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.

ImperialTard wrote:I know that I have a lot easier time painting and converting and playing with a lightweight plastic/resin figure than a heavy tin figure. Are you going to tell me also that's "nonsense?" I'm not "repeating it" from anywhere.

No that's not nonsense it's your own opinion and also nothing to do with the level of details on the model. Also take into account there are people that liked working with metal miniatures so a price increase for a material they don't like working with as much is a tough one to take ^^

CunningB wrote:

ImperialTard wrote:I know that I have a lot easier time painting and converting and playing with a lightweight plastic/resin figure than a heavy tin figure. Are you going to tell me also that's "nonsense?" I'm not "repeating it" from anywhere.

No that's not nonsense it's your own opinion and also nothing to do with the level of details on the model. Also take into account there are people that liked working with metal miniatures so a price increase for a material they don't like working with as much is a tough one to take ^^

Really? Why? Those metal models will be around forever, at less than retail. Most are still on shelves right now, or in close out bins at some stores.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thrax wrote:But you do rationalize and justify what you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't be posting here about it. I'm not debating the morality of your point of view, but you cannot possibly deny that you rationalize your hobby expense because the very nature of this conversation is the antithesis of that argument.

Of course. If we didn't rationalize our hobbies, we wouldn't have any of them. You don't need toy soldiers, so why pay 10 bucks or 1 buck each, or even 1 cent?

or, you could make an arguement that the cost of the toy soldier is irrelevant to how much we have an inbred psycological need to to drink some beer with our mates while getting away from the women. Tin men help with that, and so any price you pay for them is cheap.)

Not at my store, lol...if they were I'd just buy the metal incubi and DE characters.

Sidstyler wrote:Not at my store, lol...if they were I'd just buy the metal incubi and DE characters.

Need about 30 metal incubi?) Someone just traded in his WOC army. His last project was to buy 30 or so Incubi to proxy as Slanesh Warriors with great weapons. Primed them on metal bases, and then switched armies. I'm dumping them to ebay soon.

Sadly, could have used them 6 weeks ago when painting 80 of these:

http://www.teamsauron.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=123323125

mikhaila wrote:

Sadly, could have used them 6 weeks ago when painting 80 of these:

http://www.teamsauron.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=123323125

We'll go ahead and post your needs in the GW Forums for you, free of charge.

I think whether you like them or not, what it really comes down to is that GW should have been a bit more cautious in bringing in the Finecast line. They did too much too quickly and without enough experiance with this new material. They had bad timing with the release bringing them in as they were raising prices, giving people the false impressions that the higher price was directly related to the change in material.

In retrospect GW should have taken it more slowly, initially releasing only the one or two models from each army that best benefit from this new process. That way when the others eventually got released it would be a natural progression and less abrupt.

I can't help but feel this would have been better served if GW had used this launch to release a direct only miniature of some sort "celebrating" this and really showing the advantages.

Does anyone know if GW plans with the change to Finecast to carry that over to Gamesday miniatures and direct order minis?

filbert wrote:

See this thread and post:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/372163.page#2881499

If you ignore the pitting on the metal mini and the bubbles on the resin mini, detail wise, there isn't much to separate these two. I would even go as far as to suggest if you had two minis, one resin, one metal, free from casting imperfections and primed them the same and put them side by side, I think anyone would be hard pressed to tell them apart.

Honestly the detail on all the skulls looks better on the Finecast mini.

nectarprime wrote:

filbert wrote:

See this thread and post:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/372163.page#2881499

If you ignore the pitting on the metal mini and the bubbles on the resin mini, detail wise, there isn't much to separate these two. I would even go as far as to suggest if you had two minis, one resin, one metal, free from casting imperfections and primed them the same and put them side by side, I think anyone would be hard pressed to tell them apart.

Honestly the detail on all the skulls looks better on the Finecast mini.

I agree one hundred percent.


I'm not going to make a scene about it but the Finecast models, in my opinion, have sharper details. The biggest difference I see on Finecast models are any models with blade weapons. These blades are thinner and more realistic looking than their metal counterparts.

The entire argument about sharper detail is really one of personal preference. Therefore, a claim that Finecast models posess a level of sharper detail than their metal counterparts cannot be dismissed.

Vandil wrote:Late to the party but it's more the better in my opinion. I ordered a big mek with SAG, the metal version was both unbalanced and easily broken with a ton of weight on one connection point. I have to order direct from GW no store local, or at least not within a reasonable drive.

First reaction on opening it in my dark bedroom, not bad... Then I looked at it more closely and hello customer service....

God thats bad, If your not happy with it (I guess so) take it back to the shop (If something like that I bought came in that condtion I would do that).

There was a price increase coming any way, having it at the same time as the finecast release was a bad idea.

