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.

I've said elsewhere and I'll say it here also, if there is a problem with the metal "master" then that problem will also be present in Finecast - King Liquor being a primary example. However, if such a problem does exist, it is far easier to correct it when the model is bendy resin and not a thick chunk of metal.

As for production problems, metals casts were never perfect. Far fewer problems (and les agregious) than with GW's spincast resin but problems did still happen they weren't rare.

As a comment on probabilities or getting miscasts and what it means, re: hitting the lotto or suggesting people may not being truthful.

The problem with trying to guess the failure rate is that some figures are obviously more affected than others. It sounds like the 25th Anniversary Marine is especially bad. They may well have a 2% failure rate across their entire range, you can't say that isn't correct based on a few examples that come up time and again. The fact they someone gets several duff replacements doesn't mean that they have 'hit the lottery', it just means that particular model accounts for a disproportionate number of the overall miscasts. In total, their failure rate may still be 2% even when you have 10 replacements, as some have.

keezus wrote:

pretre wrote:It is difficult to say with certainty what the defect rate is based on anecdotal evidence.

While the statistics are nice, the chance of something happening does not equate to the actual population outside of that single set of occurences.

I agree 100% that this is based on annecdotal evidence. No debate there.

However, based on GW's stated failure rate, the chances of someone buying a bad sculpt and receiving 7 additional replacement bad sculpts is one in 39 trillion. It is ENTIRELY possible that this individual was very unlucky. However, we have annecdotal evidence that this has occured more than once. Even if we treat the sample size of these occurences as an arbitrarily small (and conservative value) - say 1:10 000 000 customers - this means that GW's stated rate is incorrect, as this unrealistically small assumed sample returns a failure rate of 13%.

Based on the above assumption, I think I can safely say that a 2% failure rate as stated by GW is definitely wrong. The magnitude by which they are underestimating defects however, is variable, due to differing thresholds for returns, levels of acceptance and reporting of flaws.

From my experience I have to pull 3 kits/blisters off the shelf to get 1 good one, so I know for a fact that 2% is wrong. Maybe I'll start a thread and see how many grotesques I get before one of them is actually acceptable.

Howard A Treesong wrote:As a comment on probabilities or getting miscasts and what it means, re: hitting the lotto or suggesting people may not being truthful.

The problem with trying to guess the failure rate is that some figures are obviously more affected than others. It sounds like the 25th Anniversary Marine is especially bad. They may well have a 2% failure rate across their entire range, you can't say that isn't correct based on a few examples that come up time and again. The fact they someone gets several duff replacements doesn't mean that they have 'hit the lottery', it just means that particular model accounts for a disproportionate number of the overall miscasts. In total, their failure rate may still be 2% even when you have 10 replacements, as some have.

I can totally dig this argument.

OverwatchCNC wrote:




If I have time today I will take pictures of Logan and the Jump Pack Chaplin. They are not painted.

Are those yours? Excellent paintjob, those look really stunning!

Unfortunately, they don't prove very much because you could have spent 100+ hours meticulously re sculpting every bubble filled detail and we wouldn't be any wiser... We need pictures of miniatures straight from the blister since that is what all the flawed reviews are showing...

Also, for the record, I don't doubt that there are perfect casts out there, there even is one such examples in the "megathread", what I'm saying is that perfect miniatures are far rarer than flawed miniatures.

PhantomViper wrote:
Unfortunately, they don't prove very much because you could have spent 100+ hours meticulously re sculpting every bubble filled detail and we wouldn't be any wiser... We need pictures of miniatures straight from the blister since that is what all the flawed reviews are showing...

So it's perfectly acceptable to take someone's word that they're not posting photos of crummy models which were replaced by a far superior version, but you're accusing him of "spending 100+ hours meticulously resculpting every bubble filled detail"?

Please. Let's have some common sense, shall we?

Kanluwen wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Unfortunately, they don't prove very much because you could have spent 100+ hours meticulously re sculpting every bubble filled detail and we wouldn't be any wiser... We need pictures of miniatures straight from the blister since that is what all the flawed reviews are showing...

So it's perfectly acceptable to take someone's word that they're not posting photos of crummy models which were replaced by a far superior version, but you're accusing him of "spending 100+ hours meticulously resculpting every bubble filled detail"?

Please. Let's have some common sense, shall we?

So we need a hyperbole tag now as much as a sarcasm tag? You really couldn't tell that I was using exaggeration?

