.

insaniak wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Going from "hair in the packaging" to "misaligned mold" is such a stupidly high amount of quality assurance that it makes this entire announcement a joke.

Hair in the packaging is far from 'stupidly high quality assurance'... It may not make the item unusable, but it is unacceptable for a professional manufacturer.

Waiter! There is a hair in my finecast model. Please send my complaints to the chef

insaniak wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Going from "hair in the packaging" to "misaligned mold" is such a stupidly high amount of quality assurance that it makes this entire announcement a joke.

Hair in the packaging is far from 'stupidly high quality assurance'... It may not make the item unusable, but it is unacceptable for a professional manufacturer.

This I agree with. They're self-stylized as THE WARGAMING HOBBY. They're not Joe's Garage minis, they're Games-fething-Workshop. If I buy a Porsche, I'm not going to smile and take it when I see the tech left a deuce on the backseat.

"But the product is serviceable and the seats are leather and it'll clean right up," you say...

Kanluwen wrote:Going from "hair in the packaging" to "misaligned mold" is such a stupidly high amount of quality assurance that it makes this entire announcement a joke.

To you maybe, but not to the customers who have paid a premium for "the best models ever" and have had significant QA issues. Fine, maybe the hair in the packaging ones are fine to sell (as disgusting as that is), but I know of people who have bought a total of 3 finecast models and all three had significant miscasts! Then, after receiving replacements, one of the replacements had significant miscasts. So out of 6 models, 2/3 of them had serious issues!

You can continue to defend GW for such egregious oversights, but really, the only proactive thing to do here is to refuse to accept mediocrity, especially when we are expected to pay a premium for what they (GW) called the best miniatures ever.

Sometimes you really do amaze even me Kan.

A random sampling of 60 blister packs is good enough for me. Wayland didn't give me a p-value, but hey, I don't need that to be convinced, especially since they show the actual data (the pictures).

Seriously, how many of you would drive a Porsche off the lot if it had a dent or a scratch (or worse)?

Depends if I got a nice discount.. Of course, we're paying more money for defects

Ive been wary of the models, but so far so good.. Guess it'll be a case by case basis

Presented without additional commentary, this image from Beasts of War,

Ooooh, that's the rumoured invisible-cord-telephone prototyped in the late 70's!

This is a tiresome pile-on and I think Wayland will suffer from it in the long run.

biccat wrote:

puma713 wrote:

biccat wrote:
At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.

I disagree. If I am paying $22.25 for a single miniature, it better be damned near perfect. Good on Wayland for doing what they're doing. Maybe others, like-minded, can get GW to step up in the QC department.

So if you received a package with a hair in it (roughly 1/4 of the models have that) or a tuft fur in the groin area of a worg (whatever the heck it was) missing, you would honestly wait the 1-2 weeks to return the model and receive a new one? I find that hard to believe.

Nope, I probably wouldn't. So, I don't buy any Finecast, to save myself the trouble.

Fetterkey wrote:This is a tiresome pile-on and I think Wayland will suffer from it in the long run.

Really? How? They have just built a bunch of customer loyalty. When they do start selling in again people will trust that GW will have met certain criteria. If anything this may be a big bonus for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

biccat wrote:

puma713 wrote:

biccat wrote:
At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.

I disagree. If I am paying $22.25 for a single miniature, it better be damned near perfect. Good on Wayland for doing what they're doing. Maybe others, like-minded, can get GW to step up in the QC department.

So if you received a package with a hair in it (roughly 1/4 of the models have that) or a tuft fur in the groin area of a worg (whatever the heck it was) missing, you would honestly wait the 1-2 weeks to return the model and receive a new one? I find that hard to believe.

Maybe, maybe not. But I sure am gonna call GW and get my free extra miniature anyway. Maybe I'll shove some of my own pubs in there too if they ask for it back.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:This is a tiresome pile-on and I think Wayland will suffer from it in the long run.

Really? How? They have just built a bunch of customer loyalty. When they do start selling in again people will trust that GW will have met certain criteria. If anything this may be a big bonus for them.

They've built customer loyalty among people who pitch fits on the Internet, which isn't exactly the best demographic to sell to. Once people realize that Finecast is, in fact, superior to the old metal models, I think this sort of move will just look embarrassing, and Wayland will have to quickly alter their policies or else drift out of touch. Further, the chance of GW retaliation makes this a stupid move even if people decide to toe the Internet Finecast-hater party line for longer. To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if GW stopped selling to Wayland altogether.

Fetterkey wrote: Once people realize that Finecast is, in fact, superior to the old metal models

Will you let me know when this is, so I can feel confident in purchasing Finecast? Thanks.

Fetterkey wrote:This is a tiresome pile-on and I think Wayland will suffer from it in the long run.

So which of the miscast ones would you buy from them, not complain and not return to them?

Congratulations, apologists! You have successfully diverted attention from the 31/60 (52%) models with clear, visible enormous casting flaws in favor of the 2/60 that had long hairs in them but no other visible defects!

Once again I am stunned by your dedication and effort. Jervis will surely be dispatched soon to give sensual backrubs all around!

Fetterkey wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:This is a tiresome pile-on and I think Wayland will suffer from it in the long run.

Really? How? They have just built a bunch of customer loyalty. When they do start selling in again people will trust that GW will have met certain criteria. If anything this may be a big bonus for them.

They've built customer loyalty among people who pitch fits on the Internet, which isn't exactly the best demographic to sell to. Once people realize that Finecast is, in fact, superior to the old metal models, I think this sort of move will just look embarrassing, and Wayland will have to quickly alter their policies or else drift out of touch. Further, the chance of GW retaliation makes this a stupid move even if people decide to toe the Internet Finecast-hater party line for longer. To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if GW stopped selling to Wayland altogether.

I can't believe that you would think that a 10% miss cast rate would be fine, much less the 50% that GW is puking out right now. Can you imagine what would happen to other companies if they failed at this rate? The saddest thing here is that an outside company had to do QC for GW. They should have done it themselves. There is no way that GW didn't know how poor the quality was that they were pushing. You can only assume that they did this knowingly, hoping that people wouldn't notice, care, or be bothered. I can't think of too many other companies that would dare to do that.

Once people realize that Finecast is, in fact, superior to the old metal models, I think this sort of move will just look embarrassing

Which one of those rejects would you seriously consider giving to a friend that was new to the hobby?

I hope GW sends you a a purity seal for your blind acceptance of their poor products.

Further, the chance of GW retaliation makes this a stupid move even if people decide to toe the Internet Finecast-hater party line for longer. To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if GW stopped selling to Wayland altogether.

Yeah I wouldn't put it past GW to be petty and retaliatory. That would only reaffirm their stellar image. "We will no longer supply to Wayland Games, they chose their customer base over us." That would be great PR.

Yeah, I can understand that opinions differ, but some of the posts here could only have been made by people on the GW payroll.

Fetterkey wrote: Once people realize that Finecast is, in fact, superior to the old metal models, ...

With a more than 50% failure rate, that may take a while...

Heh, can't believe the amount of GW apologists in this thread.

Even discounting the pubepacks, that's still a 50% fail rate.

I bought a Finecast Crowe. The quality was OK on Crowe himself but the backpack was absolutely terrible. The little half sphere area that attaches to the model's back was actually a hole that went right through! And the little air vent thingys on the top had ragged edges around them. The shape of the backpack was all wrong - it looked like a cartoon version of the proper ones. It was unuseable.

My experience with Finecast so far is that 100% of my purchases are very, very poor quality and there's absolutely no way that I'd buy one online from anywhere as I would have to see it first.

The metals may have needed filing but Finecast need even more filing and have bits missing - like they just melted away from the rest of the model. Finecast is, however, easier to paint.

All in all, I think it's an absolute cheek that GW put the prices up for what in my experience has been utter turd. And if forums weren't moderated, my language would have been far less considered.

Ouze wrote:Congratulations, apologists! You have successfully diverted attention from the 31/60 (52%) models with clear, visible enormous casting flaws in favor of the 2/60 that had long hairs in them but no other visible defects!

If you think the casting flaws depicted are "enormous," I'm not sure what to say to you. The vast majority of the flaws depicted can be trivially fixed with a bit of green stuff. Compare that to the amount of work required to get metal models to work-- often requiring MORE green stuff to fit joints and the like-- and you'll see that the amount of work that these models require is generally less than their metal predecessors. When you combine that with the fact that these models are lighter weight, easier to convert, and more detailed, I think it's clear that Finecast comes out on top.

George Spiggott wrote:So which of the miscast ones would you buy from them, not complain and not return to them?

Of the depicted models, I would buy Logan Grimnar, the Ork Big Mek, the first Space Marine jump pack Chaplain, Theoden, Malagor, both Lelith Hesperax models, the Emperor's Champion, Suludan the Serpent Lord, the Khorne Exalted Hero, the Vampire Lord, the Lord Commissar, both Tau Ethereals (assuming I wanted a Tau Ethereal), both Grimgor Ironhide models, Saruman and Grima, Njal Stormcaller, the Chaos Exalted Hero, both Tyranid Hive Guard, and Gothmog with no complaint.

Draigo, the second jump pack Chaplain, the Dark Angels Company Master, Boromir (Ithilien), and the Uruk-Hai Berzerker are in my view unacceptable and I would complain/return about these models. The Company Master (or Masters-- I'm not sure if they have two pictures depicting one model or two models there) would be easily fieldable with conversion work but I'd have to use a spare backpack I have lying around to attach the banner to, which I consider a pain in the ass and worth complaining about (my standards are, in my eyes, fairly high). I'm moderately confident that Boromir and the Uruk-Hai would be fine too but can see why newer hobbyists might be frustrated, and honestly think requiring bitz box parts is a little excessive anyway. Draigo is clearly severely miscast and requires replacement parts, and the second jump pack Chaplain's weapon is misaligned enough that it seems like it would take a serious amount of work to fix.

I don't know enough about what the Black Orc Big Boss model or the Gothmog model(s?) is supposed to look like to make a call about whether I would run them or not. I honestly can't tell what the faults with the Gothmog model or the two (?) Black Orc models even are, which leads me to suspect that I would, but I don't know for certain. The Aragorn model is clearly miscast on the horse's neck, but the join might act to hide some of this so I'm not sure whether it would work or not-- again, I'm unfamiliar with this model's construction so I can't say for sure whether I would want to return it or not.


In summary, 22 out of the depicted models look acceptable to me, 5 of the depicted models look unacceptable, and I'm not sure about 4 of them, though I lean towards acceptable on 3 and unacceptable on the 4th. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that my uncertainties go the way I suspect, and we end with 6 unacceptable models out of 60-- this is a 10% error rate, which is quite high indeed (though nowhere near the ludicrous 50%+ rate claimed by Wayland) and rather worrisome. However, it also represents the first wave of a new release, and given GW's reputation for customer service, I for one would feel comfortable buying and selling Finecast models, especially as the quality is only likely to improve from here as GW refines their methods.

It looks to me like Wayland is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here and score easy points off GW hatred, and I think it's worth calling them out on.

Requiring you to sculpt something out of greenstuff rather than just using greenstuff to fill minor cracks where models fit together is not trivial, not by any sense of the word.

Especially when branded as the highest quality miniatures out there...

