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.

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.