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.

Glad to hear Wayland Games is taking a stand. Some of the problems may not seem that serious, but in the end Wayland has to pay for extra shipping for unsatisfied customers, and they shouldn't have to cover the costs of a flawed products. Yes, that includes pubes. If a customer chooses to return that because they are disgusted, it costs Wayland the same as if pieces were missing. Apologizing to customers and covering the costs to keep a disgruntled customer is a waste of resources. GW set the bar of expectations with their metal minis, Wayland shouldn't be expected to offer any less.

As for the other models, I don't mind scraping flash; I get pretty testy when I'm expected to sculpt replacements for missing resin. That's unacceptable, particularly when GW is making the decision to switch materials. I like resin, but I don't expect to suffer a loss of quality for their experiment.

@warboss I said something about opening the blisters? Hmmm maybe re-read that post.

I think that this is a very sensible move. If Wayland can't guarantee to their customers that they are getting a serviceable model then they shouldn't stock them. Retailers (including GW's own) shouldn't have to sort through deliveries of stock for the good casts and certainly customers shouldn't. I think Citadel should hold off from the August wave until they get this sorted out. Aside from trying to restructure the company's marketing policy and trade pricing they should not be trying to launch a new line. I think it's just trying to do too much at once. I would love to see more finecast when it has been perfected but this shouldn't be on sale right now.

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

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. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

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.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

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. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

No. How many disgruntled customers can any business afford? GW set a standard of quality with their metals. Wayland has a reasonable expectation that 30 items shouldn't receive complaints.

Maybe it was sheer fluke that they happened to examine the worst 60 of the bunch, and found the only 30 or so that were flawed. But GW is responsible for the product they ship. Once it reaches Wayland, there is an expectation they haven't been screwed over by poor quality control.

This isn't a statistical problem, it's a trust issue.

When a customer finds a bit of mouse in their loaf of bread, no one really cares about the 16 million mouse-free loaves that shipped. It may be unfair statistically, but that's the world we live in.

Hendie wrote:Admittedly some of these are terrible and shouldn't have made it out of GW HQ but...

Having only had a quick scan through a random selection of the images, I would suggest that most of these 'defects' are no worse than the normal flash and/or pitting issues that everyone came to expect from the metal variants of these kits and there wasn't as much whinging about them.

I wouldn't.

I've rarely had a metal kit with flaws that serious and obvious. If I had one I would take it back for a refund.

I don't remember any serious whinging about how terrible metal is until Finecast came along to be much better. Then suddenly lots of people were all like, "I've hated metal for years".

Finally, if the GW metal models really were that terrible, it's a reflection on GW's poor QA on metal. I've got heaps and heaps of fantastic castings from lots of other companies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

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. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

They need to have taken a random blind sample of large enough size to be valid.

I find it hard to believe even the most hardcore apologist can hate on this... Wayland are interested in making sure you receive an item you don't have to return... this is bad because???

Not to mention all the extra work it causes wayland to go through the replacement/refund... it's a ton of lost profit and all of it lands on GW's poor QC. Come on guys, this is pretty black and white...

Kilkrazy wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

ancientsociety wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

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. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

They need to have taken a random blind sample of large enough size to be valid.

Again, we have no idea the total amount of minis received by Wayland. If this is 60 out of say 200, that's 30% of the total product.

Games Workshop claims these are the "finest miniatures on the market", if that is true, there's absolutely no reason why customers and retailers should be seeing these issues that most of their competitor's miniatures, even resin ones, do not have.

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.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

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. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

So what you are saying is that Wayland should check at the least 1000 blisters which would take a few days to do properly and during that time the person or people checking for defects should not process peoples orders, send out packages or anything like that. It's not Waylands job to make sure the products are defect free, they should not have to waste manpower or hire someone to make sure the products they receive are retailable. I'm sure if you call Wayland and say you will check their entire stock for free and within a a few days I'm sure they would be more than willing to offer you a contract to check the products for them.

GW are stating that these miniatures are the best in the world and they are by far some of the most expensive miniatures on the market, yet we should accept that the models we buy might be missing half a gun, contain some dudes pubes or have parts bent to hell?

When I pay £10-£15 for a single miniature I expect it to be the center point of my army because it looks good, not because half the face is missing.

If you buy a christmas turkey for £15 and there are some small areas with mold on them, smells really bad and there are some dudes pubes on it do you just cut off the bad parts and pick off the pubes and then eat it or do you return it to the shop and complain?