Wait. I can see the latest GW press release

"Because of the dismal failure that was fincast, we at GW are going back to metal. Because of the associated costs involved we will regrettably have to raise prices yet again as we strive to meet the global demand for our high quality miniatures. While we at GW were supremely satisfied with the quality of our products, many of our more persnickety customers were upset with a small percentage of miss casts and pubic hairs, we squarely lay the blame on them."

If you think the casting flaws depicted are "enormous," I'm not sure what to say to you. The vast majority of the flaws depicted can be trivially fixed with a bit of green stuff. Compare that to the amount of work required to get metal models to work-- often requiring MORE green stuff to fit joints and the like-- and you'll see that the amount of work that these models require is generally less than their metal predecessors. When you combine that with the fact that these models are lighter weight, easier to convert, and more detailed, I think it's clear that Finecast comes out on top.

That sounds like it came straight from GW's press releases. Of course you would buy those models, It appears you will buy anything that GW sells, including the cool aid.

Until further notice I label fincast Chapter unapproved!

skyth wrote:Requiring you to sculpt something out of greenstuff rather than just using greenstuff to fill minor cracks where models fit together is not trivial, not by any sense of the word.

And yet I can guarantee that fixing most of the "faults" with the models depicted would be easier and take less time than what I've put up with with metal models for some time now. I know people fear change, but this is a little ridiculous.

Fetterkey wrote:

skyth wrote:Requiring you to sculpt something out of greenstuff rather than just using greenstuff to fill minor cracks where models fit together is not trivial, not by any sense of the word.

And yet I can guarantee that fixing most of the "faults" with the models depicted would be easier and take less time than what I've put up with with metal models for some time now. I know people fear change, but this is a little ridiculous.

They.have.bits.missing.

This is nothing like anything I've encountered with metal minis. Nothing at all.

How can minis now being released with bits missing be touted as 'better' and suddenly cost more?

I've never had problems with metal mini's other than Morathi. However, expecting someone to sculpt weapon hafts and chain links out of green stuff is by no means simple or the mark of a quality product.

And nice of you to ignore the marketing that they have the highest quality and that the price increases are justified by this high quality.

Fetterkey wrote:If you think the casting flaws depicted are "enormous," I'm not sure what to say to you.

Fetterkey wrote:If you think the casting flaws depicted are "enormous," I'm not sure what to say to you.

Fetterkey wrote:If you think the casting flaws depicted are "enormous," I'm not sure what to say to you.

Fetterkey wrote:If you think the casting flaws depicted are "enormous," I'm not sure what to say to you.

Fetterkey wrote:If you think the casting flaws depicted are "enormous," I'm not sure what to say to you.

Fetterkey wrote:If you think the casting flaws depicted are "enormous," I'm not sure what to say to you.

Fetterkey wrote:It looks to me like Wayland is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here and score easy points off GW hatred, and I think it's worth calling them out on.

Continue with the shield and the sword, battle brother! The heathens are afoot, pointing out a GWS shortcoming! Be stalwart! FOOOOORRRR KIRRRRRRBY!!!

And many metal models require you to drill holes in them in order to get their limbs to adhere correctly. What's your point? Sure, it's a different type of problem, but it's a different type of model! The bits that are missing can be trivially repaired and once people start comparing Finecast to metal from a more objective, less emotional perspective I think they'll see that it really is a substantial improvement.

A year from now, I think this whole tempest in a teapot will have blown over and Finecast will be widely accepted.

A year from now, I think this whole tempest in a teapot will have blown over and Finecast will be widely accepted.

Yeah,They will have to increase quality because people and retailers complained about it. The fact that they let these out shows that they don't care and if nobody said anything they would not make addressing the issue a priority.

If they just keep ignoring the issues (which they obviously did unless you think they somehow didn't notice the flaws in the first place) then it will blow over because they won't exist anymore. You can't really be saying that they can continue to produce at this level and everything is fine.

"Nice" post, Ouze. I could do the same sort of thing with a series of 20+ images captioned "Wayland Games thinks this is an unacceptable miniature!" or something to that effect, but it would be annoying, not contribute anything to the discussion, and cause people to have to scroll too much. I'm not saying Finecast is perfect-- as you can see, there are flaws (albeit usually small ones)-- but the time it takes to correct the minor errors that some Finecast models exhibit is less than the time it would take to properly work with many metal models.

Pretty soon, I think we'll start seeing the pictures go up of Finecast-based conversions that couldn't be done without serious trouble or specialized tools in the pre-Finecast days, and that will be the nail in the coffin for the haters.

GW has repeatedly stated OFFICIALLY that these are the best quality miniatures on the market. We as customers, they say, should pay a premium price for a premium quality model. ANY defects are too many. Wayland should not have to absorb losses for GW's errors. Wayland released their statement so that their customers would understand why they were unable to purchase Finecast models from their retailer.
If I use the money that I work for to purchase a model that is supposed to be premium quality then I expect it to be premium quality and not be missing parts and have malformations.

Fetterkey wrote:And yet I can guarantee that fixing most of the "faults" with the models depicted would be easier and take less time than what I've put up with with metal models for some time now. I know people fear change, but this is a little ridiculous.

Can you honestly not see the difference between filling joints and resculpting missing details?

Filling joints is an unavoidable side-effect of multi-part models. Although even there, a caster who knows what he is doing can usually minimise the resultant gap to the point where the amount of filling needed should be negligible. GW's metal casts have not always been particularly stellar in this regard, so holding them up as a benchmark doesn't really achieve anything. Finecast being as good as poorly-moulded metals isn't really saying much.

But as soon as you reach the point where you are having to replace detail that should have been there and isn't, you're in mis-cast territory. The item you have bought is not complete. If you're buying a garage kit on the understanding that it's an amateur job and may not be perfect, that's not so bad. But when you're buying the brand new hotness, billed as the best gaming miniatures ever from the company that considers itself the 'Porsche' of the miniatures world?

Nope, mis-casts are bad, m'kay?

The fact that it can be easily fixed is completely secondary to the fact that it shouldn't have been sold in less than perfect condition in the first place. This isn't a new problem being blown up out of proportion... it was equally irritating to get miscast metal models, but that at least didn't happen that often. Why we should be expected to accept it just because Finecast is 'easier to work with' is beyond me.

With the current prices GW are now asking for, and their demand that customers pay for premium prices, I expected some decency with QC & Packaging.

Think of it this way, you go to a restaurant and order a $40 steak. Which situation would leave a significant impression of the restaurant to you?

A) You ordered your steak rare-cooked but a corner of it was burnt. (miscast)
or
B) You ordered your steak rare-cooked but found a short, dark, thick, and curly strand of hair in it.

The same could be applied to your date finding pubes in the box of a necklace you got for their prom.

These are the type of things I expect to find at Marshall's for half the cost with the logo's ripped off. Not sold new at crazy prices.

insaniak wrote:The fact that it can be easily fixed is completely secondary to the fact that it shouldn't have been sold in less than perfect condition in the first place. This isn't a new problem being blown up out of proportion... it was equally irritating to get miscast metal models, but that at least didn't happen that often. Why we should be expected to accept it just because Finecast is 'easier to work with' is beyond me.

Because it is less time-consuming to fix than the issues with metal models, and therefore is a better type of problem to have. I don't care if I have to use my green stuff to fix a tiny hole in a cape instead of to get a model's joints to work properly. It's not a big deal-- I'm doing a bit of work to ready the model anyway! All things considered, I'd rather have to do less work than more work. Of course I'd prefer no work, but if these sorts of flaws do crop up occasionally, I'm fine with that-- so long as it doesn't take more time and effort to ready up than the original metal models did. I don't see one problem as intrinsically better or worse than the other, and prefer the one that takes less time to resolve and get my models on the table.

As for your post, Sixtus, your comparison is completely inappropriate. Nobody here plans to eat their Finecast models, unless the Internet is even crazier than I thought.

Fetterkey wrote:And many metal models require you to drill holes in them in order to get their limbs to adhere correctly. What's your point? Sure, it's a different type of problem, but it's a different type of model! The bits that are missing can be trivially repaired and once people start comparing Finecast to metal from a more objective, less emotional perspective I think they'll see that it really is a substantial improvement.

Again, drilling and pinning is not the same as sculpting. Sculpting is NOT TRIVIAL. These models require sculpting to fix.

And again, you ignore the fact that as these are advertised to be the best quality. This amount of problems is not acceptable, especially since they raised the prices because these are better quality than the metal...

Siztus, that's not hair in the blister. It's Citadel®'s new Finescale® Modelling® Filament®, randomly supplied as a bonus®. Of course, randomly inserting modelling supplies into blisters® is expensive... Ooh®, maybe we've stumbled on the real reason for the Finecast® price increase®...

skyth wrote:And again, you ignore the fact that as these are advertised to be the best quality.

The best quality? Hardly. They literally referenced man landing on the moon.

skyth wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:And many metal models require you to drill holes in them in order to get their limbs to adhere correctly. What's your point? Sure, it's a different type of problem, but it's a different type of model! The bits that are missing can be trivially repaired and once people start comparing Finecast to metal from a more objective, less emotional perspective I think they'll see that it really is a substantial improvement.

Again, drilling and pinning is not the same as sculpting. Sculpting is NOT TRIVIAL. These models require sculpting to fix.

Drilling and pinning requires specialist tools and takes more time and effort than gap-filling (which is what this is-- let's be honest). It's not really "sculpting" when you're just filling a gap in a cape with GS and then smoothing it to match the existing lines-- you can do that with the edge of your knife!

The Finecast thing is getting pathetic. Get a grip GW.

Ah, yes, Mr. Kirby. Well, it's quite simple. When you said you were launching the highest quality miniatures the world has ever
seen, I was rather thinking that instead of just dumping the resin in a pile, you might find the time to actually cast it.

Honestly I don't see what all the fuss is about. If people feel this level of product is acceptable, more power to them.....it's their money, let them spend it on what they like.

That they come into this thread trying to defend what we can all see clearly with our own eyes is a joke at best. Spending four pages trying to describe the sun to a man who is blind because he refuses to open his eyes is quite pointless.

Fetterkey wrote:Because it is less time-consuming to fix than the issues with metal models, and therefore is a better type of problem to have.

A 'better problem' is still a problem.

A cracked hubcap on my new Porsche is easier to fix than a cracked engine block... but I'm still going to ask Porsche to replace it.

Fetterkey wrote:Of the depicted models, I would buy Logan Grimnar, the Ork Big Mek, the first Space Marine jump pack Chaplain, Theoden, Malagor, both Lelith Hesperax models, the Emperor's Champion, Suludan the Serpent Lord, the Khorne Exalted Hero, the Vampire Lord, the Lord Commissar, both Tau Ethereals (assuming I wanted a Tau Ethereal), both Grimgor Ironhide models, Saruman and Grima, Njal Stormcaller, the Chaos Exalted Hero, both Tyranid Hive Guard, and Gothmog with no complaint.

I got as far as the chaplain with the jump pack before I go to a model I would return. If he was in a B&M store I wouldn't even buy him or any of the others (Actually I probably would buy him but I'd barter with the storekeeper for a discount). That particular model also suffers from a overly flexible Crozius (or at least the two my mate bought did, one of which also had miscast feet).

