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.

Pacific wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:I really wouldnt be too happy if i was GW management seeing this poll.

The majority is 6/10 or higher. They would be pleased.

Both of you have just provided a lovely example of the nature of subjectivity

Or the nature of fanboyism, take your pick.

MrMerlin wrote:I've been wondering how the average dakka user feels about them

How do you feel about them?

pretty much somewhere between 1-3 out of 10. As a company. Havent spent money on them in ages. As I tell all my friends, GW has moved on from us older folks so I moved on from them.

I think it's healthier to be a fanboy than a hater.

Of course, if you can avoid being either...

Rurouni Benshin wrote:I honestly don't get all the despise for Finecast. Aside from the price hike (which I suppose is reason enough to dislike it), I don't think the models are of less quality as the pewter ones are/were.

Sure they are. They've so far have a greater miscast rate then metal or plastic ever did. GW is selling stuff to FIX the miscasts that are minor. How on earth are you saying they are less quailty then pewter?

Finecast for me was the final straw. Not paying more for less.

I don't consider myself a fanboy or a hater. They do not make my favorite wargame, and they're far from the worst company EVAR. I don't get totally emotionally invested in The Hobby.

I would rate GW as a whole - including their corporate behavior, games, background, and miniatures - at about a 4/10. They produce a pretty decent product (miniatures) but a pretty poor ruleset (5th ed, 8th ed, and some of the recent codex/army book releases). Their products are expensive for what you receive, but there are a few standout examples. They have also done a lot to expand the hobby, and you can go to any city in the U.S. and find people who play 40k. The 40k and fantasy settings are two-dimensional and hackneyed, but they're also lots of fun.

So overall, I'd rate them at about a 4/10. Below average for wargaming companies, but well above the worst offenders (Clix and D&D miniatures).

carmachu wrote:

Sure they are. They've so far have a greater miscast rate then metal or plastic ever did. GW is selling stuff to FIX the miscasts that are minor. How on earth are you saying they are less quailty then pewter?

Finecast for me was the final straw. Not paying more for less.

As far as I've seen, I don't know where the miscasts are coming from, as far as what the Finecast models show. Granted I don't own a lot of models compared to say, a "Veteran Gamer/Collector", but from what I can tell (as far as the models I've purchased), they are not inferior to their pewter counterparts.

Perhaps if you sited or quoted something that can shed a bit more light, I'd at least be willing to see where your opinions are coming from.

If you think about it, there is one aspect of wargaming where GW rules, and that is the quantity of players. They may have their (numerous) flaws, but it would be hard to find an equally omni-present game system. Right now I can only think of one other popular sytem, Warmachine.
So even if the systems might not be perfect (well i think theyre ok) youll at leat find someone to play against.

MrMerlin wrote:If you think about it, there is one aspect of wargaming where GW rules, and that is the quantity of players. They may have their (numerous) flaws, but it would be hard to find an equally omni-present game system. Right now I can only think of one other popular sytem, Warmachine.
So even if the systems might not be perfect (well i think theyre ok) youll at leat find someone to play against.

I'd even argue that. If you were to say 'GW has the most obvious presence' in wargaming, then I'd agree - they certainly are the face of wargaming at the moment.

But I'd argue that historical gamers - say, Napoleonics players that use 25-28mm figures - have more players than GW, but are just much less obvious about it.

7/10 i said this because, -2 for the prices -1 for the strict rules in many of the shops i have been in, say, no drinks, no food, no sitting, no 'off topic' convosation off warhammer

infinite_array wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:If you think about it, there is one aspect of wargaming where GW rules, and that is the quantity of players. They may have their (numerous) flaws, but it would be hard to find an equally omni-present game system. Right now I can only think of one other popular sytem, Warmachine.
So even if the systems might not be perfect (well i think theyre ok) youll at leat find someone to play against.

I'd even argue that. If you were to say 'GW has the most obvious presence' in wargaming, then I'd agree - they certainly are the face of wargaming at the moment.

