Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ajefferism wrote:Here's a link to my preview/review of some Dark Eldar Finecast models I purchased this weekend. I got an Archon, Succubus and a unit of Incubi. Overally they looked good with no bubbles/miscasts on the Archon and Succubus. For the Incubi, there was a slight bubble/miscast on the one pose (2 models from same mold) the left shoulder and nearby cloth had a bubble. But it was small and nothing a little green stuff fill in shouldnt fix.

Looks like your Archon has the same sword problem as mine; part of the blade is missing. Compare it to the Huskblade picture on the box and it looks like there's a chunk of the blade missing. Same problem on mine, so I wonder if this is a common problem with the blade in casting.

BrassScorpion wrote:If someone broke their "bosspole", they must have been really trying to do it. All my experience with it so far is that it's very flexible, not brittle. That includes my own purchases plus numerous purchases of friends during the past few days. That doesn't mean it's impossible to break though. In other words, don't be "stupid" or careless with it, especially at those prices.

Oh, and breaking your bosspole sounds very serious, maybe a doctor should look at that.

Some parts seem flexible, some don't. I tested this with the sprues. Some parts I could literally fold in half and they would not break. On another sprue, it snapped even getting to a 90 degree angle.

nectarprime wrote:That's funny, cuz the shield looks fine on mine but the axe has a crap surface. I picked up that GK character Crowe or whatever his name is and besides his sword being a little bent his quality is superb. Pic with wash still wet.

Yeah, it's not a big deal... but in your pic, there's a little tab coming out of the left side of the shield (left side when looking at it from the front). In that tab is a bit of a fork, and the bottom part of the fork has a little bolthead. Mine is missing that part of the tab, and the bolthead... there is also a really thin part of the shield that light can be seen through, and the eyes may not have come out good- I haven't yet scraped off the thin flash in them to know for sure.

Not a deal breaker... just kind of a bummer to need to be comparing the model to the pic on the front of the blister, wondering if there's any detail/small parts missing!

It's probaly been mentioned before, but almost none of the Finecast models interest me. Many (if not all) of these redone models had perfectly acceptable metal predasessors.

What blows my mind is that, they took the time to make a Techmarine and Servitors in resin, but did not make a Thunderfire Cannon in Finecast. It's reputation is one of the worst models to assemble and it still sets in metal.

What I do see as a good thing are the orc bosses on dragons. Its great to see them in such a ligther material that doesen't require a lifetime of assembly.

brother_zach wrote:What blows my mind is that, they took the time to make a Techmarine and Servitors in resin, but did not make a Thunderfire Cannon in Finecast. It's reputation is one of the worst models to assemble and it still sets in metal.

The releases so far are only the first wave...

Neith wrote:

ajefferism wrote:Here's a link to my preview/review of some Dark Eldar Finecast models I purchased this weekend. I got an Archon, Succubus and a unit of Incubi. Overally they looked good with no bubbles/miscasts on the Archon and Succubus. For the Incubi, there was a slight bubble/miscast on the one pose (2 models from same mold) the left shoulder and nearby cloth had a bubble. But it was small and nothing a little green stuff fill in shouldnt fix.

Looks like your Archon has the same sword problem as mine; part of the blade is missing. Compare it to the Huskblade picture on the box and it looks like there's a chunk of the blade missing. Same problem on mine, so I wonder if this is a common problem with the blade in casting.

Is this what your talking about?





I dont see the portion thats missing. Are you talking about the middle of the blade on the cutting side? If so, the "flesh" cloth robe behind the blade sorta looks like its part of the blade but it isn't... just the same lightness as the blade so it looks like its part of it... i think its a photography issue that the two blend together....



Unless your talking about another portion of the blade...

Went down to the FLGS yesterday to pick up two models - a succubus, and a harlequin shadowseer (for a haemy conversion, since the new model blows) - I was looking forward to a plastiresinmagicwhatever shadowseer, since I remember having to pin through the wrist and forearm of the last one I had (metal) just to ensure the staff didn't fall off.