The 'hair' models are the only ones that seem excessive to me. There's really no good reason not to seek out the metal versions of these models at the moment, at full retail if need be, rather than fork out extra for 'improved' Finecast casts. Incidentally, all of the Finecast models I looked at at my FLGS were fine (I admit that I only looked at three models, but 100% of what I inspected was ok), with no obvious defects. So it seems to me that there's some sort of bad batch problem rather than the concept being at fault.

Fetterkey wrote:It's not really "sculpting" when you're just filling a gap in a cape with GS and then smoothing it to match the existing lines-- you can do that with the edge of your knife!

Because it is less time-consuming to fix than the issues with metal models, and therefore is a better type of problem to have.

You are still going to have to green stuff joints you know even with mega super finecast

I don't care if I have to use my green stuff to fix a tiny hole in a cape instead of to get a model's joints to work properly. It's not a big deal-- I'm doing a bit of work to ready the model anyway! All things considered, I'd rather have to do less work than more work. Of course I'd prefer no work,

I'm sure you don't care if you have to resculpt a missing head or face here or there.

but if these sorts of flaws do crop up occasionally, (53% of the time) I'm fine with that-- so long as it doesn't take more time and effort to ready up than the original metal models did. I don't see one problem as intrinsically better or worse than the other, and prefer the one that takes less time to resolve and get my models on the table.

As for your post, Sixtus, your comparison is completely inappropriate. Nobody here plans to eat their Finecast models, unless the Internet is even crazier than I thought.

Isn't that what GW is kind of telling people to go EAT IT! They knowingly released faulty product.

You know this is all just a ploy to make us buy GW brand greenstuff that is 10 times more than any other company's. The new pitch at all GW stores "You are gonna need some $10 greenstuff with that!"

Fetterkey: There's a big difference between pinning a joint in a place where no one will see it, and trying to fix a major miscast in a clearly visible portion of the miniature. The difference is that one of these things is something that a hobbyist expects to do as part of assembling a miniature. The other is something that the sculptor and the caster should have done properly for us and simply. dropped. the. ball. on.

As an example: let's say I buy a piece of IKEA furniture (let's say a cabinet to display my minis). When I buy it, I expect there is work that will need to be done: I will need to unpack and assemble the furniture. I may need to drill a hole in the wall and attack a Quake Strap to make sure it stays up during an earthquake, given that I live in California. I do not, however, expect that I will find a piece broken off one of the wooden panels, because that is work that IKEA should have done properly for me already. And trying to claim that the piece is still better than the harder to assemble glass cabinet that I could have gotten instead, when the glass cabinet's pieces are all intact and properly packed, would be insanity.

Don't try to pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, boyo.

AesSedai wrote:Nice.

Kudos to Wayland for setting standards.

Agreed. The current level of quality (or lack thereof) causes quite a bit of hassle on the part of the retailers and customers. I dont care how good they are about returns, there simply shouldnt be that many items needing to be returned.

Makes me glad that the main things I need from GW are plastic. There are a couple things I wouldnt mind having that will likely be resin, guess Ill have to buy them in person somewhere, dont want to take a chance on sight unseen from online.

I'm shocked at how people are defending these miniatures as acceptable.

I have no interest in resculpting missing chain links, or the missing front of a storm bolter.

It's the miniature producer's responsibility to get that right-- it's NOT "part of the hobby."

Good on Wayland for insisting on quality products from their suppliers.

Fetterkey wrote:

skyth wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:And many metal models require you to drill holes in them in order to get their limbs to adhere correctly. What's your point? Sure, it's a different type of problem, but it's a different type of model! The bits that are missing can be trivially repaired and once people start comparing Finecast to metal from a more objective, less emotional perspective I think they'll see that it really is a substantial improvement.

Again, drilling and pinning is not the same as sculpting. Sculpting is NOT TRIVIAL. These models require sculpting to fix.

Drilling and pinning requires specialist tools and takes more time and effort than gap-filling (which is what this is-- let's be honest). It's not really "sculpting" when you're just filling a gap in a cape with GS and then smoothing it to match the existing lines-- you can do that with the edge of your knife!

it is NOT gap-filling. It is repairing and adding new parts of the models. It IS scuplting. plus drilling and pinning do not require all that specialized tools. Sculpting requires more specialized tools.

And you continue to ignore the marketing that this is much higher quality than metals and they instituted a price hike because of said 'quality'.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Because it is less time-consuming to fix than the issues with metal models, and therefore is a better type of problem to have.

You are still going to have to green stuff joints you know even with mega super finecast

Mmm, don't think so.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I don't care if I have to use my green stuff to fix a tiny hole in a cape instead of to get a model's joints to work properly. It's not a big deal-- I'm doing a bit of work to ready the model anyway! All things considered, I'd rather have to do less work than more work. Of course I'd prefer no work,

I'm sure you don't care if you have to resculpt a missing head or face here or there.

Actually I do, and would consider that sort of miscast unacceptable.

Andrew1975 wrote:

but if these sorts of flaws do crop up occasionally, (53% of the time) I'm fine with that-- so long as it doesn't take more time and effort to ready up than the original metal models did. I don't see one problem as intrinsically better or worse than the other, and prefer the one that takes less time to resolve and get my models on the table.

Isn't that what GW is kind of telling people to go EAT IT! They knowingly released faulty product.

Some of the pictured models have no discernible flaws at all. A few seem to have mold lines, which are accepted by virtually everyone as trivial to deal with. A few have hairs in the packaging. The majority of Finecast models probably require no work or minimal work to prepare. The same can't be said for metal. I love some of my metal models-- don't get me wrong-- but they've all taken substantially more work to get right than any others have, FW resin aside.


Ouze, just stop already, unless you want me to reply with pictures of all the models that could be fixed in less than a minute. This type of post doesn't add anything to the discussion, especially since I've already pointed out that I would, in fact, return two of the three models you quoted. You're cherry-picking from the worst of the bunch and claiming that they represent all of Finecast, and that just isn't the case.

Fetterkey, I assumed it would be understood that I was comparing the impression GW's QC leaves you with to the one of the restaurant would in such scenario.
I guess I should have went with the necklace instead of food. Though surely, we all understand the gagging experience when finding pubic hair on something you have to touch and been promised quality for the price.

insaniak wrote:Siztus, that's not hair in the blister. It's Citadel®'s new Finescale® Modelling® Filament®, randomly supplied as a bonus®. Of course, randomly inserting modelling supplies into blisters® is expensive... Ooh®, maybe we've stumbled on the real reason for the Finecast® price increase®...

That clears things up. Now if only I'm lucky enough to get 8 of these bonuses so I can string up the bows of my LOTR archers! ;DD

You know what fetterkey, you've sold me on it.

I see now that GW is actually giving me an opportunity here.Don't you see though this it your chance to own a truly unique GW miniature! I mean how many people can say that they own the only Yarrick that is missing his face! You should be paying more for that uniqueness. It will be a collectible one day.

Fincast, NOW WITH RANDOM BATTLE DAMAGE!

Some of the pictured models have no discernible flaws at all. A few seem to have mold lines, which are accepted by virtually everyone as trivial to deal with. A few have hairs in the packaging. The majority of Finecast models probably require no work or minimal work to prepare. The same can't be said for metal. I love some of my metal models-- don't get me wrong-- but they've all taken substantially more work to get right than any others have, FW resin aside.

These problems were noticed with a cursory glance through packaging. You can only see one side of one sprue on each package. Could you imagine the amount of flaws they might have found if they went over them with a fine toothed comb!

Sixtus wrote:Fetterkey, I assumed it would be understood that I was comparing the impression GW's QC leaves you with to the one of the restaurant would in such scenario.
I guess I should have went with the necklace instead of food. Though surely, we all understand the gagging experience when finding pubic hair on something you have to touch and been promised quality for the price.

If I found a hair in a blister I would think "that's sorta gross" and be done with it, not pitch a fit to the Internet. If I found a hair in my food that would imply that the food might have been contaminated and that I shouldn't eat it. I don't exactly plan on eating resin-- even if it were theoretically edible, the mold release chemicals and so on contaminate it by default-- so I don't really care.

Fetterkey wrote:

insaniak wrote:The fact that it can be easily fixed is completely secondary to the fact that it shouldn't have been sold in less than perfect condition in the first place. This isn't a new problem being blown up out of proportion... it was equally irritating to get miscast metal models, but that at least didn't happen that often. Why we should be expected to accept it just because Finecast is 'easier to work with' is beyond me.

Because it is less time-consuming to fix than the issues with metal models, and therefore is a better type of problem to have. I don't care if I have to use my green stuff to fix a tiny hole in a cape instead of to get a model's joints to work properly. It's not a big deal-- I'm doing a bit of work to ready the model anyway! All things considered, I'd rather have to do less work than more work. Of course I'd prefer no work, but if these sorts of flaws do crop up occasionally, I'm fine with that-- so long as it doesn't take more time and effort to ready up than the original metal models did. I don't see one problem as intrinsically better or worse than the other, and prefer the one that takes less time to resolve and get my models on the table.

As for your post, Sixtus, your comparison is completely inappropriate. Nobody here plans to eat their Finecast models, unless the Internet is even crazier than I thought.

So let me get this strait... finecast is superior because sculpting the full parts missing from the models is less time consuming and kind of trivial than drilling a hole and and filling a gap? You can stop right there Sir because it makes NO sense what your saying... Even if its funny to see the lengths people go to try to justify what is not justifiable.

As for people saying metal had the same problems its absolute bollocks, metal casting at GW the last couple decades never had 1% of the problems these Finecasts had in 1 month.

Pubic hairs on blisters tells me these blisters were packed at a dumpster or at a sleazy prostitute crib... not the best image you want to take to your kids when he asks for a finecast is it? Reason to consider faulty product? Well I as a costumer would complain to Waylands if I got it there and I might even ask if they opened the blister at waylands... So yeah I can see waylands consider this not something that they want to deal with.

Fetterkey wrote:

Sixtus wrote:Fetterkey, I assumed it would be understood that I was comparing the impression GW's QC leaves you with to the one of the restaurant would in such scenario.
I guess I should have went with the necklace instead of food. Though surely, we all understand the gagging experience when finding pubic hair on something you have to touch and been promised quality for the price.

If I found a hair in a blister I would think "that's sorta gross" and be done with it, not pitch a fit to the Internet. If I found a hair in my food that would imply that the food might have been contaminated and that I shouldn't eat it. I don't exactly plan on eating resin-- even if it were theoretically edible, the mold release chemicals and so on contaminate it by default-- so I don't really care.

So if you are at the store and you pick up a blister with a hair, you are not going to see if there is another one without a hair right behind it. Oh wait, that one is miss cast. Ah there we go the third one is good. Now the retailer has to figure out why those two never leave his shelf.

Much like your food. It's an indictment on the entire quality control aspect of a company. It's not called passingcast, or goodenoughcast, it's called finecast and they market it as such and charge for it.

All that being said, Wayland could have handled it with GW in private. They could have just told people that there was such a demand that they sold out. However they outed GW and I think if GW had a good track record with their customers and retailers it could be considered excessive. Wayland just treated GW as flippantly as GW treats everyone else, so its all good in the hood.

Either the stanard of most painters have dropped tremendously or only morons are left buying GW resin products these days. I recall my very first resin, a battlewagon bought from Armorcast. It is flawless. I subsequently purchased some from Forge World and GW has never matched the same standard as Armorcast.