Having bought the metal and finecast astorath the grim, I am much more please with the finecast, because of the face detail, armor ridge detail, weight of the model due to the complex pose, and the axe head staying on without pinning.

Also picked up comissar yarick and the face detail appears much better.

Both models without primer take the foundation paints without issues, and I have not had any wear issues with them sitting in a foam case, or while finishing them.

brother_zach wrote:

The entire argument about sharper detail is really one of personal preference. Therefore, a claim that Finecast models posess a level of sharper detail than their metal counterparts cannot be dismissed.

Actually we can. In this thread or another someone posted up side by side models with primer. I couldnt tell the difference. Nor could many others. The details are NOT that much sharper, if they are at all.

carmachu wrote:

brother_zach wrote:

The entire argument about sharper detail is really one of personal preference. Therefore, a claim that Finecast models posess a level of sharper detail than their metal counterparts cannot be dismissed.

Actually we can. In this thread or another someone posted up side by side models with primer. I couldnt tell the difference. Nor could many others. The details are NOT that much sharper, if they are at all.

Give me less sharp details for a model that won't melt/come with holes and broken pieces/be more expensive please.

carmachu wrote:

brother_zach wrote:

The entire argument about sharper detail is really one of personal preference. Therefore, a claim that Finecast models posess a level of sharper detail than their metal counterparts cannot be dismissed.

Actually we can. In this thread or another someone posted up side by side models with primer. I couldnt tell the difference. Nor could many others. The details are NOT that much sharper, if they are at all.

Yeah I saw the photos, I also saw sharper details on the Finecast Model, as did other users.

Is it enough to merit Finecast as a gift from the Gods?

Regardless on the medium they were cast in, we would have paid nearly the same price for a metal model with the anual price increase.

brother_zach wrote:

nectarprime wrote:

filbert wrote:

See this thread and post:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/372163.page#2881499

If you ignore the pitting on the metal mini and the bubbles on the resin mini, detail wise, there isn't much to separate these two. I would even go as far as to suggest if you had two minis, one resin, one metal, free from casting imperfections and primed them the same and put them side by side, I think anyone would be hard pressed to tell them apart.

Honestly the detail on all the skulls looks better on the Finecast mini.

I agree one hundred percent.


I'm not going to make a scene about it but the Finecast models, in my opinion, have sharper details. The biggest difference I see on Finecast models are any models with blade weapons. These blades are thinner and more realistic looking than their metal counterparts.

The max blade thickness is restricted by the master and then the mold itself. If the Finecast material holds detail without shrinkage the finecast sword should be technically thicker than the metal sword from the same master due to metal shrinkage as it cools. That's the entire reason Finecast is supposed to have sharper detail to begin with. I can see how the detail could be sharper but 1% shrinkage on a 28mm model is like .1mm on each side over the entire length of the model. 1% on something as small as a skull and you'd need a machinist digital caliper to even register the difference.


I'm starting to believe they're busy playing the triple pressure dance with the new mold and material.

Vandil wrote:

brother_zach wrote:

nectarprime wrote:

filbert wrote:

See this thread and post:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/372163.page#2881499

If you ignore the pitting on the metal mini and the bubbles on the resin mini, detail wise, there isn't much to separate these two. I would even go as far as to suggest if you had two minis, one resin, one metal, free from casting imperfections and primed them the same and put them side by side, I think anyone would be hard pressed to tell them apart.

Honestly the detail on all the skulls looks better on the Finecast mini.

I agree one hundred percent.


I'm not going to make a scene about it but the Finecast models, in my opinion, have sharper details. The biggest difference I see on Finecast models are any models with blade weapons. These blades are thinner and more realistic looking than their metal counterparts.

The max blade thickness is restricted by the master and then the mold itself. If the Finecast material holds detail without shrinkage the finecast sword should be technically thicker than the metal sword from the same master due to metal shrinkage as it cools. That's the entire reason Finecast is supposed to have sharper detail to begin with. I can see how the detail could be sharper but 1% shrinkage on a 28mm model is like .1mm on each side over the entire length of the model. 1% on something as small as a skull and you'd need a machinist digital caliper to even register the difference.


I'm starting to believe they're busy playing the triple pressure dance with the new mold and material.

Without knowing exactly what material Finecast is, it's impossible for us to know the shrinkage per inch.

"Thicker" probaly isn't the best word for what I'm talking about.

I've got alot of models that have had some funky looking blades on them. They barely had an edge on them and pretty much resembled a chunk of metal. I cant say that I have had the same experience with finecast though, as I haven't had the ammount of time with this new resin as I have with metal.

nectarprime wrote:
Without knowing exactly what material Finecast is, it's impossible for us to know the shrinkage per inch.