But I'd argue that historical gamers - say, Napoleonics players that use 25-28mm figures - have more players than GW, but are just much less obvious about it.

I'd have to go with Mr. Merlin on this one. 40k has a ubiquity that is unparalelled.
In historical gaming, you have to choose between a multitude of scales (mostly 25,15,10,6 and 3 mm) many eras, and many, many rulesets. It's far more difficult to find a Historical game that matches your era, scale and and favored rules than it is to find a 40k game.
I highly doubt there are anywhere near the nubmer of napoleonic players, as GW players. Hwever even if the numbers were equal, it is inconceivable to me tha there is a Napoleonic ruleset and scale combination that has more players than 40k.

40k (in the USA anyway) is probably the easiest game in the country to find an opponent for. Between the high number of players, massive infrastrueture (clubs, GW shops, FLGS's, online communities, etc.) 40k is the top wargaming choice for someone for whom finding an opponent is the highest priority.

Despite the fact that I no longer buy new GW product or play 40k, I'll never sell my two 40k armies, largely because of this fact. If my gaming club (we play indie games) falls apart or I have to move, I'll always be able to find a game of 40k.

6/10

I have a love-hate relationship with GW at the mo, love the background, 40K has pretty much no equal in the Sci-fi background department. The rules do the job for a two hour wargame, and the models in general are well designed and fun to paint, use. Getting better all the time in fact.

However, I hate the Corporate side of the company, the treatment of worldwide customers, prices rocketing out of control onto a spiral that is going to lead them into the toilet if they aren't careful. My guess is they are getting extremely close to the tipping point for new kids joining the hobby. £20.50 for a single Ogre character, really? Most adults I know with young kids already think GW is way too expensive.

Plus the ubsurd 'news blackout' thing they have going on, which goes against pretty much all fundimental buiness practises when dealing with a hobby based customer base, especially a niche one where word or mouth and excitement for new lines drives new blood into the hobby.

Also just to top off, the death of Specalist games, another entry way it seems going on many threads over the years, for a lot of folks into this so called GW hobby, and yeah, starting to think Kirby is milking the company for all its worth at the moment.

Eilif wrote:
I highly doubt there are anywhere near the nubmer of napoleonic players, as GW players. Hwever even if the numbers were equal, it is inconceivable to me tha there is a Napoleonic ruleset and scale combination that has more players than 40k.

40k (in the USA anyway) is probably the easiest game in the country to find an opponent for. Between the high number of players, massive infrastrueture (clubs, GW shops, FLGS's, online communities, etc.) 40k is the top wargaming choice for someone for whom finding an opponent is the highest priority.

Despite the fact that I no longer buy new GW product or play 40k, I'll never sell my two 40k armies, largely because of this fact. If my gaming club (we play indie games) falls apart or I have to move, I'll always be able to find a game of 40k.

You know, thinking about it, I have to concede the point to you and Merlin.

8/10

I buy for the models alone so I have no reason to deduct from bad rules of the game system itself.

If I were to take some points away, it would be for the bad management and the way WD has collapsed into a pricey catalogue.

Apart from that GW is doing everything pretty well in my eyes, all they need to do is take a deep breath, stop playing around and then they will get a 10/10 from me.

Rurouni Benshin wrote:
As far as I've seen, I don't know where the miscasts are coming from, as far as what the Finecast models show. Granted I don't own a lot of models compared to say, a "Veteran Gamer/Collector", but from what I can tell (as far as the models I've purchased), they are not inferior to their pewter counterparts.

Perhaps if you sited or quoted something that can shed a bit more light, I'd at least be willing to see where your opinions are coming from.

Then you havent been paying attention. There are various threads around showing all the flaws from minor to send the stuff back to GW. In greater rates then metal ever had.

They look great IF you get one without flaws. But not really much more superior to metal once the primer comes on.

So to quote a site....try looking around here for all the discussions, including the primer comparison. Otherwise.....you sound more like trolling.

8/10
+Story
+Units
+Game

-Matt Ward
-Pricing
-Fine"oops it dropped"cast

carmachu wrote:
Then you havent been paying attention. There are various threads around showing all the flaws from minor to send the stuff back to GW. In greater rates then metal ever had.