Fetterkey wrote:
If you think the casting flaws depicted are "enormous," I'm not sure what to say to you. The vast majority of the flaws depicted can be trivially fixed with a bit of green stuff. Compare that to the amount of work required to get metal models to work-- often requiring MORE green stuff to fit joints and the like-- and you'll see that the amount of work that these models require is generally less than their metal predecessors. When you combine that with the fact that these models are lighter weight, easier to convert, and more detailed, I think it's clear that Finecast comes out on top.

I think you're missing the point: we shouldn't have to green stuff a brand new model like this. It's supposed to be better than it was before, and there are giant (compared to mini's size) gaping holes in many of the models. This should be usable right out of the package. I understand cutting flash away-part of the job with resin. But filling in large holes or having entire toes or chunks of weapons missing? Pass me the phone book to lodge a complaint, not to fix it myself. If I start buying from GW again, and not buying second hand, I won't buy a finecast until I know the process is fixed. And I'll look to a reputable source, not an apologist for proof.

htj wrote:2 out of 31, though. That still leaves 29 of those images that are depicting genuine flaws.

QFFT
fan boys still gonna fan though

@kan, somehow i think you either

a) dont believe wayland actually selected the packages randomly
or
b) dont know how randomly sampled assessment works.

The fact that you point out 2 packs have pubes are not a big deal lead to believe the above.

I can't believe that anyone is happy to purchase a product then expect to mend flaws in it.

If you bought an iphone, would you take it back if it was faulty? Or would you try to fix it yourself?

If you bought a chair and the leg was wobbly, would you take it back or try to fix it yourself?

Shoving greenstuff into the flawed areas isn't modelling. It is fixing something that is broken. Something that was broken when it was sold to you. Something that isn't designed to be broken.

ColdSadHungry wrote:I can't believe that anyone is happy to purchase a product then expect to mend flaws in it.

If you bought an iphone, would you take it back if it was faulty? Or would you try to fix it yourself?

If you bought a chair and the leg was wobbly, would you take it back or try to fix it yourself?

Shoving greenstuff into the flawed areas isn't modelling. It is fixing something that is broken. Something that was broken when it was sold to you. Something that isn't designed to be broken.

Most of us agree with that, yet many doesn't.

Thats why there are some of us that applauds Wayland for doing this,
while some of them are accusing Wayland Games for been over dramatic in their decision.

Thats also why i cant stand GW aplogists. as far as im concerned they are just prolonging GW's bad decisions by supporting their every wrong actions.

First generations / they are bound to improve in the future casts

thats just pathetic.
Then either admit they are unfit to be released to the customers this so called first generation of finecasts.

Why should the customers be the one that deals with the bad products?

Apologists ALWAYS falls back on the following excuses:

1) Its nothing customers cant fix

2) GW just started, cut them some slack

3) The product is fine, just bad quality control.

You'll see apologists dance around these excuses all day long.

NAVARRO wrote:
Pubic hairs on blisters tells me these blisters were packed at a dumpster or at a sleazy prostitute crib... not the best image you want to take to your kids when he asks for a finecast is it? Reason to consider faulty product? Well I as a costumer would complain to Waylands if I got it there and I might even ask if they opened the blister at waylands... So yeah I can see waylands consider this not something that they want to deal with.

While I agree that QA should be done at the manufacturing level and not by the retailer, I feel that we shouldn't give the apologists more ammunition to distract attention from the real problem of badly cast miniatures. The hair appears to be quite straight and long which IMHO would disqualify it from being pubic in origin. In all fairness, though, I feel like I must state my experience is limited to a convience sample admittedly quite small compared to the population of the world (to dissaude any argument on my clearly unscientific data set by the GW Junior Statistician Apologists Society of America members that are coming out of the woodwork in this thread).

GW are the 'ferarri' of minatures. If I bought a ferarri new from the factory and it had scratches and a wheel missing I could just buy a new wheel and ignore the scratches, but I shouldn't have to - I paid premium prices for a 'premium' product... I am entitled to have a decent product.

Mastiff wrote:

filbert wrote:Just from reading some of the opinions and rationales being posted in here, it's really no wonder that GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....

That's completely unnecessary, thanks. Trying to blame GW for your name-calling doesn't make them less insulting.

Hang on, if GW are being quoted here, Filbert has every right make the statement.
It indicates that GW hold their customers with disregard bordering on sheer contempt.

Look I don't mind doing some touch up and greenstuff work here and there. But when you charge what GW does, it should be unnecessary, I mean wasn't that the point? I mean that's what every other apologist has told me when I argued that the material is cheaper so why are they charging more. "It's much better quality"

Nice to see some more info on the "Fine" Cast product line. I will not be purchasing any of it anytime in the foreseeable future.

I did not ready every page, cause it got to be a bit much, but as someone in manufacturing, who deals with resin and plastic molding on a regular basis. The ammount of product that ever gets checked by quality control is about 10%. So this Wayward games or whatever, I have no idea how many they ordered, but 60 being 10% would be a 600 piece order.

If they bought that many, this is a perfectly reasonable sampling to make a call on quality. If they in fact purchased less than 600 models, and checked 60, then they have gone far and above the industry standard.

To me, it is obvious that Games Workshop is having serious quality control issues.

NAVARRO wrote:So let me get this strait... finecast is superior because sculpting the full parts missing from the models is less time consuming and kind of trivial than drilling a hole and and filling a gap? You can stop right there Sir because it makes NO sense what your saying... Even if its funny to see the lengths people go to try to justify what is not justifiable.

No, that's absurd. Again, I am not talking about sculpting full parts; models shipped with full parts missing are not acceptable. The idea of gap-filling and so on being "sculpting" is an exaggeration posted by the Finecast haters. I'm talking about filling small gaps in a model. For instance, here we see a model that has a small piece missing from its crest/hood. Fixing this involves putting a piece of green stuff in the place where the piece is missing, smoothing it to match the existing contours with a knife edge or something, and letting it harden. This is not "sculpting;" you are not being asked to create detail out of nothing, but merely to "fill in the blank," as it were. Doing so is trivial and takes very little time.

NAVARRO wrote:As for people saying metal had the same problems its absolute bollocks, metal casting at GW the last couple decades never had 1% of the problems these Finecasts had in 1 month.

Metal didn't have the same problems, it had different problems-- that's where all this confusion is coming from. It's harder to objectively compare two sets of issues when the issues are fundamentally different from one another.

ColdSadHungry wrote:I can't believe that anyone is happy to purchase a product then expect to mend flaws in it.

What are your thoughts on mold lines and flash?

Andrew1975 wrote:So if you are at the store and you pick up a blister with a hair, you are not going to see if there is another one without a hair right behind it.

Correct. I don't care. It doesn't affect the quality of the model.

Fetterkey, It's nice to hear that you would at least find it gross to find seemingly pubic hair in your blister and easily forget about it.
If you read my previous post in clearer thought, I was merely comparing the impression people would get when facing a similar situation with products coming from establishments that claim quality for a hefty price. (Which in this case is GW) Again, I mention in my previous post, I should have went with the necklace instead of food as an example and this is the second time you mentioned eating resin. Maybe my comparison sounded aggressive so I apologize if that confused you or anyone.

NAVARRO wrote:
Pubic hairs on blisters tells me these blisters were packed at a dumpster or at a sleazy prostitute crib... not the best image you want to take to your kids when he asks for a finecast is it? Reason to consider faulty product? Well I as a costumer would complain to Waylands if I got it there and I might even ask if they opened the blister at waylands... So yeah I can see waylands consider this not something that they want to deal with.

Sure, miscasts are the main issue but when it comes to GW's QC on packaging, I couldn't have said it better myself! ;D

Fetterkey wrote:

skyth wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:And many metal models require you to drill holes in them in order to get their limbs to adhere correctly. What's your point? Sure, it's a different type of problem, but it's a different type of model! The bits that are missing can be trivially repaired and once people start comparing Finecast to metal from a more objective, less emotional perspective I think they'll see that it really is a substantial improvement.

Again, drilling and pinning is not the same as sculpting. Sculpting is NOT TRIVIAL. These models require sculpting to fix.

Drilling and pinning requires specialist tools and takes more time and effort than gap-filling (which is what this is-- let's be honest). It's not really "sculpting" when you're just filling a gap in a cape with GS and then smoothing it to match the existing lines-- you can do that with the edge of your knife!

Except it's not "filling in a hole in the cape", it's sculpting a huge piece of a bolter and the end of a sword and a shoulder pad, all IN ONE MODEL. The broodlord's foot has to be re-sculpted, that's not something that your average hobbyist can accomplish. Quit downplaying the problem like it's some minor thing like a small hole in a cape, because it's not. This involves genuine sculpting, which requires specialized tools, just like pinning. They both require specialized tools, but re-sculpting a bolter or tyranid foot requires way more skill than pinning.

I'd just like to chip in and say that perhaps people should stop referring to the offending hairs in the packaging as "pubic hairs". While it started as a joke at the beginning of the thread, people now appear to be taking them to literally be pubic hairs, when in fact, they are just stray hairs (although I have to say, I find the idea of any sort of stray hair, no matter the origin, to be a sign of poor practice somewhere along the line...)

CajunMan wrote:Except it's not "filling in a hole in the cape", it's sculpting a huge piece of a bolter and the end of a sword and a shoulder pad, all IN ONE MODEL. The broodlord's foot has to be re-sculpted, that's not something that your average hobbyist can accomplish. Quit downplaying the problem like it's some minor thing like a small hole in a cape, because it's not. This involves genuine sculpting, which requires specialized tools, just like pinning. They both require specialized tools, but re-sculpting a bolter or tyranid foot requires way more skill than pinning.

The models you're referring to-- Draigo and the Brood Lord (I think) are indeed unacceptable; they are also a small percentage of the overall sample. The majority of the claimed "issues" can be fixed without genuine sculpting. Models that indeed require genuine sculpting are rightfully unacceptable and I for one would return any such models that I received; however, most of the models that Wayland Games claims are unacceptable do not in fact require genuine sculpting!

warboss wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Pubic hairs on blisters tells me these blisters were packed at a dumpster or at a sleazy prostitute crib... not the best image you want to take to your kids when he asks for a finecast is it? Reason to consider faulty product? Well I as a costumer would complain to Waylands if I got it there and I might even ask if they opened the blister at waylands... So yeah I can see waylands consider this not something that they want to deal with.

While I agree that QA should be done at the manufacturing level and not by the retailer, I feel that we shouldn't give the apologists more ammunition to distract attention from the real problem of badly cast miniatures. The hair appears to be quite straight and long which IMHO would disqualify it from being pubic in origin. In all fairness, though, I feel like I must state my experience is limited to a convience sample admittedly quite small compared to the population of the world (to dissaude any argument on my clearly unscientific data set by the GW Junior Statistician Apologists Society of America members that are coming out of the woodwork in this thread).

Iz a very important thing and quite a revolution in packaging... You know that Privateerpress blisters come with a little paper with a printed name of the person who packed that blister right?
Well at GW they are much more modern, they put a DNA sample on each blister, so for every blister packed by Sir marmelade he has to leave a pube

But yeah lets concentrate on the other 50% of good casts that Wayland aproved... the ones that Wayland didn't check THE BACK of the model because blisters are closed

I have to admit that if 1 month ago people would tell me GW did this fiasco with finecast I would not believe it myself, metals and plastics at GW are spot on only FW takes some jabs and uppercuts at crappy casting... Sad day for people who enjoy miniatures.

frozenwastes wrote:I'm shocked at how people are defending these miniatures as acceptable.

