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.

The detail on the backpack is... poor.

Superior casting on the backpack! Top notch! Exquisite! Almost immaculate!

Ouze wrote:The detail on the backpack is... poor.

Lol it sure is, that's the better one of the two

Yeah all the packs I have gotten for the 25th marine all look like bloody hell. All my other defective pieces were replaced, but for some reason they did not replace the pack.

Not even going to bother calling them again. Luckily I have plenty of plastic SM packs around the house.

On a side note, I have a few old minis that have a crazy torso split. I know they're not GW, maybe old RP.

Begel Dverl wrote:Superior casting on the backpack! Top notch! Exquisite! Almost immaculate!

Seeing quality models like this makes me feel totally OK with the prices GW charges me!

Just admire the detail... You gotta love this stuff! Thankfully so far I've only had the occasional bubble in less than obvious places.

inquisitorlewis wrote:Yeah all the packs I have gotten for the 25th marine all look like bloody hell. All my other defective pieces were replaced, but for some reason they did not replace the pack.

Not even going to bother calling them again. Luckily I have plenty of plastic SM packs around the house.

On a side note, I have a few old minis that have a crazy torso split. I know they're not GW, maybe old RP.

Lol yep I thought as much. I wonder if anyone got a decent backpack. I’m still amazed by the many levels of fail on this one mini, it’s like a rich tapestry. Layer after layer of rich creamy fail mmmmmm

Ouze wrote:Pretty sure the sprue in question is at 2:21, with no split.

So Kan can stop defending it now I guess?

How the hell does that even happen?

Sidstyler wrote:How the hell does that even happen?

Dunno but it looks like it has been sliced by a light saber

Okay, I haven't had much time for 40k recently, but all bar one of finecast models I've seen turn out fine, with the other having a few air bubbles. I'd personally rather have metal, where it's more easy to build, a smaller chance of issues and less detail than thier resin equivalents, but resin is noticably more detailed.
To sum it up, I'd personally prefer metal, though I rarely encounter problems with resin kits.

Can I just suggest that people stop using terms like Finecrap, Failcast etc. Call it by the brand name, and use the name in text in your posts. Knowing that google throws up gak like this for the brand is another point of pressure on GW to improve the QA or fess up to severe problems to the shareholders.

shrike wrote:but resin is noticably more detailed.

If you say so. Personally I think that plastic backpack in the pictures looks more detailed than the Finecast version, save for the Fists icon which had to be sculpted on the plastic one. And when primed/painted the only way I can tell the difference between metal and Finecast is by the flaws in the Finecast model (or if the painted model doesn't have a metal version to do a side-by-side comparison with).

Maybe resin can be more detailed, but in my opinion Finecast isn't.

Hmmm, well, there is an actual aluminium casting company named........www.finecast.co.uk/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nothing to do with models from GW but they do have that name and I wonder if they have any right to the name first as they have been around since apparently 2005 based on site info at the page bottom.

Probably not. Remember it's Citadel Finecast, not just Finecast.

winterdyne wrote:Can I just suggest that people stop using terms like Finecrap, Failcast etc.

Agreed... The joke was a bit tired the day after it was made, now it just makes the user sound like a 14yo posting on 4chan for the first time :(

winterdyne wrote:Can I just suggest that people stop using terms like Finecrap, Failcast etc. Call it by the brand name, and use the name in text in your posts. Knowing that google throws up gak like this for the brand is another point of pressure on GW to improve the QA or fess up to severe problems to the shareholders.

This is very excellent advice. If you really dislike finecast enough to call it failcost then you do so much more by calling it by the actual name. Make sure this dakka thread is one of the first things to appear on a Google search. GW can only claim hyperbole for so long. Finecast is a flawed product and it becomes more and more evident as the weeks, months, years keep adding up.

I am wondering if the casting is flawed because GW is using a sprue design instead of gates like FW and other companies use. Does anyone have any insight on this?

I've been on a break while Finecast has been out, so I havent got any yet - is the miscast rate REALLY that high? Wouldn't GW be a bit worried as they pride themselves so much on their "high quality" models? Early adoption syndrome, and they are just working out the kinks in the process?

According to the internet miscasts are horrible.

According to GW finecast is the greatest evolution in the hobby world.

I would think it falls somewhere in the middle, but IMO 50/50 is absolutely horrible for a big company like GW.

In the end it's up to the consumer to decide. At least GW is good about replacements.

inquisitorlewis wrote:At least GW is good about replacements.

Even if it takes 6,7 or 8+ replacements.

As far as the naming goes, I'd suggest combining, always using the official name along with the others. Citadel Finecast / Finecrap / Failcost etc.

shrike wrote:Okay, I haven't had much time for 40k recently, but all bar one of finecast models I've seen turn out fine, with the other having a few air bubbles. I'd personally rather have metal, where it's more easy to build, a smaller chance of issues and less detail than thier resin equivalents, but resin is noticably more detailed.
To sum it up, I'd personally prefer metal, though I rarely encounter problems with resin kits.