Yes admittedly a guess on my part when I said zero and 1%. Bismuth expands when it cools, when added to lead+tin alloys it can counter act shrinkage. The exact makeup of the materials are probably locked in the same safe as KFC's 11 secret spices. 1.13% is what I would account for as shrinkage casting 100% lead, and .9% casting a hardened tin, lead, arsenic, and antimony wheel weight alloy. Granted my lead based alloy casting experience is strictly in casting bullets which aren't exactly detailed.

If there is shrinkage and it's equal % you'd see the most shrinkage on the largest proportions of the blade, Length, Depth, then Width.

filbert wrote:

severedblue wrote:GW FLGS had Canis Wolfborn in the display to compare between metal and finecast, unpainted.

The detail was better on the finecast one, particularly the nose. Visibly crisper.



They'd already cleaned up both though, which I think is fair. I didn't see any imperfections on either.

Gah! I wish people would stop repeating this nonsense!

The only way to accurately and fairly compare detail between the two is to prime both, probably in a grey or white colour. That reduces the differences that occur due to specular reflection. You cannot put both models side by side and make a fair comparison on detail because of the way that metal reflects light and resin doesn't.

The only pictures that have been posted thus far (on Dakka anyway) that show both minis side by side and primed the same way show no difference in detail whatsoever. The extra detail gumph that has been put out by GW is simply a PR stunt to help justify the increase in cost quite frankly.

See this thread and post:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/372163.page#2881499

If you ignore the pitting on the metal mini and the bubbles on the resin mini, detail wise, there isn't much to separate these two. I would even go as far as to suggest if you had two minis, one resin, one metal, free from casting imperfections and primed them the same and put them side by side, I think anyone would be hard pressed to tell them apart.

I have now started painting my Finecast Painboy....and have already painted a metal version of the same fig...

The details are more sharp and pronounced on the finecast.

Is it a huge difference? No. But there is a finer level of detail in some spots.

The one "primed" comparison I saw looked like it had been hosed in primer...

So is it true you can just paint these out of the box after washing them, has anyone tried this or are people still using primer?

I think the general consensus is that you want to wash Finecast before priming. I always wash everything before priming.

Just to add to the overall discussion about the quality of the Finecast sculpts, I recently bought a metal Urien Rakarth (new model) that was mispacked with two of the same arm sprues. I called GW customer service, and they sent out a Finecast replacement, no problem.

I got the Finecast today in the mail:
The good:
1) 2 days in transit in 95-100 degree weather and it didn't turn to a pile of goo, no warping, bending, or problems at all.
2) The detail is very sharp, with no visible air bubbles, miscasts, or other defects (I have not opened the blister yet)
3) GW customer service

The neutral:
1) There is a thin membrane of resin over about 40% of the sprue, which connects all the extra arms and attachments. It is almost see-through. Until I take the model out and begin cleaning, I won't know if that membrane will obscure detail or be a problem in cleanup (I'm a 14 year GW modeller, so experienced). This is something I've also seen with FW purity seal and skull sprues.

The bad: Nothing yet.

I'm cautiously optimistic, and would not have otherwise bought Finecast. I still think the higher prices will keep me from buying more. However, after trying to glue the really fine Urien arms on the metal model, this should be a breeze to assemble (after clean-up). If I get motivated, I'll start a thread in the hobby section to document the clean up.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in the battle of opinions over "Crisper Detail vs. "No Difference in Detail" between resin and metal is the application, consistency and settling of the primer.

Yes, in a photograph, and even to the eye, differences in light refraction off of materials can give a skewed perception.

However, that light distortion isn't dramatic or universal enough to make the blanket statement that there is no difference in detail.

In my own comparisons across several models, the resin does indeed seem to retain original detail better. Look in recessed areas of models where the light glare is lessened. Look around the eyes, along the edges of runes or plates of armour, between fingers.

Well, when you apply primer to the models in a side-by-side comparison, the primer acts to "level the playing field". Primer coats across the surface and, on a metal model with "softer" edges, coats them more evenly. A resin model, with "harder" edges has, by nature of the material, more pronounced and angular planes of intersection. The sprayed primer will not coat those areas as evenly. It either misses them, coating with only a "mist" or, if the person spraying is trying to entirely cover the surfaces (and to achieve "equal" coverage to a metal miniature) more primer is going to settle into the intersecting plane and "soften" the transition.

Think of the primer as snow: with resin, it acts as snow against a wall (90 degrees) and builds up softening detail. With metal, it's more like snow against an asphalt curb (60 degrees) that covers it more evenly and "drift" to adjacent surfaces rather than be trapped against them. I know, not a perfect analogy but I hope you can see what I'm getting at.

From my perspective and experience, resin is a material that provides and retains detail that metal cannot. Adding primer to it, however, reduces some of the inherent detail benefits and compromises the surface to make it look more like a metal cast.

Now, the next question is, can we forego the priming step on these FineCast miniatures ? At $15+ a can, I don't think GW would steer us away from that but I'm going to give it a shot.