They had one seer, and the bottom of his staff was bent into a C-shape, I didn't feel like giving the store ~20 dollars to have to take a hairdryer to my models so that was a no-go. There was also only one succubus, and her polearm was wavy, and again, hairdryer is a no-go for the money.

I didn't bother to check for bubbles or anything, there probably were a few.

The detail didn't appear any better than the metals - this thread has alot of people looking at two identical models and swearing the matte-colored one is ''more detailed'' and it's pretty annoying. People couldn't even tell the painted Autarch in the beginning of this thread was Finecast (People were comparing it to the finecast one to determine if there was more detail, as if it were metal in the first place!) and that picture was far better quality than some of the ones that people are looking at and saying "Yep! More detail!" - It's like GW created a meme.

Photographing bare models is are always going to be biased towards the finecast miniatures. Metal's very natures makes it hard to capture the details of a model.

evilsponge wrote:Photographing bare models is are always going to be biased towards the finecast miniatures. Metal's very natures makes it hard to capture the details of a model.

And I have seen this posted several times and still we keep seeing bare models posted. I think I have already mentioned that I would like to see a finecast and a resin one both painted the same flat colour for a comparison. I guess I am going to have to go and buy a finecast and do it myself.

The prevailing attitude, on the basis of people buying and/or inspecting the models themselves, seems to be shifting from almost overwhelmingly critical to guardedly more positive, albeit with some strong reservations. And some of the photos that have been posted more recently suggest that Finecast is capable of living up to its name. Maybe the wear on the moulds makes a big difference? One thing that hasn't been mentioned as a positive (and I'm still looking for something positive in what is proving to be a very unimpressive roll-out of this 'new' product) is that it will be much easier to combine Finecast minis (and components from them) with the plastics. Combined metal and plastic models have always been pretty hopeless - they don't bond together well; plastic components on metal minis tend to snap off, and metal components on plastic minis tend to unbalance the model. It should be much easier to, say, attach the huskblade from the Archon mini to a plastic DE mini. Presumably no pinning will be required. Just a thought.

ajefferism wrote: I dont see the portion thats missing. Are you talking about the middle of the blade on the cutting side? If so, the "flesh" cloth robe behind the blade sorta looks like its part of the blade but it isn't... just the same lightness as the blade so it looks like its part of it... i think its a photography issue that the two blend together....



Unless your talking about another portion of the blade...

It could just be me not seeing it; for my Archon the Huskblade looks more like the shape of a DE Power Sword; after the tip of the blade, it cuts inward, rather than being a smooth blade edge. It actually looks pretty cool, but it's a miscast on mine after comparing it to my metal Archon. It looked like the same had happened to yours, but maybe it's just that I can't make it out on the photo well.

Edit: Terrible phone camera pic (no macro function!) but this is what I mean.

Hard to make out, but the blade on mine has a block cut out of it.

Tailgunner wrote:The prevailing attitude, on the basis of people buying and/or inspecting the models themselves, seems to be shifting from almost overwhelmingly critical to guardedly more positive, albeit with some strong reservations. And some of the photos that have been posted more recently suggest that Finecast is capable of living up to its name. Maybe the wear on the moulds makes a big difference? One thing that hasn't been mentioned as a positive (and I'm still looking for something positive in what is proving to be a very unimpressive roll-out of this 'new' product) is that it will be much easier to combine Finecast minis (and components from them) with the plastics. Combined metal and plastic models have always been pretty hopeless - they don't bond together well; plastic components on metal minis tend to snap off, and metal components on plastic minis tend to unbalance the model. It should be much easier to, say, attach the huskblade from the Archon mini to a plastic DE mini. Presumably no pinning will be required. Just a thought.

So how does the new resin work? does it have special bond vs plastics? or its just bonding better due to lighter weight and not the material?

Neith wrote:

ajefferism wrote: I dont see the portion thats missing. Are you talking about the middle of the blade on the cutting side? If so, the "flesh" cloth robe behind the blade sorta looks like its part of the blade but it isn't... just the same lightness as the blade so it looks like its part of it... i think its a photography issue that the two blend together....



Unless your talking about another portion of the blade...