The problem with Finecast is that the added details consist of bubbles and mold shift.

In terms of Failcost and other monikers, we would not want to use those terms and make the product appeal to GW's target audience.

Rymafyr wrote:

inquisitorlewis wrote:At least GW is good about replacements.

Even if it takes 6,7 or 8+ replacements.

6-8 replacements... you may have me on that one.

I went to the LGS with the Fiancee last Friday, and she's not really a gamer.

She LARPs and plays some boardgames with me, but she only really appreciates tabletop models when they are fully painted, though she says the modelling aspect is pretty neat. But even she could spot flaws in the Finecast blisters on the rack, and without me even prompting her she asked, "Man, how are you supposed to avoid this in the boxed sets, when they are sealed?"

I would say that is a good description of "the next biggest thing in hobby miniatures".

Although we both joke that it truly is the "next biggest thing" for GW, because look how much people are talking about it on this thread, lol. there would never be 43 pages about the old metal models. Well, maybe when they are painted in the P&M threads...........

inquisitorlewis wrote:This is very excellent advice. If you really dislike finecast enough to call it failcost then you do so much more by calling it by the actual name. Make sure this dakka thread is one of the first things to appear on a Google search.

If this threads helps people stop using amusing names instead of Finecast, this will be a pretty awesome thread. While the various permutations of fail, crap, and cost were initially amusing in my opinion they quickly descended into banality; much like Micro$oft it reflects more poorly on the wielder than the target.

Ouze wrote:

inquisitorlewis wrote:This is very excellent advice. If you really dislike finecast enough to call it failcost then you do so much more by calling it by the actual name. Make sure this dakka thread is one of the first things to appear on a Google search.

If this threads helps people stop using amusing names instead of Finecast, this will be a pretty awesome thread. While the various permutations of fail, crap, and cost were initially amusing in my opinion they quickly descended into banality; much like Micro$oft it reflects more poorly on the wielder than the target.

I totally agree with you. IMO finecast alone has garnered a bad enough name. The nicknames stopped being witty about 40 pages ago.

This is not at all a defense of finecast or GW in general. The nicknames are just totally used up. I find myself skipping most posts that just consist of "failcrap grumble, grumble.

This is going to be sacrilegious. But i want more. I wany my telin figure. My FLGS cant even order metal anymore. When are they going to get around do it damnit.

So I finally looked closely at my 25th anniversary model. My initial impression was that the model looked great and even after my close inspection I still am happy with the model. This is my first finecast model but I have lots of resin stuff from Forge World and random other manufacturers. I do prefer metal but don't particularly care one way or the other.

The Good:

1. The banner is in great shape.

2. No slippage on the plasma pistol hose

3. The body is perfect (though there is a lot of little flash that might be hard to clean up without messing things up).

4. The fingers on the power fist are relatively good (notice I said relatively). Won't be hard to fix with a hobby knife.

The bad:

1. Slight mold line on his left shoulder pad. Easily filed down.

2. It is very hard to see but there are about 5 very small air bubbles on the eagle on his right shoulder pad.

3. Two small air bubbles on the scroll on his right leg (not sure if these are bubbles or actually meant to be that way?)

4. Now the really bad part is that his helmet is all kinds of messed up. Complete Rock Head and mold slippage. This can not be easily fixed by filing down. On the plus side I hate the helmet in the first place and plan on using a normal beaky head anyway.

Overall I am happy with the model but I do think I got lucky and even with my luck it isn't as good as it should be. This model has way more issues than a metal model would have. usually you only have some mold lines with a metal model. The detail was nice but I don't see it as anything you couldn't accomplish with metal.

This will probably be the last finecast I buy until I feel that the problems have been fixed.

Anyway that is my honest assessment of my first finecast model.

brettz123 wrote:So I finally looked closely at my 25th anniversary model. My initial impression was that the model looked great and even after my close inspection I still am happy with the model. This is my first finecast model but I have lots of resin stuff from Forge World and random other manufacturers. I do prefer metal but don't particularly care one way or the other.

The Good:

1. The banner is in great shape.

2. No slippage on the plasma pistol hose

3. The body is perfect (though there is a lot of little flash that might be hard to clean up without messing things up).

4. The fingers on the power fist are relatively good (notice I said relatively). Won't be hard to fix with a hobby knife.

The bad:

1. Slight mold line on his left shoulder pad. Easily filed down.

2. It is very hard to see but there are about 5 very small air bubbles on the eagle on his right shoulder pad.

3. Two small air bubbles on the scroll on his right leg (not sure if these are bubbles or actually meant to be that way?)

4. Now the really bad part is that his helmet is all kinds of messed up. Complete Rock Head and mold slippage. This can not be easily fixed by filing down. On the plus side I hate the helmet in the first place and plan on using a normal beaky head anyway.