I have no interest in resculpting missing chain links, or the missing front of a storm bolter.

It's the miniature producer's responsibility to get that right-- it's NOT "part of the hobby."

Good on Wayland for insisting on quality products from their suppliers.

Quite. I've had a lot of stuff from GW over the years and only returned one or two things. How many metal blisters have other people returned? Surely it's nothing like the volumes of stuff we are seeing here. I bet most retailers couldn't have grabbed 60 metal GW figures with such serious miscasts in such a short period of time.

And these are serious miscasts, especially with the prices being put on these, touted as the finest figures in the world. Really? Air bubbles that leave huge pits in the surface of figures and obliterate detail leaving a customer to have to sculpt parts back on, assuming they just don't return it. It's a joke people are trying to play down or excuse the shoddy product GW are putting out here.

Why should Wayland put up with having to deal with this problem because GW don't have effective quality control.

Some may say that GW will replace anything Wayland send back to them, which is true. But if Wayland send a product to a person, and that person returns it, I assume Wayland have to foot the bill for that wasted postage going both ways. GW will replace the figure, but they won't be volunteering to cover Wayland's losses on sending and receiving a defective item from an unhappy customer.

And I'm sure Wayland have better things to do than go over every GW figure with a magnifying glass looking to remove the worst of their stock and hope the rest are mostly ok once the packets are opened.

Bottom line, these figures shouldn't even be making it into blisters in this condition. No one should even bother defending GW or criticising Wayland for not wanting to clear up the mess created by their sloppy products.

I really would've expected the pubes to be in a Lilith package.

NAVARRO wrote:But yeah lets concentrate on the other 50% of good casts that Wayland aproved... the ones that Wayland didn't check THE BACK of the model because blisters are closed

I bet to the apologists the "unknown" 50% of the blisters are branded as "flawless" now.

Fetterkey wrote:

The models you're referring to-- Draigo and the Brood Lord (I think) are indeed unacceptable; they are also a small percentage of the overall sample. The majority of the claimed "issues" can be fixed without genuine sculpting. Models that indeed require genuine sculpting are rightfully unacceptable and I for one would return any such models that I received; however, most of the models that Wayland Games claims are unacceptable do not in fact require genuine sculpting!

You're also using your defintion of 'unacceptable'. I can imagine that Wayland Games' definition of unacceptable is much wider than yours. They are trying to run a business - one which, from what I can gather, does most of its business online. Have you been keeping up with the amount of people that said they are satisfied with their Finecast purchases, but would never buy a box they couldn't peruse first? Now, take that and apply it to online purchases, where you cannot put your hands on anything and have to go on the reputation of the retailer. For my money, I love to see an online retailer with so much QC. It would make me feel much better about buying Finecast than if they just let some go because the modelling community deems their bar too high. Still not buying any, but still.

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Checking everything isn't what 'sampling' is supposed to achieve. A sample size of 60 isn't inherently bad, the greater issue is if you think there's a sampling bias. The only defence you could make of GW is that there's nothing to say whether these two deliveries to Wayland are representative of the whole Finecast range, they may be unusually bad.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population.

Bollocks. The optimal sample size is not an absolute number but is determined by many factors.

Fetterkey wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Because it is less time-consuming to fix than the issues with metal models, and therefore is a better type of problem to have.

You are still going to have to green stuff joints you know even with mega super finecast

Mmm, don't think so.

You really think that fincast is going to make it so you don't have to GS major joints. You are truly delusional. I may not have to pin them,(I rarely had to before except on really large models I put together an old metal bloodthirstier without pinning, never had a problem) but I'm still going to have to fill gaps and cover joints. That's ok because I'll also have to be sculpting accessories and filling in air bubbles apparently.

Fetterkey wrote:No, that's absurd. Again, I am not talking about sculpting full parts; models shipped with full parts missing are not acceptable. The idea of gap-filling and so on being "sculpting" is an exaggeration posted by the Finecast haters. I'm talking about filling small gaps in a model. For instance, here we see a model that has a small piece missing from its crest/hood. Fixing this involves putting a piece of green stuff in the place where the piece is missing, smoothing it to match the existing contours with a knife edge or something, and letting it harden. This is not "sculpting;" you are not being asked to create detail out of nothing, but merely to "fill in the blank," as it were. Doing so is trivial and takes very little time.

See thats the problem. To you, thats a small deal. To you, that miscast can be easily "fixed" by adding in GS and smoothing it out.

But really, will it work as you say? I doubt it.

This isnt an air bubble where we just need to fill up the hole. The ENTIRE CORNER is missing. which means you need to sculpt a whole area of it.
I guess im just slowed when it comes to the hobby, but i can assure you im not the only one that wouldnt know how to fix that.

Not to mention ones that are even worse.

But you know something? all of this is irrelevant. Because we are purchasing a product, not a defective product.
And whether we know how to fix something is irrelevant.

Tell you what, the next time you buy a monitor or a tv, grab a key and scratch all over the screen.
Then you fix it.

Then, you will look at me, smile at me, and say its nothing that cant be fixed, hence no big deal.

Kanluwen wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

And also way to throw out models with hairs on the blisters!

The hairy packagers at GW were ruining the Finecast release!

I love how you continue to gloss over the other, more serious problems these minis show.

And I love how you act as though the idea of "random standards of quality" is foreign.

Going from "hair in the packaging" to "misaligned mold" is such a stupidly high amount of quality assurance that it makes this entire announcement a joke.

Would you be happy receiving a hair like that in your package? I wouldn't.

That and there isn't just one with hair - I mean far out, how bloody bad is it when you can't even keep your hair to product ratio to under 1 in 60?

Fetterkey wrote:

skyth wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:And many metal models require you to drill holes in them in order to get their limbs to adhere correctly. What's your point? Sure, it's a different type of problem, but it's a different type of model! The bits that are missing can be trivially repaired and once people start comparing Finecast to metal from a more objective, less emotional perspective I think they'll see that it really is a substantial improvement.

Again, drilling and pinning is not the same as sculpting. Sculpting is NOT TRIVIAL. These models require sculpting to fix.

Drilling and pinning requires specialist tools and takes more time and effort than gap-filling (which is what this is-- let's be honest). It's not really "sculpting" when you're just filling a gap in a cape with GS and then smoothing it to match the existing lines-- you can do that with the edge of your knife!

What are you talking about? I have never had to pin anything on a metal model that wasn't larger than an ogre. Never once have I needed to pin a man sized metal model. And almost none of those pictures only require a little blob of green stuff to smooth out a cape.

frozenwastes wrote:I'm shocked at how people are defending these miniatures as acceptable.

I'm more shocked at the people saying that these defects are no different to the ones we get on metal minis. I've never had a defect like this on a metal mini other than one Chaos Raptor years ago, and that's it! I also own a lot of resin from various different companies, and none of them are as bad as this (yeah, even the FW models - their biggest problem is warping).

To make matters worse, they don't seem to understand that GW is hyping this product up to be the singularity moment of miniature design, and are charging a price that reflects such a significant event, yet these models are worse than a lot of what's on the market.

The other thing I don't get is the argument about price. I don't care if I pay $3.00 or $22.00 for a model either way it should have all of the detail on it. Price is no excuse for a poor product.

Fetterkey wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:So let me get this strait... finecast is superior because sculpting the full parts missing from the models is less time consuming and kind of trivial than drilling a hole and and filling a gap? You can stop right there Sir because it makes NO sense what your saying... Even if its funny to see the lengths people go to try to justify what is not justifiable.

No, that's absurd. Again, I am not talking about sculpting full parts; models shipped with full parts missing are not acceptable. The idea of gap-filling and so on being "sculpting" is an exaggeration posted by the Finecast haters. I'm talking about filling small gaps in a model. For instance, here we see a model that has a small piece missing from its crest/hood. Fixing this involves putting a piece of green stuff in the place where the piece is missing, smoothing it to match the existing contours with a knife edge or something, and letting it harden. This is not "sculpting;" you are not being asked to create detail out of nothing, but merely to "fill in the blank," as it were. Doing so is trivial and takes very little time.

NAVARRO wrote:As for people saying metal had the same problems its absolute bollocks, metal casting at GW the last couple decades never had 1% of the problems these Finecasts had in 1 month.

Metal didn't have the same problems, it had different problems-- that's where all this confusion is coming from. It's harder to objectively compare two sets of issues when the issues are fundamentally different from one another.
.

Your example of simplicity requires you to sculpt a sharp corner with GS...I'm very noob at sculpting mate I dont know much about it but someone said to me that sculpting sharp edges well in greenstuff is one of the hardest things for a sculptor to do with GS... but hey glad its simple and trivial to ya

I'm teasing you a bit here but ever wondered why that when a sculptor sculpts a blade of a sword or other sharp things it uses milly or other putty combos instead of GS? its not only because of the casting eheheh
More serious now mate I'm quite experienced with GS and sculpting sharp edges with GS is not trivial or simple and comparing it with filling a gap shows bit of lack of knowledge on your part.

Your second point there is NO confusing whatsoever at the end of the day metal casts at GW had a acceptable quality level both for beginners and experienced modelers while finecast does not... One is faulty and the other was not, It cant get more objective than that.

LunaHound wrote:

htj wrote:2 out of 31, though. That still leaves 29 of those images that are depicting genuine flaws.

QFFT
fan boys still gonna fan though

@kan, somehow i think you either

a) dont believe wayland actually selected the packages randomly
or
b) dont know how randomly sampled assessment works.

The fact that you point out 2 packs have pubes are not a big deal lead to believe the above.

The funny thing is no matter how they picked them they still had 33 unacceptable blisters that should have never left the warehouse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:GW are the 'ferarri' of minatures. If I bought a ferarri new from the factory and it had scratches and a wheel missing I could just buy a new wheel and ignore the scratches, but I shouldn't have to - I paid premium prices for a 'premium' product... I am entitled to have a decent product.

See I just don't understand this why does it matter if it is a Ferrari or a Honda? I wouldn't buy either if they were scratched or missing something. If you sell something to someone it should not have flaws at all. Now obviously it is impossible for a company to never produce anything flawed but it doesn't even look like GW is bothering to check.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:I'm shocked at how people are defending these miniatures as acceptable.

I'm more shocked at the people saying that these defects are no different to the ones we get on metal minis. I've never had a defect like this on a metal mini other than one Chaos Raptor years ago, and that's it! I also own a lot of resin from various different companies, and none of them are as bad as this (yeah, even the FW models - their biggest problem is warping).

To make matters worse, they don't seem to understand that GW is hyping this product up to be the singularity moment of miniature design, and are charging a price that reflects such a significant event, yet these models are worse than a lot of what's on the market.

The reason you never saw so many miscasts with metal isn't because they didn't happen! They did, it is common to have to bin the first and last runs on a mold becuase it needs to warm up first ansd then it gets to hot. With metal it was just that CQ looked at them and threw them back in the melting pot, something that is impossible with resin. This is GW blatantly passing failures onto it's customers because they didn't want to eat the material cost. It's really that simple. They told CQ to let it slide, unacceptable!