If I have to pay a premium I damn well expect to receive a premium product!

I'm sure you'd be happy to pay $39AU (£25) for Lord Kaldor Dragio only to find you have to resculpt his sword and details on his shield.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1140003&prodId=prod1190020a

Mastiff wrote:Glad to hear Wayland Games is taking a stand. Some of the problems may not seem that serious, but in the end Wayland has to pay for extra shipping for unsatisfied customers, and they shouldn't have to cover the costs of a flawed products. Yes, that includes pubes. If a customer chooses to return that because they are disgusted, it costs Wayland the same as if pieces were missing. Apologizing to customers and covering the costs to keep a disgruntled customer is a waste of resources. GW set the bar of expectations with their metal minis, Wayland shouldn't be expected to offer any less.

As for the other models, I don't mind scraping flash; I get pretty testy when I'm expected to sculpt replacements for missing resin. That's unacceptable, particularly when GW is making the decision to switch materials. I like resin, but I don't expect to suffer a loss of quality for their experiment.

100% agree. Plus, extra hair in a package is sloppy and shows lack of control in the manufacturing environment... I'd refuse or return a finecast with a hair, especially considering the price paid. And that's the point, isn't it? At this price point hair in the package is unacceptable because it is unprofessional. I shouldn't gag when opening my bestest model evar!!!11!!

Having done incoming inspection on materials for work for years, including molded plastics: proclaiming a need to inspect 1000 pieces is not true. You'd need a shipment of about 500,000 pieces to justify that sample size (1000). And you know what? With that scenario, even 1 failure could be below the acceptability level (depending on the Acceptable Quality Level). You could inspect the first one, get a failure and reject at that point. We're not talking about determining the rate of failures in the entire batch. The purpose is determining the acceptability of the shipment received. Sampling and analysis (inspection and documenting) is not free, so theoretical has to balance with practical... in other words, don't spend all day or week re-documenting over and over something is crap when you've already established as such.

The fact that the sampled population has reject rate of over 50% is ridiculous. Wayland has sufficient data and absolutely send the stuff back. Bravo on them.

So a hair in clamshell packaging isn't a big deal, huh? Let me tell you a story.

When Van Halen was first touring, they had a huge long contract with an infamous contract rider that stated that a bowl of M&Ms had to be placed in their dressing room, with all the brown M&Ms removed. This story has been brought up as an example of rock stars being prima donnas.

The truth is that the rider was attached to a series of very specific instructions on how to properly set up their very large, very expensive, and very elaborate stage show. Failure to follow the instructions to the letter could be disastrous: electronics could fail to operate, power systems could be incompatible, stages not rated for the weight of their props could collapse, electronic cables not properly plugged in could ignite fires, giant metal props could fall over.

So if Van Halen walked into that dressing room, and they didn't see the bowl of M&Ms there with all the brown ones removed. . . or if they found a single brown M&M in that bowl? It was a red flag to them to check the entire stage set up themselves, piece by piece, and (if things turned out to be bad enough), refuse to do the show entirely.

Hairs in clamshell packaging might not be a big deal, but it's a red flag to me that someone over at GW is doing a sloppy job.

To me, 60 sounds like a reasonable sample size to represent the population, especially if we assume that they really just grabbed 30 at random from each shipment.

Some of the flaws are fairly minor, but then again, that's over half of the sample that would need to be returned, and that's not looking at the flaws that you can't see from outside the package. This makes me ask, if you were running a shop, what would be acceptable to you? How many pissed-off customers would you want banging down your door because the product you're selling (or passing along from GW in this case) is crap?

Personally, if it were my shop, I wouldn't even want a 25% failure rate. I know 0% isn't possible, but damn... 50%?
And if I saw hair in a package as a buyer, I wouldn't want it. It would become an unpurchasable product. I don't know where it came from and I don't know if it's even human... And that opens the door to what other bio-waste is there in those things? I'd rather not deal with it.


I admit I purchased the DA Company Master failcast model to see if things really were that bad. Yeah, mine was a defect, too. Nothing that can't be fixed with greenstuff (hole in the helmet, big chunk of foot missing), but I really shouldn't have to. GW needs to get the message that we won't put up with crappy quality. I'm going to call in and complain. Maybe the replacement will be better. ... That or I wind up with a slew of DA Company Masters!