Overall I am happy with the model but I do think I got lucky and even with my luck it isn't as good as it should be. This model has way more issues than a metal model would have. usually you only have some mold lines with a metal model. The detail was nice but I don't see it as anything you couldn't accomplish with metal.

This will probably be the last finecast I buy until I feel that the problems have been fixed.

Anyway that is my honest assessment of my first finecast model.

A good impartial look at Finecast. I was in the same situation, buying this model as my first Finecast Mini. I wasn't expecting total crap but that’s what I got. I would consider you lucky to have gotten as many decent parts as you did.

Careful when using a file with this butter faced garbage. It literally eats the model up, another reason to not purchase Finecast IMHO. If it doesn’t arrive full of holes or missing details you might damage the model trying to clean up all the mold slippage.

Better take a close look at your backpack too before you decided he is all good. It would be great to see some pictures for comparison. The more pictures here the better. We still have yet to see a well casted 25th model with photographic evidence in this thread.

Personally a $40 model with some good parts lots of holes and pieces that are not usable is still a total failure to me. Even if I use a nice flesh head instead of the Rock heads I keep getting, I should still have a choice. I shouldn't be forced to make my own backpack, use replacement heads, or resculpt large parts of the model. Not to mention large structurally compromising holes inside of the model…

I totally agree with what people are saying about calling it fail/cost cast and what not. However I personally feel like it doesn't deserve a name like "Finecast' because it is clearly false advertising.

Imagine we called Mc Donald’s, Mc Healthys or something... wouldn't it feel like a contradiction each time you said it. I will call it Finecast just so people find their way here but the only thing that’s Fine is when I choose to never buy this crap again.


It doesn’t even make sense to produce ‘highly detailed models’ in a medium that is brittle and soft. It’s like they are hoping we will damage it and have to buy another.

Plastics were supposed to break less and be easier to fix than metals. It’s supposed to accommodate table top gaming which is ruff on the models in general. You can drop a fully painted plastic model and not have it break, a metal one would loose and arm or get a nice chip. I imagine Finecast models break from half the height as plastic ones. I remember, back in the day, being told that the new plastic armies were, lighter, less breakable and cheaper to produce.

Finecast is more breakable, harder to work with, more expensive to produce(cost went up) and not reusable like metal or even plastic models. It has no benefit to the consumer but many for the manufacturer. Resin might be cheaper for GW but we pay more for it and its not even actual resin like Forge World

Had a little rant, sorry about that…

Right, let's clear a few things up.

Citadel Finecast is produced using a resin that can produce good results. Forgeworld use EXACTLY the same resin and general technique (they developed it) on some of their newer models and re-releases.

But; Forgeworld do not have the same production quotas as the GW factory floor. This enables them to:

1) Take more time in the mix and pour stage to minimise bubbles in the resin.
2) Give the resin the appropriate time to cure in the mould to reduces warping due to being pulled too early (post-pull curing is what leads to the hard-to-fix 'remembered' warps).
3) Perform more stringent QA checks (ie actually look at the damn parts).

These 3 differences together for most models will produce a perfectly satisfactory product.

Forgeworld also rely on more rigid resins for models that demand it. Finecast is too thermally responsive and pliable for large spans or top heavy designs. Mangler Squigs, Azhag's banner, Gandalfs rearing Shadowfax. ALL of these designs are unsuitable for the material used in Finecast, but would be far less trouble in a more traditional PU resin.

This is not to say there wouldn't be issues with sagging on some things, for example Mangler Squigs would almost certainly need some heavy reinforcement in any resin.

The issues I see are IMO, almost certainly down to pressure on the production department, rather than issues with the technique or material itself (sagging as above notwithstanding).

I don't see this changing any time soon. To relax the production quota to the point where the issues can be managed is likely to take the cost per unit far in excess of where the price of metal was forcing it. Note that GW's distribution model and Forgeworld's are worlds apart - a different order of magnitude as far as scale is concerned, with a corresponding difference in overheads.

winterdyne wrote:Right, let's clear a few things up.

Citadel Finecast is produced using a resin that can produce good results. Forgeworld use EXACTLY the same resin and general technique (they developed it) on some of their newer models and re-releases.

But; Forgeworld do not have the same production quotas as the GW factory floor. This enables them to:

.

This point surprised me! I only have a few Forge World models and thought they were all made of the harder resin.

Some very good points here, keep it up

winterdyne wrote:

I don't see this changing any time soon. To relax the production quota to the point where the issues can be managed is likely to take the cost per unit far in excess of where the price of metal was forcing it. Note that GW's distribution model and Forgeworld's are worlds apart - a different order of magnitude as far as scale is concerned, with a corresponding difference in overheads.

This was also the reason why I thought the 25th marine would be different from their normal production line. Seems like quality control is on vacation till GW figures out the production issues.