The other thing I don't get is the argument about price. I don't care if I pay $3.00 or $22.00 for a model either way it should have all of the detail on it. Price is no excuse for a poor product.

I agree to a point. I mean I'll buy rejects at a nice discount and fix them myself, but for the price and quality they are demanding this is inexcusable.

lords2001 wrote:Would you be happy receiving a hair like that in your package? I wouldn't.

That and there isn't just one with hair - I mean far out, how bloody bad is it when you can't even keep your hair to product ratio to under 1 in 60?

Here is a funny convo with my friend that doesnt know what warhammer is

Cirno: what will you do
Cirno: if ur a company
Cirno: and customers have been complaining about defects all day long
Cirno: so you said
Cirno: ok , we'll pick 60 boxes
Cirno: and use them as sample tests to see how much are defective
Cirno: and out of the 60, 29 have production flaws, and 2 of them have pubic hair in the packages
砕月: wtfudge
Cirno: willl you still say thats no big deal?
砕月: that is a big deal >_>
Cirno: that police guy is saying
Cirno: that fat police wanabe is saying
Cirno: the customers must be desperate
Cirno: if they need to add 2 boxes as flawed product
Cirno: just because it had pubes in it
Cirno: then the other members asked him , wow so pubes doesnt bother him?
Cirno: then the others are saying , IF you leave the 2 out, thats still 29 out of 60
Cirno: almost 50%
砕月: yup
砕月: its like getting an F
砕月: having 50% product fail rate
砕月: is really really bad for a company
砕月: hell some companies are forced to recall after 20% defect
Cirno: so who is so desperate, the customers that complains about the pubes
Cirno: of the fan boys that think pubes arnt bad enough to be considered fail product
砕月: question:
砕月: fan boy for product?
砕月: what kind of product is this
Cirno: warhammer
砕月: and what could result in it having pubic hair?
Cirno: ?
Cirno: i dont know, im guessing scractching balls while packaging miniatures?
砕月: ._.
砕月: okay
砕月: well then the fanboys are desperate.
砕月: if they dont care about how bad the things are
Cirno: well , i cant imagine how else pube hair can get inside toys?
砕月: pretty messed up
Cirno: wait... I K R !!!?!
Cirno: :'D
砕月: lol

NAVARRO wrote:Your example of simplicity requires you to sculpt a sharp corner with GS...I'm very noob at sculpting mate I dont know much about it but someone said to me that sculpting sharp edges well in greenstuff is one of the hardest things for a sculptor to do with GS...

Similarly, blending the GS onto a flat surface without a noticable hump or seam is fairly tricky without considerable practice.

Replacing a hard edged corner like that without it being extremely noticeable is not something I would expect to be within the abilities of a novice sculptor.

I'm not a finecast hater.. in fact, I think resin is a great idea and I personally dislike super heavy big metal models. I'm even more than happy to take GW's side in a lot of things, I love their games and their models are a lot of fun to build and paint.

But the fact is, Finecast right now is a debacle plain & simple. I just hope things improve soon. Pinning and filling small gaps is fine, but whole parts just not even there? I'm sure miscasts happen in metals, but to this degree? And maybe you might not care that someone's hair is in your product, but I sure as hell do. It's fraking disgusting, and totally unprofessional, coming from a company who markets themselves as the be all end all of tabletop wargames, and for the prices they charge for products that they even say are are now cheaper to produce, it's just kinda lame. I feel bad that they've invested so much in such a flawed product, at the same time, they deserve all the flak they're getting for allowing so many bad pieces to get by their QA trolls.

Makes me feel like they're turning into Mcdonalds. Use the cheapest crap out there, and then market it as the best. Can we order fries with our finecast? I'd at least like to be able to supersize mine...

LunaHound wrote:

砕月: fan boy for product?
砕月: what kind of product is this
Cirno: warhammer
砕月: and what could result in it having pubic hair?
Cirno: ?
Cirno: i dont know, im guessing scractching balls while packaging miniatures?

Hilarious

So i have been brutally reminded of one thing.

Where have i read that FINECAST DOESN'T REQUIRE WASHING?

I dont know about you guys but, im washing w/e the ball scratchers have touched.

You know these things?

They are called stress relief balls.
I dont want GW to improvise when they dont have that.

Fetterkey wrote:
If you think the casting flaws depicted are "enormous," I'm not sure what to say to you. The vast majority of the flaws depicted can be trivially fixed with a bit of green stuff. Compare that to the amount of work required to get metal models to work-- often requiring MORE green stuff to fit joints and the like-- and you'll see that the amount of work that these models require is generally less than their metal predecessors. When you combine that with the fact that these models are lighter weight, easier to convert, and more detailed, I think it's clear that Finecast comes out on top.

ancientsociety wrote:

grizgrin wrote:
What kind of experience are other sources reporting? DIfferent online sources and B&M?

Try:

Google-Fu
http://frothersunite.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=683659#683659
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=87820
http://piratevikingpainting.blogspot.com/2011/05/finecast-review.html
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/371719.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/371720.page#2856689
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=234667
http://www.fantasyladen.de/cgi-bin/frameset/link.pl?LINK=http://www.fantasyladen.de/ausgepackt/110615/finecastfolterer.html

I've yet to find an entirely positive review...

Also consider that this is the same type of resin Mantic is currently using and customers are reporting no issues.

Finecast is marketed as "THE BEST" miniature on the market and GW charges a premium for it. These issues are indeed enormous as they are touted as being perfection by the company selling them.

Why does Mantic use the exact same material to cast some of its newer minis and they are 1/2 the cost and have 0% flaws!?



This resin is not a new material. It is simply the industry standard hard resin with 5% acetone added. Mony manufacturers do it better, cheaper, and with none of these problems (at least) making it into the hands of retailers and customers. Now ask yourself why you should pay MORE for a miniature from a company that cannot even be bothered to provide proper Quality Control for its inventory?

As my friend asked, why arnt fine cast been recalled yet?

Pael wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pael wrote:60 pieces are good but still a pretty limited sampling, if you were doing a proper investigation you would check every piece received and then put a percentage on your findings.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

Now to be believable they should have sampled at least 1,000 pieces. This size of a sampling has shown to be accurate for statistics no matter the size of the population. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

Did you miss the part where I said they should have stated the percentage of the population the did QC? That is exactly what my post was about, it leaves that question unanswered. How many items did they recieve from GW? 60? 100? 200? 6000? They stated that 55% of what they sampled was faulty, if we the reader are not aware of the complete facts we can accidently start assumung that 55% of all finecast will be garbage.

Wayland Games is honestly taking that responsibility on themselves which is misinfoming the customer. If you are going to make such accusations you should provide your audience with as much information as possible.

We know what the sample size of the population is as they stated it. It is your opinion if you do not believe their statement of the pop size. But a good question for Wayland nonetheless.

I really can't see how anyone could defend this.

I don't know about the miniatures industry, but for most major businesses a 1% failure rate is astronomical. From the looks of it, GWs is many, many times higher than that.

I think the underlying problem with all of this was how GW hyped (if that term can be used anymore with GW, with all of their new policies) Finecast. It was supposed to be the end-all, be-all of miniatures, top quality, the best money could buy.

So, any mistakes that get out are compounded with the fact they we're paying a premium amount of money for these models. We want them to be perfect - and GW isn't living up to the promises they gave. They was never a warning that the first run would have (seemingly) so many mistakes. We were lead to believe we'd be getting immaculate, expertly molded models.

Maybe that's why GW is implementing such draconian methods of information control? Because they realized what happens when the make promises they can't deliever?

Last time I saw a company act like this is was the 70's auto manufacturers. They thought they had a captive audience until the Japanese came along, look at the mess they are in now.

The real question enqiring minds wants to know is how much you all are paying for pubes, and can I get some scratch for mine from all of you. I'll sell you mine for a third of the price of GW's, and only dropped once.

Or is it that those pubes are something extra special, like Jimmy hendrix's or Jim Morrisons?

LMAO!!!!

Grot 6 wrote:The real question enqiring minds wants to know is how much you all are paying for pubes, and can I get some scratch for mine from all of you. I'll sell you mine for a third of the price of GW's, and only dropped once.

Or is it that those pubes are something extra special, like Jimmy hendrix's or Jim Morrisons?

LMAO!!!!

Pubes are extra special. Because with this age of technology , we can clone whole staff of GW employees.
Some even say, the clones might be able to retain some of the subject's memories.

And we might be able to see GW's future releases

Ohhhh!

I think GW is going to have to give up the idea of casting a resin sprue like a plastic one.

When you pour metal parts, you usually only have one to two pieces per mold, and again, if it is flawed you throw it out. Eventually you get enough individual pieces to make a good model.

When you make a 2-part resin mold that makes 5 bitz, and one of the 5 bitz has a flaw, no problem, you keep the other 4 and dump the one flawed piece. Eventually you get enough individual pieces to make a good model.

When you make a sprue resin mold... you have like 8 bitz on one piece that all gotta be perfect. I suspect to make finecast work, they are going to have to inspect and clip bitz off the sprues to do QC and then pack blisters with individual resin bitz, not sprues.

I just got 30 ultra marine shoulderpads from GW (6 sprues of 5 pads metal) and two of the pads had the 'incomplete metal' rounding on them. So while that is only 2 out of 30, that is 2 flawed sprues out of 6.

Edit: the short and curlies are gross.

Do these pieces of crap still melt in the sun like ive read around?.

Does it make me an apologist if the only three fine cast models that I've seen so far in person were just fine? Or that I expect that Wayland Games is fethed off at GW over the Australian exports thing?

Ah, the joys of wargaming.

So let me get this strait... finecast is superior because sculpting the full parts missing from the models is less time consuming and kind of trivial than drilling a hole and and filling a gap? You can stop right there Sir because it makes NO sense what your saying... Even if its funny to see the lengths people go to try to justify what is not justifiable.

As for people saying metal had the same problems its absolute bollocks, metal casting at GW the last couple decades never had 1% of the problems these Finecasts had in 1 month.

Pubic hairs on blisters tells me these blisters were packed at a dumpster or at a sleazy prostitute crib... not the best image you want to take to your kids when he asks for a finecast is it? Reason to consider faulty product? Well I as a costumer would complain to Waylands if I got it there and I might even ask if they opened the blister at waylands... So yeah I can see waylands consider this not something that they want to deal with.

Obviously since it takes specialist tools to drill a little hole in a metal mini whereas everybody and their grandmothers have greenstuff and the skills to use it at home, duh!

I also miss certain persons like Ph3ar and Captain Jack in here, people who are oh so concerned and outraged when other companies make even a little misstake but I guess I cant get it all.


As for fine cast minis and their miscasts I dont really care, I would simply sculpt the missing part in 5 minutes and be over with it rather then go through all the hassle with a replacement but that´s just me. Imagine all the people who dont use greenstuff every day, it´s hard for me to imagine but when I see my friends having a go at the hobby and their "normal" attempts at even the simpliest greenstuff usage like filling a gap etc the results are more often then not barely better then the flaw they were meant to fix.

Myself I will get a lot of finecast minis despite 50% of them beain crap miscasts simply to save weight in my army bags but I cant see why a few people always defend GWs misstakes so utterly.
Maybe GW is paying them to bot forums, if so can I join in, that would be a fun way to earn a little at the side

H.B.M.C. wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:I'm shocked at how people are defending these miniatures as acceptable.