It could just be me not seeing it; for my Archon the Huskblade looks more like the shape of a DE Power Sword; after the tip of the blade, it cuts inward, rather than being a smooth blade edge. It actually looks pretty cool, but it's a miscast on mine after comparing it to my metal Archon. It looked like the same had happened to yours, but maybe it's just that I can't make it out on the photo well.

Edit: Terrible phone camera pic (no macro function!) but this is what I mean.

Hard to make out, but the blade on mine has a block cut out of it.

I actually have a metal archon in blister sitting here and it has the same 'hook' style blade. I don't think it's a miscast.

RiTides wrote:

nectarprime wrote:That's funny, cuz the shield looks fine on mine but the axe has a crap surface. I picked up that GK character Crowe or whatever his name is and besides his sword being a little bent his quality is superb. Pic with wash still wet.

Yeah, it's not a big deal... but in your pic, there's a little tab coming out of the left side of the shield (left side when looking at it from the front). In that tab is a bit of a fork, and the bottom part of the fork has a little bolthead. Mine is missing that part of the tab, and the bolthead... there is also a really thin part of the shield that light can be seen through, and the eyes may not have come out good- I haven't yet scraped off the thin flash in them to know for sure.

Not a deal breaker... just kind of a bummer to need to be comparing the model to the pic on the front of the blister, wondering if there's any detail/small parts missing!

That is a bummer :/ Can you return it?

In hindsight I should of opened mine in the store and inspected it.....

Well, not now . I just put it together and, after taking an exacto knife to the eyes and some parts of the shield, I'm OK with it. Missing an edge on the shield, and I found some pitting on the shoulder pad, and two really small air bubbles... but honestly, my metal models aren't usually perfect and I'm kind of looking for flaws.

Yes, it costs more than I think it should... but I'm OK with the material, as I'm hoping these early batches were rushed and quality will be more consistent from now on.

I may or may not have successfully talked myself into this due to the fact that many DE models I'll eventually need are Finecast but I'm not going to beat my head against the wall over something that's really not too big a deal for me in the long run.

And if I'm really itching for metal... I've still got most of an all-metal privateer press army (trollbloods) to finish assembling...

A note that I did open mine in the store, the thing is some of these smaller things are hard to notice on the spot, especially when the chainmail looks sooooo good in finecast and draws the eye more than the flaws which take a little longer to note, unless it's a model you're familiar with and can compare to the "ideal" in your mind. Even the box pic doesn't totally help as it's one angle and not all that close.

puma713 wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:

One of the blisters was an Eldar Autarch with Hawk Wings. And those wings looked like they'd snap very easily.

They won't. the Finecast resin is quite flexible, almost spongy. I've already seen swords bent nearly 90 degrees without breaking and then return to original shape immediately. In the 39 pages of posts here already surely someone must have already mentioned the flexibility? Or perhaps it's just that at 39 pages long no one has the patience or time to read through all of the junk to find the good stuff? I know I wouldn't do it.

On the contrary, one of the posts that I read today mentioned something about Ghazzy's bosspole simply snapping with little resistance. He went on to say that it glued back on very well, though. Edit: here we go:

Archroy wrote: My only complaint is regards the GW claim that Finecast is more resilient than metal, since I managed to snap his Bosspole (without, I thought, a lot of force being applied. And no I wasn't stress testing it, it was an accident...). On the plus side it did glue back on with no problems and is pretty sound now...

I've read nearly every post and there are very few (if any) good ones that simply state, "I am happy with this product." Rather than, "I am happy with this product, but. . ."

The best way I've found to describe working with the material is it's like cardboard. Light, flexible and fairly strong. I've tried flexing out the omniscient axe on my techmarine along with the hilt and both seem very flexible. I've seen no incidents of breakages at the local GW and and best way to get a feel for the material is to get your hands on one of the sprues and flex it. It has more give than plastic sprues, but doesn't seem to weaken or change in any way (simply reverts to its original shape) until eventually (with some force) it gives. It doesn't exactly break cleanly like plastic or resin (that is with a crisp *snap* or *crunch*), it rather tears (like cardboard or a sponge). That said, it glues back on fine and in no time it's ready for the tabletop again.