They look great IF you get one without flaws. But not really much more superior to metal once the primer comes on.

So to quote a site....try looking around here for all the discussions, including the primer comparison. Otherwise.....you sound more like trolling.

Admittedly, I haven't read many discussions on Finecast, mostly due to the fact that I've collected the majority of my models before they were released and didn't find myself in need of anything. However, that said, I suppose I'm one of the lucky ones to have gotten good models then. Or, maybe I'm just easier to please than others. Aesthetically speaking, I can see how they're on par with metal mini's, but I was also gauging them from a different point of view, in that their weight makes a difference as well. Granted, it is in all likelihood a minor difference, but a difference nonetheless.

But back on topic for a second, I also strongly agree with what Eilif had said about the player base for 40K being so high in number. Many of my friends go through phases where they play WHFB, WM, and other tabletop games (recently, Malifaux has become quite popular). But in the end, I know that they'll be around for 40K at the end of the day.

carmachu wrote:

Rurouni Benshin wrote:
As far as I've seen, I don't know where the miscasts are coming from, as far as what the Finecast models show. Granted I don't own a lot of models compared to say, a "Veteran Gamer/Collector", but from what I can tell (as far as the models I've purchased), they are not inferior to their pewter counterparts.

Perhaps if you sited or quoted something that can shed a bit more light, I'd at least be willing to see where your opinions are coming from.

Then you havent been paying attention. There are various threads around showing all the flaws from minor to send the stuff back to GW. In greater rates then metal ever had.

They look great IF you get one without flaws. But not really much more superior to metal once the primer comes on.

So to quote a site....try looking around here for all the discussions, including the primer comparison. Otherwise.....you sound more like trolling.

To be fair, you are the one that is coming of as aggresive. The chap has an opinion that differs from yours that's all.

That said I am willing to back Rurouni Benshin on this one. Finecast are better gaming models than metal in almost all respects.

The now somewhat dated threads that you refer to did not paint this resin in the best of lights for obvious reasons but I would suggest that the teething problems are now behind them and the productions where it should have been from the start.

I have bought two very nice models in this medium (some 3+ months ago now) and on mooching around a biggish retailer in London this week and discussing it with the owner he confirmed that the first 2 batches received were a joke but sinvce then they are on the money.

Obviously the danger is that your FLGS hasn't checked their inventory and still has the duff batches on the shelves.

I rated them as a 8/10. I think they have done a fine job for years. Their products are never anything but good, the writers are great, and the product that they have created between the two has lasted longer than any other gaming product outside of Dungeons & Dragons, and even they had a part in the back in the day!

But they are expensive, and always have been expensive, hence the reason I waited so long to get into Warhammer. But, that goes with the territory of a hobby, many of them are expensive and people who constantly complain about it should find another hobby.

Are they perfect? Far from it, but for a gaming company to stay as true to their products as they have without selling out is commendable in and of itself.

Having a large player base, is NOT the same as having a large customer base.
If people dont buy new GW minatures , its not putting money in GW coffers.
And concidering the large amount of GW stuff available on Ebay etc, and much better VFM minatures availbale from other manufacturers.

GW plc short sighted focus on '...selling toy soldiers to children... ' is simply not working.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
but for a gaming company to stay as true to their products as they have without selling out is commendable in and of itself.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

without selling out? GW is the definition of selling out. Go check the dictionary, there is an actual picture of Kirby next to the "Selling Out" entry!

notprop wrote:

To be fair, you are the one that is coming of as aggresive. The chap has an opinion that differs from yours that's all.

That said I am willing to back Rurouni Benshin on this one. Finecast are better gaming models than metal in almost all respects.

The now somewhat dated threads that you refer to did not paint this resin in the best of lights for obvious reasons but I would suggest that the teething problems are now behind them and the productions where it should have been from the start.