I'm more shocked at the people saying that these defects are no different to the ones we get on metal minis. I've never had a defect like this on a metal mini other than one Chaos Raptor years ago, and that's it! I also own a lot of resin from various different companies, and none of them are as bad as this (yeah, even the FW models - their biggest problem is warping).

I took stock the last time I moved house and found out I had over 300 metal miniatures (started with miniatures in 1993). I have never, ever, ever, gotten a metal miniature that has any of the problems in these finecast products. I've had some pretty hefty mould lines or some rough surfacing that needed smoothing, but nothing like missing bolter sides, missing links of chain or missing sword tips. Miscasts are thrown back in the melting pot by quality control and thus you see so very few of them reach the customer.

To make matters worse, they don't seem to understand that GW is hyping this product up to be the singularity moment of miniature design, and are charging a price that reflects such a significant event, yet these models are worse than a lot of what's on the market.

These models are bad enough that I would never, ever buy one that I couldn't open and inspect first. I am certainly not going to order one sight unseen from an online store.

Kudos to Wayland for making sure their customers don't receive such disappointing products.

frozenwastes wrote:
These models are bad enough that I would never, ever buy one that I couldn't open and inspect first. I am certainly not going to order one sight unseen from an online store.

Maybe this was GW's goal all along... Killing the free-loading online market by making products people need to buy in person from brick and mortar for full retail price.

Maybe they are sending the doo-dooist blisters to online retailers to screw them too while the retail brick and mortars get the good batches! Crazy... Like a FOX!

ancientsociety wrote:
Why does Mantic use the exact same material to cast some of its newer minis and they are 1/2 the cost and have 0% flaws!?

It's not the same material. It's slightly harder and won't melt in the sun. Mantic's resin plastic is superior to the finecast resin plastic.

I've handled both and Mantic's are hard and relatively rigid (they still flex), GW are soft and very rubbery/bendy in comparison.

Mantic switched those wraiths from metal to a superior material and then also doubled the number you get in a box.

nkelsch wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:
These models are bad enough that I would never, ever buy one that I couldn't open and inspect first. I am certainly not going to order one sight unseen from an online store.

Maybe this was GW's goal all along... Killing the free-loading online market by making products people need to buy in person from brick and mortar for full retail price.

Maybe they are sending the doo-dooist blisters to online retailers to screw them too while the retail brick and mortars get the good batches! Crazy... Like a FOX!

You know, I wouldn't put it past them. It's actually brilliant.

I love how the experienced modelers here are saying this is a non issue, that they'd just use GS, even use a spare piece from another set to replace something. That pinning is harder than filling anyway and so on.

These models are supposed to be sold as a complete item, that's what we're paying for. I have bought models with the intention of cutting them up for conversions and so forth so small defects would not matter but so what, that's not relevant because there are plenty of people who bought that model to use as is and were not looking for a sculpting project.

Many of the smaller metal models do not need pinning, a decent glue sufficing and for most purchasers all they want to do is assemble and paint The kinds of repairs required for these finecast models is beyond the average person getting these. It's not acceptable that they would be expected to have spare backpacks on hand as one poster here suggested who then went on to say that they had high standards! I'd say if the defect was bad enough for the part to have to be substituted, then anyone saying that that was acceptable has low standards, very low at that.

GW can pretend that it's some premium product by using the word fine, but they're just reusing the metal molds which were initially produced to provide special characters and not a premium product aimed at experienced modellers only.

As for the first run being bad, there was a thread here that suggested that GW had been working on this for the last two years, time enough I'd thought to ensure that the bugs had been ironed out of the system before selling to the public.

solkan wrote:Does it make me an apologist if the only three fine cast models that I've seen so far in person were just fine? Or that I expect that Wayland Games is fethed off at GW over the Australian exports thing?

Nope. When I want to the local GW store, the rate of bad ones was less than one in ten. When I showed the store manage a few of the bad ones I came across he told me that if I was in any way unhappy with them, I could return them for a full refund. And that I could open anyone I wanted and look at it before buying.

As I said, I'd never buy one of these things if I couldn't examine it closely in person, out of the blister, beforehand.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

xxvaderxx wrote:Do these pieces of crap still melt in the sun like ive read around?.

The owner of a local independent store talked to their GW rep about putting finecast blisters inside a lighted display case and was wondering if the heat from the lights would be an issue. The rep told them that if they're not LEDs but actual bulbs, it's probably not safe. Given that it can get to 35-40C here in August, the owner made the wise move and declined to order any.

The first report of melting in the sun came from England, which is not exactly known for it's hot summers and tons of sun. I feel sorry for any of the locals who store their army cases in their cars, because they're going to bake their finecast miniatures into blobs come August.

frozenwastes wrote:

solkan wrote:Does it make me an apologist if the only three fine cast models that I've seen so far in person were just fine? Or that I expect that Wayland Games is fethed off at GW over the Australian exports thing?

Nope. When I want to the local GW store, the rate of bad ones was less than one in ten. When I showed the store manage a few of the bad ones I came across he told me that if I was in any way unhappy with them, I could return them for a full refund. And that I could open anyone I wanted and look at it before buying.

As I said, I'd never buy one of these things if I couldn't examine it closely in person, out of the blister, beforehand.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

xxvaderxx wrote:Do these pieces of crap still melt in the sun like ive read around?.

The owner of a local independent store talked to their GW rep about putting finecast blisters inside a lighted display case and was wondering if the heat from the lights would be an issue. The rep told them that if they're not LEDs but actual bulbs, it's probably not safe. Given that it can get to 35-40C here in August, the owner made the wise move and declined to order any.

The first report of melting in the sun came from England, which is not exactly known for it's hot summers and tons of sun. I feel sorry for any of the locals who store their army cases in their cars, because they're going to bake their finecast miniatures into blobs come August.

In reply to solkan: Nope, that just makes you lucky! And as for Wayland Games and their attitude towards GW, I certainly wouldn't expect to find to many GW fans over there anymore. But I believe this action is being taken because of what frozenwastes said. In a brick-and-mortar store, I could open the blister, and inspect the model. If there was a flaw, I could return it easily. It gets a lot harder when you purchase an item like this from an online retailer.

(Funny story. I was actually going to pick up a Finecast Nurgle Daemon Prince, my first GW purchase in months, at one of the nearby FLGSs. When I saw that it was in a regular box, and was the only one one in stock, I was immediately turned off. Instead, I picked up a Citadel Battlemat, which hadn't gone up in price! Which I guess makes sense, since they don't make it any more.)

As to the whole 'don't put it in a lighted display that isn't LED lit'... c'mon. That's just terrible. Who thought that this material was any good?

nkelsch wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:
These models are bad enough that I would never, ever buy one that I couldn't open and inspect first. I am certainly not going to order one sight unseen from an online store.

Maybe this was GW's goal all along... Killing the free-loading online market by making products people need to buy in person from brick and mortar for full retail price.

Maybe they are sending the doo-dooist blisters to online retailers to screw them too while the retail brick and mortars get the good batches! Crazy... Like a FOX!

Did you just use 'doo-doo' as an adjective?

The apologists in this thread make me sick. With the price point and hype of these models, a random sampling of 60 is more than adequate. You don't need 1000 samples to make a reasonable conclusion (there are drugs coming out every day where their efficacy and/or safety data was verified by studies with populations as small as 80 patients).

Honestly, when you're paying $20-30 for an ounce of resin that is proclaimed to be the second coming of Christ, even if they had sampled 1000 and all the others were acceptable (so 3% failure rate), that would still be unacceptable for "the finest miniatures in the world".

You are all missing the obvious and brilliant marketing ploy of the decade.

Buy a Finecast get a FREE pubic hair.
So if you buy lots of Finecast models, you get enough to make your very own GW Muff Rug!

"But I don't need a nether wig!" I hear you protest, "My minge is fully formed/trimmed into a bush in the form of the Aqulia!"

Ah, but consider this my topiary tushed friend, the target audience of pre pubescents who will soon be moving up into secondary education and having to shower communally.
The nerdy tykes can strut around the changing room with pride!
No wind in the willows for the Warhammer players, unlike their baldy crotched classmates.

filbert wrote:Just from reading some of the opinions and rationales being posted in here, it's really no wonder that GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....

Source? Because that's hilarious. q

cadbren wrote:I love how the experienced modelers here are saying this is a non issue,

Some experienced modellers are saying that.

I'm an experienced modeller, and frankly I'm not at all impressed with Finecast so far.

Also with the sample size: remember that retailers are only allowed to order 3 of each model at a time. GW has what, 100 models in finecast? less? That makes each order of finecast ~300 models, meaning they took a 10% sample.

Whilst some of the models have relatively minor defects, there are some pretty horrible bubbles obscuring or removing large amounts of model. Its not the kind of defects that would have been acceptable in metal, or were present at all in metal, and I'm not accepting them in the new material for a higher price and no increase in detail.
Wayland is definitely doing the right thing - considering they were screwed over already by only being allowed to order 3 at a time, and the risk of possible returns was too high.

Also:


When was the last time you got a metal model that looked like this. In 4 armies, I've never seen this before. The fact that it has happened once is shocking, let alone regularly. is appalling. Lets see you 'easily fill' that with greenstuff in 5 minutes.

What exactly are the apologists trying to accomplish by defending GW down to the last breath?

Do they honestly think by coming up with pathetic excuses for them will some how keep GW alive longer?

Dont they honestly think GW should prosper via doing things a better way? rather then mask the issues?

Think about it apologists, you are killing your own beloved company.

insaniak wrote:

cadbren wrote:I love how the experienced modelers here are saying this is a non issue,

Some experienced modellers are saying that.

I'm an experienced modeller, and frankly I'm not at all impressed with Finecast so far.

I hear that!

LunaHound wrote:Think about it apologists, you are killing your own beloved company.

If that's the end result, then good. Maybe once their God Emperor is gone, they can turn those blades on themselves in despair.

Omegus wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Think about it apologists, you are killing your own beloved company.

If that's the end result, then good. Maybe once their God Emperor is gone, they can turn those blades on themselves in despair.

Its like spraying perfume on dog doo doo. How much perfume do you need to keep spraying on to mask it,
and especially the amount of dog doo doo is increasing?

At the end of the day when the perfume can no longer mask the smell, then what do we still see?

Giant pile of dog ***********************

Actually im in despair from just reading the apologist's posts. If the term "fanboys" would be allowed to be used, im sure the apologists wouldnt be so glorious .
Because so far it sure has a nice ring to it doesn't it? "Official GW Apologist" geez wear it like a badge.
Turning blades on themselves in despair? like this? Nothing to Nippah~ about

LunaHound wrote:What exactly are the apologists trying to accomplish by defending GW down to the last breath?

Do they honestly think by coming up with pathetic excuses for them will some how keep GW alive longer?

Dont they honestly think GW should prosper via doing things a better way? rather then mask the issues?

I think it's more like the console wars. The product you buy is your team. And your team must win, because if your team wins, you are a winner, too. So that means all other teams must be inferior and it's better to hold your breath and will the very fabric of reality into changing than even admit once that your team may not be perfect all the time. I look forward to many more blinkered arguments like this in the future.