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

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. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

Did you miss the part where I said they should have stated the percentage of the population the did QC? That is exactly what my post was about, it leaves that question unanswered. How many items did they recieve from GW? 60? 100? 200? 6000? They stated that 55% of what they sampled was faulty, if we the reader are not aware of the complete facts we can accidently start assumung that 55% of all finecast will be garbage.

Wayland Games is honestly taking that responsibility on themselves which is misinfoming the customer. If you are going to make such accusations you should provide your audience with as much information as possible.

Thanks for linking out the images and the good discussion!

Simply fibers (maybe it's not even hair? as a reason to not accept product, is absurd.

Everything else looks legitimate (as a bad claim for miscasts).

Good images BTW.

Also agree with the prior comment, filing mold lines, de treeing, knife work, any kind of removal etc. no problem, but ADDING, IE: re sculpting a bit of chain or a weapon handle or a clearly missing sphere from a storm bolter, essentially impossible.

EDIT:

It also makes me very concerned about the larger finecast models and groups that com in boxes, if you can't see whats in there you might really be in for a project if it runs out to need additive repairs, and you wont know till you have it opened.

Pael wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

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. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

Did you miss the part where I said they should have stated the percentage of the population the did QC? That is exactly what my post was about, it leaves that question unanswered. How many items did they recieve from GW? 60? 100? 200? 6000? They stated that 55% of what they sampled was faulty, if we the reader are not aware of the complete facts we can accidently start assumung that 55% of all finecast will be garbage.

Wayland Games is honestly taking that responsibility on themselves which is misinfoming the customer. If you are going to make such accusations you should provide your audience with as much information as possible.

Pael....I'll state this as simply as possible:

GW produces and markets Finecast as "the best miniatures on the market" and prices them accordingly. It is not Wayland's responsibility to do QC work for GW.

The responsibility does not lay on Wayland to QC all their incoming stock from GW. This incurs costs on Wayland, which is not in their best interest to take on.

They have provided evidence that, due to GW's lack of quality, Wayland would be forced to incur additional costs to reimburse the customer if they were to sell these pieces. As such, they have decided not to sell them, as it would be detrimental to their business. It does not matter how large or small their control group was, they made a decision that flaws within 55% of the stock is not viable for their profit margin.

As for "misinforming the customer", GW continues to hype this material/casting process as "the best", yet it is obvious that (as of right now) there are severe flaws within the medium and its production, that do not occur in their competitor's product. It's obvious to even a casual observer that, at the present time, this is NOT the gold standard in miniatures and GW is the one who is "misinforming" customers re: this issue.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I've rarely had a metal kit with flaws that serious and obvious. If I had one I would take it back for a refund.

I don't remember any serious whinging about how terrible metal is until Finecast came along to be much better. Then suddenly lots of people were all like, "I've hated metal for years".

Finally, if the GW metal models really were that terrible, it's a reflection on GW's poor QA on metal. I've got heaps and heaps of fantastic castings from lots of other companies.

I don't understand that part either. In all sincerity, the only issues I've ever had with GW metal products was the occasional bent spear that was difficult to straighten back out properly. Other than that, the models have always appeared crisp and I had no complaints about the quality.



Again, kudos to Wayland for taking the initiative in place of their customers.

Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

Ozymandias wrote:Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

And also way to throw out models with hairs on the blisters!

The hairy packagers at GW were ruining the Finecast release!

Kanluwen wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

And also way to throw out models with hairs on the blisters!

The hairy packagers at GW were ruining the Finecast release!

I love how you continue to gloss over the other, more serious problems these minis show.

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

And also way to throw out models with hairs on the blisters!

The hairy packagers at GW were ruining the Finecast release!

I love how you continue to gloss over the other, more serious problems these minis show.

And I love how you act as though the idea of "random standards of quality" is foreign.

Going from "hair in the packaging" to "misaligned mold" is such a stupidly high amount of quality assurance that it makes this entire announcement a joke.

I don't consider myself a GW apologist, and I do recognize that there are some problems with the models. But to be honest, I probably wouldn't care about these supposed "miscasts" if I purchased the product.

Just a few at random:

Draigo: Would return.
Black Ork Big Boss: Wouldn't return.
Lelith Hesperax: Wouldn't return.
Tyrannid Broodlord: Would return.
Uruk Hai: Would return.
Grimgor Ironhide: Wouldn't return.

I don't know if other people simply have higher standards than I do for models (possible) or they're just looking for a reason to complain about the Finecast models (also possible, less likely), but to me Wayland was being a little picky. At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.