Wow, an Ork Big Mek costs nearly as much as 3 Killa Kans? The price change doesn't really hit you until you look at something you actually may want to buy.

carmachu wrote:

army310 wrote:
I think all the bad press is coming from PP or something

Do you realize how stupid that sounds? I mean, really? PP had their response to finecast and other GW stupidity, faking problems isnt it.

No but if you quote dont quote like fox news, quote the hole thing.

brother_zach wrote:It's probaly been mentioned before, but almost none of the Finecast models interest me. Many (if not all) of these redone models had perfectly acceptable metal predasessors.

What blows my mind is that, they took the time to make a Techmarine and Servitors in resin, but did not make a Thunderfire Cannon in Finecast. It's reputation is one of the worst models to assemble and it still sets in metal.

What I do see as a good thing are the orc bosses on dragons. Its great to see them in such a ligther material that doesen't require a lifetime of assembly.

Im hoping that they are going to get a new Thunderfire Cannon model or redo the old cast of it as well as some of the older models.

puma713 wrote:Wow, an Ork Big Mek costs nearly as much as 3 Killa Kans? The price change doesn't really hit you until you look at something you actually may want to buy.

Seriously? That's fethed up!

olympia wrote:

puma713 wrote:Wow, an Ork Big Mek costs nearly as much as 3 Killa Kans? The price change doesn't really hit you until you look at something you actually may want to buy.

Seriously? That's f***d up!

It might be if it was true. Fact check:

Killa Kans $44.50
Ork Big Mek with Bosspole $20.00
Ork Big Mek $22.50
Ork Big Mek with Shokk Attack Gun $38.00

Source: http://search.games-workshop.com/search?locale=us&keywords=big+mek

In other words, unless one was speaking of the Shokk Attack Gun, the statement isn't true like half the stuff one sees on this forum. And though it went up in price, the Shokk Attack Gun was already quite expensive and has cost more than $30 for years.

insaniak wrote:

brother_zach wrote:What blows my mind is that, they took the time to make a Techmarine and Servitors in resin, but did not make a Thunderfire Cannon in Finecast. It's reputation is one of the worst models to assemble and it still sets in metal.

The releases so far are only the first wave...

I understand the "wave system", but even this is a bit silly. There was nothing wrong with the Grey Knight characters to merit them getting redone in Finecast. Even going off of the "newest overhauled Armies" Law, the Dark Eldar SHOULD have resin beasts. Instead of having a clear and definate first wave of redone models, GW has settled for a hodge-podge batch of releases that are thought to deliver sales.

Many releases look as if the staff just threw darts at a board to select the redone miniatures. Biggest dissapointment to me was the fact that Lysandser and Kantor remain pewter models. There are soo many conversion potentials for both models that each space marine player should own two each of them. The Thunderfire Cannon seemed only logical.

Here's an update - I sent a link to my blog over to the Customer Services guys at GW. Anyway, I'm being sent a new Captain Stern. No argument, just a shipping notification, nice and efficient. Big kudos to Customer Services.

So, it seems that GW Customer Services also agree this level of fixing is not really acceptable for a premium product. Let's see if the replacement is up to par.

Tailgunner wrote:Combined metal and plastic models have always been pretty hopeless - they don't bond together well; plastic components on metal minis tend to snap off, and metal components on plastic minis tend to unbalance the model.

This...

My Havocs were a real PITA to assemble, and the heavy weapons keep causing them to topple... I've been wanting some Thousand Sons for a while now, but the hybrid kit experience has really put me off... Hopefully Finecast will sort that out (if and when they're released).

Lord Scythican wrote:

evilsponge wrote:Photographing bare models is are always going to be biased towards the finecast miniatures. Metal's very natures makes it hard to capture the details of a model.