But to be fair, once I did buy a miscast metal GW model. The Dire Avenger Phoenix Lord. The ammo feed that hangs from his arm was kinda melted away to nothing in the middle. I bought it knowing it was defective. Why? Because it was marked down to half price. This would have been in the late 90s, so I think I paid ~$5USD for it. I think I got a fair deal.

@Johira , i agree. ( just to be clear the post below is unrelated :'p)



.
.
.
Im not saying Finecast is a bad idea, im not saying if resin done right shouldn't replace metal.

What me and im sure many have been saying is, dont introduce Finecast till its actually ready. Work out the kinks first, GET IT RIGHT before you shout out to the world how superior it is when its not.

There is a good concept, and then there is the reality. I think the apologist are forcing themselves to look at this whole finecast issue via tunnel vision.

LunaHound wrote:
Turning blades on themselves in despair? like this?

Sure, that's one option. My reaction would be much the same, too, albeit with more glee.

Is there any plan to bounce back out of this or are we looking at an ostrich situation here, where they are going to continue to push this crap out on a regular basis?

I'm with Luna on this one, fan-boy is one thing this is uninspiringly just being obtuse.

Even the ones I've seen in the same lines of crap as the ones shown here are just giving people an either WTF or a MEH moment. The shops themselves arn't really even pushing this crap, what does this say in the long run?

LunaHound wrote:

Is it wrong of me to have stared at the Green-haired chick's chest the whole time? And wasn't that in one of the AMV Hell videos?

As for GW folding in on itself (wow, have I been off topic this whole time? I need to find a path off this tangent), I'm for it. I'm completely confident that the community itself can take care of the rules and fluff.

Now, to get back on topic...

Eh, screw it. There's no salvaging this one. But I'd like to say this: guys, please stop bashing the GW 'apologists', defenders, or anyone who doesn't really see any problems with GW at the moment. I have no love for Corporate GW at the moment, but bile-spewing from either sides isn't going to lead to meaningful debate (we have that on Dakka, right?).

My question now is was this deliberate by GW! I'd love to see samplings from Independent retailers vs GW owned stores. If it can be proved that GW is purposefully dumping bad product onto the retailers this is really gonna be a mess. sniff sniff, is that a class action suit I smell?

infinite_array wrote:But I'd like to say this: guys, please stop bashing the GW 'apologists', defenders, or anyone who doesn't really see any problems with GW at the moment. I have no love for Corporate GW at the moment, but bile-spewing from either sides isn't going to lead to meaningful debate (we have that on Dakka, right?).

IF when we say GW Company have the audacity to do the things they do , and get away with what they have done , because they can, because there are customers that supports it.

Then im going to look at the apologists. The damned vanguards that paves the way for GW to trample all over the rest of the customers.

Im going to bash the apologists, with a vengeance too i might add. Because they too have the audacity to support the steaming pile of dog poopoo, which in my eyes , are WORSE than GW themselves.

Im going to voice my opinion that such dog poo products are not acceptable. Whether GW sees it or not is irrelevant, because it'll add up when we dont support the poop with our hard earned money.

GW + Apologists needs a hard slap across the face more than anything else atm.

And the finger of shame.

Andrew1975 wrote:My question now is was this deliberate by GW! I'd love to see samplings from Independent retailers vs GW owned stores. If it can be proved that GW is purposefully dumping bad product onto the retailers this is really gonna be a mess. sniff sniff, is that a class action suit I smell?

I dont like that theory though. Thats like the Empire mailing the plans of Death Star to the rebels.

LunaHound wrote:

infinite_array wrote:But I'd like to say this: guys, please stop bashing the GW 'apologists', defenders, or anyone who doesn't really see any problems with GW at the moment. I have no love for Corporate GW at the moment, but bile-spewing from either sides isn't going to lead to meaningful debate (we have that on Dakka, right?).

IF when we say GW Company have the audacity to do the things they do , and get away with what they have done , because they can, because there are customers that supports it.

Then im going to look at the apologists. The damned vanguards that paves the way for GW to trample all over the rest of the customers.

Im going to bash the apologists, with a vengeance too i might add. Because they too have the audacity to support the steaming pile of dog poopoo, which in my eyes , are WORSE than GW themselves.

Im going to voice my opinion that such dog poo products are not acceptable. Whether GW sees it or not is irrelevant, because it'll add up when we dont support the poop with our hard earned money.

GW + Apologists needs a hard slap across the face more than anything else atm.

And the finger of shame.

This is what I have to say to the apologists who would have my fellow gamer play with inferior material.

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.

Followed by several gunshots, yes?

Andrew1975 wrote:My question now is was this deliberate by GW! I'd love to see samplings from Independent retailers vs GW owned stores. If it can be proved that GW is purposefully dumping bad product onto the retailers this is really gonna be a mess. sniff sniff, is that a class action suit I smell?

GW may be corrupt and contemptuous, but above anything else they are incompetent - not evil.

infinite_array wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Is it wrong of me to have stared at the Green-haired chick's chest the whole time? And wasn't that in one of the AMV Hell videos?

As for GW folding in on itself (wow, have I been off topic this whole time? I need to find a path off this tangent), I'm for it. I'm completely confident that the community itself can take care of the rules and fluff.

Now, to get back on topic...

Eh, screw it. There's no salvaging this one. But I'd like to say this: guys, please stop bashing the GW 'apologists', defenders, or anyone who doesn't really see any problems with GW at the moment. I have no love for Corporate GW at the moment, but bile-spewing from either sides isn't going to lead to meaningful debate (we have that on Dakka, right?).

No, I don't think so.

One thing there, I don't care really about busting on people in general. GW? No dude. They earned every drop of bile I have for them.

The meaningful debate comes down to- Is the Finecrap deliberate, or is there someone who is actually that enraptured with this gak that they really believe the hype that it is BETTER then just outright plastic or resin, or.... even metal?

HOW can you describe this as sides? If you've not honestly seen crap sculpts in the flesh, you really have nothing to discuss, except that "Hey I don't know what these crap sculpts are that you are talking about."

When you see the pictures, trust me, they do not do the abominations justice in the flesh.

YOU do know that they are asking for you to pay upwards up to $30.00 for these, don't you? The prices are on the pack and the particular GK Drago guy there had like 27.00 on it. with... the craptasticly familier bubbles and dips in it? Honestly?
There is no unseeing what has been seen.

Meaningful Debate? OK. What are we supposed to do in leu of this crap? Someone show me one that is done, looks good,and doesn't look like someone just crapped out a sculpt and sent it out to the mindless minions to spend cash on.

Andrew1975 wrote:This is what I have to say to the apologists who would have my fellow gamer play with inferior material.

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.

Is that from The Bible , does that mean you agree with what i posted?

infinite_array wrote:Eh, screw it. There's no salvaging this one. But I'd like to say this: guys, please stop bashing the GW 'apologists', defenders, or anyone who doesn't really see any problems with GW at the moment. I have no love for Corporate GW at the moment, but bile-spewing from either sides isn't going to lead to meaningful debate (we have that on Dakka, right?).

But.... but... then what are we to do with this surplus of bile?

Andrew1975 wrote:

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.

I guess we must look like a bitch, because GW is trying to feth us like one.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?

Necros wrote:nice, but I'm sure GW will just take those returns and ship them out to someone else who won't return them :( Hopefully if they get enough returns they'll step up their game and invest in some quality control.

Been thinking about getting a finecast hive tyrant but I've been really hesitant.. I know I can return it if it's bad, but I just don't wanna go through the hassle...

Hassle?)

Step 1: Drive to shop
Step 2: Buy new Tyrant
Step 3: Open box.
Step 4a. If undamaged, go put it together. GOTO step5
Step 4b: If damaged, hand it back saying "Mike, this is crap, I want another!" GOTO step 3
Step 5: Put model together and paint.

NOTE: This post isn't totally serious, as Tim is local to me. In no way would I insinuate that people drive halfway across Canada to their 'local' store or something silly.

Granted, I usually only have 2-3 in stock, but I'm doubting we go through all of them to find a good one.

If it takes you an extra 30 minutes out of your day to drive both ways, plus however long you waste at the actual store, then yes, it's a hassle.

I live in Canada BC, the closest GW store is like few cities away... a hassle , and very time consuming not mention $

tiekwando wrote:OK well besides that you really do not understand statistics its all fine. They made a point estimate based on a sample size of 60. You do not need to know the population size to get a reasonable estimates and confidence intervals. It doesn't matter if they sample 1% or 20% the confidence interval remains the same. Just FYI

Pretty sure you're wrong on this one. If your sample size is 20% of the population, you have much better information than you do at 1%.

On topic: After taking a sample and getting those results, it would have been good to go and repeat the experiment by taking another 60 models, and repeating the survey. This is a fairly big business decision to make. I'd have wanted to make sure of it's validity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:I live in Canada BC, the closest GW store is like few cities away... a hassle , and very time consuming not mention $

Sorry, I should have been more obvious in pointing out that Tim shops at my store.

mikhaila wrote:

Necros wrote:nice, but I'm sure GW will just take those returns and ship them out to someone else who won't return them :( Hopefully if they get enough returns they'll step up their game and invest in some quality control.

Been thinking about getting a finecast hive tyrant but I've been really hesitant.. I know I can return it if it's bad, but I just don't wanna go through the hassle...

Hassle?)

Step 1: Drive to shop
Step 2: Buy new Tyrant
Step 3: Open box.
Step 4a. If undamaged, go put it together. GOTO step5
Step 4b: If damaged, hand it back saying "Mike, this is crap, I want another!" GOTO step 3
Step 5: Put model together and paint.

Granted, I usually only have 2-3 in stock, but I'm doubting we go through all of them to find a good one.

Alternatively:

Go to eBay and get a metal one.

You can get a great start here: http://cgi.ebay.com/WARHAMMER-40K-TYRAND-HIVE-TYRANT-NEW-AND-SEALED-/220804350519?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3368f70237. Not even my auction.

Only problem is, it's $20 cheaper than the Finecast one, and it won't have nearly as many flaws.

But! If you were looking forward to filling holes with super glue and green-stuffing talons where they should've been cast in the first place, then fork over the extra $20!! Even more so if you're spending the gas money to return it and get another one.




Edit: This makes me think of the perfect 'What's New Today', since they've been filling it with random painted models about 20 days out of the month for the past few months. How to become an expert modeller by sculpting green stuff. They could use Finecast miniatures as subjects and teach people how to work around the miscasts. At least it would be informative.

Look guys there are those of you that would ok receiving miniatures with some of the flaws. However most would not. And on our part it is not acceptable for us to send out product that have foreign objects in.


This has nothing to do with the GW change of terms, it has everything to do with us being unhappy with a particular product and making a business decision to return it and to ensure our customers are aware why their orders are being refunded and that those looking for the product on the store are aware of our reasoning. We have had extensive and detailed discussions regarding this issue with GW, and the effort in detailing and capturing the defects is extensive. GW have communicated the wider returns rate to us, and ours is far in excess of their claims, by a massive margin. They have however asked us not to release this figure.

Regarding sample size it is significant but bare in mind we can only sample the blisters, as no products were opened in the process.

This has cost us financially through no fault of our own, we expect products supplied to us to reasonably free of defects. It is simply not the case with Finecast currently and to pass these issues on to customers is simply not the way we will do business.
We have no doubt the situation will improve and quickly though.