Also, even if people are posting photos of crummy models which were replaced by a far superior version, you are missing the point AGAIN that those crummy models shouldn't have left the factory floor in the first place and that USUALLY those reviews post pictures of the models + the replacements side by side to show that hey are different models (not to mention that usually the reported defects are in different spots so you can also tell the miniatures apart that way)...

And finally, if I'm questioning their word that they've received nothing but flawless models, then I'm certainly going to question the proof itself when their "proof" is a painted model! Those could be metal models for all I know!

pretre wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:As a comment on probabilities or getting miscasts and what it means, re: hitting the lotto or suggesting people may not being truthful.

The problem with trying to guess the failure rate is that some figures are obviously more affected than others. It sounds like the 25th Anniversary Marine is especially bad. They may well have a 2% failure rate across their entire range, you can't say that isn't correct based on a few examples that come up time and again. The fact they someone gets several duff replacements doesn't mean that they have 'hit the lottery', it just means that particular model accounts for a disproportionate number of the overall miscasts. In total, their failure rate may still be 2% even when you have 10 replacements, as some have.

I can totally dig this argument.

It's not really an argument for anything, for either side of the Finecast debate. It's a general observation/caution on interpreting the anecdotal nature of people's experiences. Undoubtedly some people are having several perfect finecast purchases because they are buying the figures that do cast well in the medium. Others have been pulled into a string of bad replacements because that particular figure suffers from the casting process. You can't extrapolate a trend from the experiences of either, and that's why you would need a full set of returns data from GW. Which they won't be releasing. That said though, the absolute numbers of reported miscast figures appearing online is much higher than anything else I can recall.

It does seem to me than the same figures are mentioned time and again. Some of the Necrons, and the 25th anniversary Marine in particular. This unfortunately means that some figures you are probably okay to buy in Finecast, but others, if you get a miscast, you may never see a good replacement. Best thing is to hold off impulse purchases IMO. Don't be the first person to try the latest Finecast releases. Either examine models in the shop to take home a perfect one first time or, if it is not possible to open the packaging and examine the goods, wait to see if there appears to be a general problem with the miniature reported online so that you know to avoid.

Kanluwen wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Unfortunately, they don't prove very much because you could have spent 100+ hours meticulously re sculpting every bubble filled detail and we wouldn't be any wiser... We need pictures of miniatures straight from the blister since that is what all the flawed reviews are showing...

So it's perfectly acceptable to take someone's word that they're not posting photos of crummy models which were replaced by a far superior version, but you're accusing him of "spending 100+ hours meticulously resculpting every bubble filled detail"?

Please. Let's have some common sense, shall we?

Yes, lets.

Oh no hang on, its all gone wrong again.

puma713 wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oh good you're here...

Oh look, you got a lol HB, well done. Shame its off another of your big boys club, why don't you get Phantom Viper to rub your shoulders as well and you can all daisy chain around the thread.

Im still stunned that you lot get away with your shameless unending rudeness by directing the "troll" insult towards other people. I am merely watching out for a bullied minority and you incessantly bait people. Overwatch said he had a few good models, and PV essentially responded with "Post some photos you lying bastard" I merely pointed out he doesn't NEED to take the time to photograph his models because his word is good enough for most people, what motive has he to lie? And who is the guy on the internet to call him a liar and then demand he goes and takes pictures of his models?

And then you and Puma are in with your hearty back slaps and your lols and your bro-fists.

Its primary school gak. Puma I can forgive because Im guessing he is the right side of 25, but for you I suggest you move out of your mothers basement and forget your fruitless and bizarre quest to destroy a faceless PLC.

Bezerker Saberhagen wrote:

insaniak wrote:The process can, yes. And then your quality control kicks in, and you bin those models and just sell the good casts.

No because that's not what quality assurance is for. The old adage is: "You can't inspect quality into a product".

QA processes are too unreliable and in a large scale, costly to be commercially viable as a quality generating process. The point of QA is to do enough tests to detect persistent defects coming out of the manufacturing processes and then shut down the manufactuiring, fix the problems and restart it with an acceptable defect rate, usually dumping the failed batch entirely.

insaniak wrote:Here's the thing, GW: Saying 'Resin can have air bubbles' is not an excuse for selling flawed product. Any casting medium has the potential for casting defects. If you can't figure out how to cast in that medium without flawed results you're doing it wrong.