And I have seen this posted several times and still we keep seeing bare models posted. I think I have already mentioned that I would like to see a finecast and a resin one both painted the same flat colour for a comparison. I guess I am going to have to go and buy a finecast and do it myself.

i think i'll buy a fine cast and a standard metal figure of the same model, and a non GW resin figure of similar price assemble them without green stuff, undercoat then grey/white and give them a dark wash to bring out the detail. then it would be an easy, non-bias comparison. anyone else who feels like doing this and comparing notes feel free

I bought a finecast !
and it was nice , really nothing to moan about, I lookt at 40+ modells in the store and all but 1 lookt fine to me

pic of my modell
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...t/P5310050.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...0046-Kopia.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1.../P53100502.jpg

SONS of ORAR wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

evilsponge wrote:Photographing bare models is are always going to be biased towards the finecast miniatures. Metal's very natures makes it hard to capture the details of a model.

And I have seen this posted several times and still we keep seeing bare models posted. I think I have already mentioned that I would like to see a finecast and a resin one both painted the same flat colour for a comparison. I guess I am going to have to go and buy a finecast and do it myself.

i think i'll buy a fine cast and a standard metal figure of the same model, and a non GW resin figure of similar price assemble them without green stuff, undercoat then grey/white and give them a dark wash to bring out the detail. then it would be an easy, non-bias comparison. anyone else who feels like doing this and comparing notes feel free

Except part of the reason that finecast models have better detail is that you don't need to apply a layer of detail obscuring primer.
So saying "apply a coat of primer to each one and then check!" is kinda like saying "well I'm sure that I'm as fast as Usain Bolt if we both had our ankles tied together"

Goliath wrote:Except part of the reason that finecast models have better detail is that you don't need to apply a layer of detail obscuring primer.

Is this really true? Has anyone had good results painting directly onto the resin? I've become so used to using primer, the concept of not using it seems alien to me.

Goliath wrote:

SONS of ORAR wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

evilsponge wrote:Photographing bare models is are always going to be biased towards the finecast miniatures. Metal's very natures makes it hard to capture the details of a model.

And I have seen this posted several times and still we keep seeing bare models posted. I think I have already mentioned that I would like to see a finecast and a resin one both painted the same flat colour for a comparison. I guess I am going to have to go and buy a finecast and do it myself.

i think i'll buy a fine cast and a standard metal figure of the same model, and a non GW resin figure of similar price assemble them without green stuff, undercoat then grey/white and give them a dark wash to bring out the detail. then it would be an easy, non-bias comparison. anyone else who feels like doing this and comparing notes feel free

Except part of the reason that finecast models have better detail is that you don't need to apply a layer of detail obscuring primer.
So saying "apply a coat of primer to each one and then check!" is kinda like saying "well I'm sure that I'm as fast as Usain Bolt if we both had our ankles tied together"

That's not what has been said at all. Please try not to make wild, unsubstantiated claims as you will end up confusing people. GW have claimed that Finecast doesn't need to be washed - they haven't said that they don't need priming. If you don't prime, you won't get the best painting results. And that goes for any mini medium.

The point you managed to miss is that people are claiming Finecast has crisper detail but this is unable to be accurately verified from bare, side by side photos due to the way that metal reflects light. There have been a number of posts on this topic, hence the suggestion to prime both before offering comparison.

See this thread and Luna's post in particular for further details:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/372246.page#2865711

htj wrote:

Goliath wrote:Except part of the reason that finecast models have better detail is that you don't need to apply a layer of detail obscuring primer.

Is this really true? Has anyone had good results painting directly onto the resin? I've become so used to using primer, the concept of not using it seems alien to me.

that's a load of balls.. you should always prime models no matter how detailed or what they's made of.. plus if you prime correctly you shouldn't really obscure any detail..

as to painting onto bare resin, it really doesn't work to well.. so yup stick to what you know.. prime your minis as you don't want it going wrong at these prices

SONS of ORAR wrote:

htj wrote:

Goliath wrote:Except part of the reason that finecast models have better detail is that you don't need to apply a layer of detail obscuring primer.

Is this really true? Has anyone had good results painting directly onto the resin? I've become so used to using primer, the concept of not using it seems alien to me.

that's a load of balls.. you should always prime models no matter how detailed or what they's made of.. plus if you prime correctly you shouldn't really obscure any detail..

as to painting onto bare resin, it really doesn't work to well.. so yup stick to what you know.. prime your minis as you don't want it going wrong at these prices

Myth busted! Well done, Dakka Mythbusters.