I have bought two very nice models in this medium (some 3+ months ago now) and on mooching around a biggish retailer in London this week and discussing it with the owner he confirmed that the first 2 batches received were a joke but sinvce then they are on the money.

Obviously the danger is that your FLGS hasn't checked their inventory and still has the duff batches on the shelves.

Well, there is an element of truth to this, however there are the worrying blog reports coming out that show Finecast issues with new models; that is to say, not old metal models that have been retooled for Finecast but brand-new models released in Finecast. One bloggist wrote quite a detailed review of issues with a new ogre Firebelly - that is an all new model and shouldn't have any issues at all. I can't find the link at the moment (I remember reading the blog in question after it was linked in a thread here on Dakka).


Edit: Here is the link:

http://davetaylorminiatures.blogspot.com/2011/09/might-makes-right-ironblaster-and.html

It's not all doom and gloom by any means but it is still somewhat worrying that issues are still occurring and QA/QC is still not up to speed.

Rurouni Benshin wrote:
Admittedly, I haven't read many discussions on Finecast, mostly due to the fact that I've collected the majority of my models before they were released and didn't find myself in need of anything. However, that said, I suppose I'm one of the lucky ones to have gotten good models then. Or, maybe I'm just easier to please than others. Aesthetically speaking, I can see how they're on par with metal mini's, but I was also gauging them from a different point of view, in that their weight makes a difference as well. Granted, it is in all likelihood a minor difference, but a difference nonetheless.

Weight does make a difference, unfortunately I'm the opposite way- metal has weight, hence value. Fine cast is so light that I dont see the value.

But running with your thought- if their on par with metal(barring miscasts) I dont see them being worth MORE in what their asking for the same model, but lower quality material(see the threads on what kind of resin they use. It is NOT a high quality kind).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:

To be fair, you are the one that is coming of as aggresive. The chap has an opinion that differs from yours that's all.

No, he's coming off a bit ignorant on the subject. Many threads have been on the subject, yet he's never seen them here.

That said I am willing to back Rurouni Benshin on this one. Finecast are better gaming models than metal in almost all respects.

Not really at all. But thats been done to death already.

The now somewhat dated threads that you refer to did not paint this resin in the best of lights for obvious reasons but I would suggest that the teething problems are now behind them and the productions where it should have been from the start.

didnt paint them in the best light for obvious reasons? WOuld those reasons be that they relesased a bunch crap that they rushed out the door or didnt care about qualithy control? It still doesnt change the fact that thir using a crap material type resin, in comparison to other manufacturers big and small, even forgeworld.

A well round retort I'm sure.

You can't be very happy with the miniatures that GW forced you to buy and hold on to after you complained about them carmachu?

GW made a hash of the release and are taking steps to put it right with variable results (tips hat to filbert).

I can only compare it to other resins that I have bought recently and it looks good, went together well and doesn't smell like sin (i'm looking at you Battlefront! ).

6/10

PRO:
-Nice story
-Nice model designs
-Stable company

CONS:
-Price
-Rules takes too much time to update
-Distribution of minis
-Brainwashed fanboys

carmachu wrote:Weight does make a difference, unfortunately I'm the opposite way- metal has weight, hence value. Fine cast is so light that I dont see the value.

But running with your thought- if their on par with metal(barring miscasts) I dont see them being worth MORE in what their asking for the same model, but lower quality material(see the threads on what kind of resin they use. It is NOT a high quality kind).

Well, since you're able to see the differences in our opinions concerning weight (and have acknowledged that mine is a valid, albeit just a different point), wouldn't it be possible that GW shares my opinion on "the lighter the model, the more valuable" concept?

Please understand I'm not trying to pick an argument with you, but rather just trying to be openminded about the topic. You accused me of supposedly trolling, when my opinions are in fact valid. As notprop pointed out, we just don't agree. So can't we just agree to disagree?

As for my opinion on why the Finecast models are more expensive, I can only estimate that it's caused by inflation. Without researching further on how pewter and resin models are created, I can't give anymore of a definitive answer than that. But if there's a discussion on Dakka talking about it, I'm sure you'll let me know, right?