More true. AFAIK finecast is something of a special resin/manufacturing process that was specifically intended to work as a "drop in" replacement for the pewter casting with as little rework on the molds as possible. (especially important for the low demand casts). The problem is that they went for a "big bang" introduction, entirely scrapping their metal casting lines and now that the drop-in replacement hasn't turned out to be successful they have nothing to fall back on.

We may need to face the possibility that GW's hope of finding a straight resin replacement for their metal line is actually technically, physically or economically impossible. In which case we can expect this to run for years while they gradually replace their scupts and casts with new resin friendly models.

Very true, we should complain and we have but we still need to support GW, they have gone for a massive change and it hasn't worked out that well. We might have to put up with this for a while. I have problems myself but fix them and put up with them. I dislike the Finecast because it breaks far too easily

phantommaster wrote:
Very true, we should complain and we have but we still need to support GW, they have gone for a massive change and it hasn't worked out that well. We might have to put up with this for a while. I have problems myself but fix them and put up with them. I dislike the Finecast because it breaks far too easily

It's a corporation - the shareholders and the employees support them, not the consumer.

You may be a big fan of the IP and supporting the IP is great, but the corporation deserves no love. It is a legal entity whose only mandate is to increase profits for the shareholders.

Yes, the corporation controls the IP and you can argue all day whether or not that's great, but the IP will always be there as long as fans continue to support and enjoy it.

Zarren Wevon wrote:
You may be a big fan of the IP and supporting the IP is great, but the corporation deserves no love. It is a legal entity whose only mandate is to increase profits for the shareholders.

Just like every other corporation... hmm. Pattern?

Oh boy, here we go again...

(Puts on safety helmet).

mattyrm wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Unfortunately, they don't prove very much because you could have spent 100+ hours meticulously re sculpting every bubble filled detail and we wouldn't be any wiser... We need pictures of miniatures straight from the blister since that is what all the flawed reviews are showing...

So it's perfectly acceptable to take someone's word that they're not posting photos of crummy models which were replaced by a far superior version, but you're accusing him of "spending 100+ hours meticulously resculpting every bubble filled detail"?

Please. Let's have some common sense, shall we?

Yes, lets.

Oh no hang on, its all gone wrong again.

puma713 wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oh good you're here...

Oh look, you got a lol HB, well done. Shame its off another of your big boys club, why don't you get Phantom Viper to rub your shoulders as well and you can all daisy chain around the thread.

Im still stunned that you lot get away with your shameless unending rudeness by directing the "troll" insult towards other people. I am merely watching out for a bullied minority and you incessantly bait people. Overwatch said he had a few good models, and PV essentially responded with "Post some photos you lying bastard" I merely pointed out he doesn't NEED to take the time to photograph his models because his word is good enough for most people, what motive has he to lie? And who is the guy on the internet to call him a liar and then demand he goes and takes pictures of his models?

And then you and Puma are in with your hearty back slaps and your lols and your bro-fists.

Its primary school gak. Puma I can forgive because Im guessing he is the right side of 25, but for you I suggest you move out of your mothers basement and forget your fruitless and bizarre quest to destroy a faceless PLC.

Actually Matty, it's you who is doing it wrong, Everyone knows Trolls don't like fire, so you need to become a wizard that can cast Firewall all your problems solved then =o]

And again Hi Welcome =o]

Unit1126PLL wrote:Just like every other corporation... hmm. Pattern?

I fail to see a problem...

The Corporation does well when it's customers buy its products. Customers buy the products when they value the product provided more than they value the money they're giving up for it.

Where's the problem?

biccat wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Just like every other corporation... hmm. Pattern?

I fail to see a problem...

The Corporation does well when it's customers buy its products. Customers buy the products when they value the product provided more than they value the money they're giving up for it.

Where's the problem?

There isn't one, that's my point, lol.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zarren Wevon wrote:
You may be a big fan of the IP and supporting the IP is great, but the corporation deserves no love. It is a legal entity whose only mandate is to increase profits for the shareholders.

Just like every other corporation... hmm. Pattern?

Most other corporations don't have people who believe that they need to support them.

Zarren Wevon wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zarren Wevon wrote:
You may be a big fan of the IP and supporting the IP is great, but the corporation deserves no love. It is a legal entity whose only mandate is to increase profits for the shareholders.

Just like every other corporation... hmm. Pattern?

Most other corporations don't have people who believe that they need to support them.

Then they must wish they were GW - having such a dedicated fanbase is a boon for a corporation.

I think we're pretty much done here now.