Well, that's my take on the "Detail Discussion", FWIW.

As far as my opinion of FineCast ... the jury is still out. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I haven't bought one yet since the Grey Knight character Draigo was sold out at my FLGS. I'll get it when it's in stock but I'll inspect it like a drill sergeant before laying out the $23 bucks for it.

I was at Warhammer World on Monday and had a chat with a couple of the store staff about the new range. As always I take what they say with a pinch of salt, but the general feeling is that they are going to phase out metals and replace them with Finecast as long as the response is positive enough.

I had a good nose at the miniatures and have a list of what I felt were the main good and bad points.

GOOD:
1/ They are really light, so lugging around your collection will no longer give you as much arm ache
2/ They are relitively hard wearing, if droped on the floor chances are they will not fall appart, bend, shatter or otherwise become unusable
3/ As the material is nice and light there is no need for pinning joints even on large models

BAD:
1/ I really didn't feel that the detail was any different.
2/ There is a crap ton of flash, given the brittle nature of the resin it is likely that a great deal of detail will also be scraped off when removing all the crap
3/ They feel cheap and nasty. No weight and bendy arms and weapons make them feel like they came out of a cereal box

Personaly I have to say I can't stand them. I think they are cheap and nasty and the amount of cleaning up required puts me off.

squilverine wrote:Personaly I have to say I can't stand them. I think they are cheap and nasty and the amount of cleaning up required puts me off.

I don't understand the metal hate. It's not like metal is *that* difficult to work with is it? With people complaining that it takes a bit more rubbing down to clean up than plastic and that it's such an inconvenience to pin something, oh the horror.

Howard A Treesong wrote: It's not like metal is *that* difficult to work with is it?

For just assembling them as is? No, not especially. For converting? Plastic or resin is so much more convenient.

brother_zach wrote:

Yeah I saw the photos, I also saw sharper details on the Finecast Model, as did other users.

Is it enough to merit Finecast as a gift from the Gods?

Regardless on the medium they were cast in, we would have paid nearly the same price for a metal model with the anual price increase.

Not onced primed. They were the same.

So what if the price would have gone up. Metal is superior to the soft stuff.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

squilverine wrote:Personaly I have to say I can't stand them. I think they are cheap and nasty and the amount of cleaning up required puts me off.

I don't understand the metal hate. It's not like metal is *that* difficult to work with is it? With people complaining that it takes a bit more rubbing down to clean up than plastic and that it's such an inconvenience to pin something, oh the horror.

No metal hate here, I love metal figures, the weight of them certainly gives the feeling of quality. My comment was directed at the new resin miniatures. Both plastic and metals have their pro's and cons. I would say that there is more cleaning up required on plastics, however it is harder to remove lines and tags on metals so the effort required probably evens out.

My main bugbear with the new Finecast stuff is that the models themselves are made from a very delicate material and the slightest slip will result in you removing a lot of the extra detailing. Plastics and certainly metals are much more forgiving.

carmachu wrote:

brother_zach wrote:

Yeah I saw the photos, I also saw sharper details on the Finecast Model, as did other users.

Is it enough to merit Finecast as a gift from the Gods?

Regardless on the medium they were cast in, we would have paid nearly the same price for a metal model with the anual price increase.

Not onced primed. They were the same.

So what if the price would have gone up. Metal is superior to the soft stuff.

Look at the link listed above. Both models are primed and there is a noticeable difference between the detail on the models.

insaniak wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote: It's not like metal is *that* difficult to work with is it?

For just assembling them as is? No, not especially. For converting? Plastic or resin is so much more convenient.

PLastic yes. Resin? Not so much.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Look at the link listed above. Both models are primed and there is a noticeable difference between the detail on the models.

Seen the link. No there isnt much difference.

That comparison thread's photos are of uneven quality, the miniatures featured therein, not so much - aside from the fineco$t bubble that took off his nose. The "metal" model's photos are out of focus, whether intention or not, it does have the general effect of making the fineco$t model's details "pop" out a bit more. Also, there is some lightning variation as well. There are rough surfaces all over those two models, the biggest, most noticeable is on the "metal" model's cape, but the face of the fineco$t model is horrid as well. Also, likely due to the mold, there are similar bubbles and flash on both models, too. Check the folds in the cape, for example, and the holes in the purity seal paper.

I think one of the main problems with the release was that GW was so secretive with the change over (that they now say they had been working on for 2 years) up until 3-4 months ago only a handful of people outside the development team knew anything about it.

So there was zero outside input into things like:
Why are there 50 injection ports per sprue?
Will it warp in heat?
Is there a better method than using silicon molds which seem to disintegrate at an alarming rate, leaving every model from that mold with the same defect from that point on... etc.

They made out in WD that the secrecy was a virtue.

It was not.