Rurouni Benshin wrote:

carmachu wrote:Weight does make a difference, unfortunately I'm the opposite way- metal has weight, hence value. Fine cast is so light that I dont see the value.

But running with your thought- if their on par with metal(barring miscasts) I dont see them being worth MORE in what their asking for the same model, but lower quality material(see the threads on what kind of resin they use. It is NOT a high quality kind).

Well, since you're able to see the differences in our opinions concerning weight (and have acknowledged that mine is a valid, albeit just a different point), wouldn't it be possible that GW shares my opinion on "the lighter the model, the more valuable" concept?

Please understand I'm not trying to pick an argument with you, but rather just trying to be openminded about the topic. You accused me of supposedly trolling, when my opinions are in fact valid. As notprop pointed out, we just don't agree. So can't we just agree to disagree?

As for my opinion on why the Finecast models are more expensive, I can only estimate that it's caused by inflation. Without researching further on how pewter and resin models are created, I can't give anymore of a definitive answer than that. But if there's a discussion on Dakka talking about it, I'm sure you'll let me know, right?

Your opinion is only valid regarding the weight issue wich is subjective.

Every other of your points you've admited to being ignorant about, be it the proven lack of quality control of the GW failcast minis (but this point has improven noticeably in the latest batches, even if I think that for the price you pay for the failcast minis, any failure due to poor QA is unacceptable!), the proven lack of quality of the GW failcast resin (it is more prone to warping by heat than even FW resin for instance), or even that the casting process for failcast is exponentially cheaper than for metal minis due to the current insane prices of metals in general and tin in particular.

Not only that, but even now you refuse to do the simple research needed to educate yourself on these issues and do that half joking reply, so I'm sorry to say that you do come of a bit trolish even if a good intentioned one.

PhantomViper wrote:
Your opinion is only valid regarding the weight issue wich is subjective.

Every other of your points you've admited to being ignorant about, be it the proven lack of quality control of the GW failcast minis (but this point has improven noticeably in the latest batches, even if I think that for the price you pay for the failcast minis, any failure due to poor QA is unacceptable!), the proven lack of quality of the GW failcast resin (it is more prone to warping by heat than even FW resin for instance), or even that the casting process for failcast is exponentially cheaper than for metal minis due to the current insane prices of metals in general and tin in particular.

Well, since you've so kindly point out these things, I will concede my point then. Cheers!

Rurouni Benshin wrote:
Well, since you're able to see the differences in our opinions concerning weight (and have acknowledged that mine is a valid, albeit just a different point), wouldn't it be possible that GW shares my opinion on "the lighter the model, the more valuable" concept?

F no. GW is charging higher money for a product that costs them less. "Value" has nothing to do with the concept lighter model more value. Less cost, more profit. Thats about it.

Please understand I'm not trying to pick an argument with you, but rather just trying to be openminded about the topic. You accused me of supposedly trolling, when my opinions are in fact valid. As notprop pointed out, we just don't agree. So can't we just agree to disagree?

That you like finecast and I dont, isnt the issue. The ignorant comment is this: HOW long have you been on dakka, and NOT see one of the many many many finecats threads, and you have the gall to ask for links on the bad side of finecast? Thats your ignorance. Not whether you like it or find value in it.

As for my opinion on why the Finecast models are more expensive, I can only estimate that it's caused by inflation. Without researching further on how pewter and resin models are created, I can't give anymore of a definitive answer than that. But if there's a discussion on Dakka talking about it, I'm sure you'll let me know, right?

If your estimating inflation, I'm going to use the "I" word again. Because your not even remotely in the ball part. I stand my my comment earlier on your opinion of finecast. Glad you like it, but you dont seem to have any facts on it.

I rated 7/10 because of their sometimes ridiculous rules, prices and business management. But I do like their gams and beautiful models. Fluff is sometimes really good too.

The Epic Chaosdude!!! wrote:I rated 7/10 because of their sometimes ridiculous rules, prices and business management. But I do like their gams and beautiful models. Fluff is sometimes really good too.