Then again, Wayland is within their right not to accept perfect tender. And they've probably made a business decision that they'll lose money selling and having to replace bad castings.

There's actually another thing I'm curious about.

Are these actually recent, right off the truck miscasts or is it stuff that hasn't sold from the Finecast 'release day'?

Because if it's the latter, that's like using the launch 360s as an example for why to not buy the 'current' production run of 360.

Pael wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.

I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense". There are a TON of obviously severe casting flaws on the actual site. Missing faces, severely bent handles, inaccurate detailing, and 1-3mm wide pits being just a sample. This is not something as easily fixed as flash or mold-lines on a metal miniature. These problems will force a customer who cannot return the product to resculpt large portions of the miniature by hand.

At the price point GW is selling these at, there is NO EXCUSE for something like this to get past QC, much less make it into the hands of a customer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Or state what percentage your sample was compared to the whole population.

Example: Wayland receives 6000 pieces of fine cast across two shipments. If we use the 60 randomly selected pieces that would mean they only checked 1 percent of the total volume. Honestly a bogus statistic.

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. Which would give a more accurate and true statistic.

You have no idea how many pieces Wayland received. Who's to say that they didn't order 200? or 500? Or even that all the images shown are ALL of the defects found?

Did you miss the part where I said they should have stated the percentage of the population the did QC? That is exactly what my post was about, it leaves that question unanswered. How many items did they recieve from GW? 60? 100? 200? 6000? They stated that 55% of what they sampled was faulty, if we the reader are not aware of the complete facts we can accidently start assumung that 55% of all finecast will be garbage.

Wayland Games is honestly taking that responsibility on themselves which is misinfoming the customer. If you are going to make such accusations you should provide your audience with as much information as possible.

OK well besides that you really do not understand statistics its all fine. They made a point estimate based on a sample size of 60. You do not need to know the population size to get a reasonable estimates and confidence intervals. It doesn't matter if they sample 1% or 20% the confidence interval remains the same. Just FYI

I believe Wayland has misunderstood these blister defects. These aren't defects in the product, they are intentional hobby challenge models. Select packages sent out to test the hobbist skills in modelling so they have a more involve experience with the minis.

tiekwando wrote:

OK well besides that you really do not understand statistics its all fine. They made a point estimate based on a sample size of 60. You do not need to know the population size to get a reasonable estimates and confidence intervals. It doesn't matter if they sample 1% or 20% the confidence interval remains the same. Just FYI

And there's another variable that you're not accounting for, which is which "generation" of casts these were. The first production run was riddled with miscasts and things of that nature, but quality has reportedly improved since the "launch" of FineCast.

Kanluwen wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Kudos to Wayland Games! If the product sent to them by GW isn't up to standards, then this is a great way to get their attention. Hopefully more retailers follow suit and GW buckles down in the QC department and stops these miscasts from ruining the Finecast release.

And also way to throw out models with hairs on the blisters!

The hairy packagers at GW were ruining the Finecast release!

I love how you continue to gloss over the other, more serious problems these minis show.

And I love how you act as though the idea of "random standards of quality" is foreign.

Going from "hair in the packaging" to "misaligned mold" is such a stupidly high amount of quality assurance that it makes this entire announcement a joke.

I've bought probably 300+ minis over the past 15 years and never once had a hair in the packaging. I've also had about the same amount of second-hand trades over on Bartertown in 5 years and have still never received a hair in either a box or blister pack. Additionally, I've never had a miniature lack a face, have a chain stop halfway through its arc, 1-3mm wide holes in the center of the miniature, in either metal, plastic, or resin figures.

Again, these miniatures are being marketed by GW as THE best miniatures on the market. It stands to reason that they should therefore BE the best miniatures on the market and NOT have these issues.

I fail to see how you cannot understand that. Would you buy a computer marketed as "top-of-the-line" with its HDD missing, cracks in the monitor, and dust inside the case?

The hair is an amusement and cause of some joshing.
Whether you would take the miscasts back or not is irrellavent Biccat.

I might think to just get on with mending lesser problems myself, but would not be happy about it.
As said by myself and others these are being sold as, and costed as a premium product and not everyone feels that they can or ought solve the problems with GS

To be fair to GW they are exchanging the faulty goods so they are inclined by action to disagree with your laissez faire attitude.

Kanluwen wrote:

tiekwando wrote:

OK well besides that you really do not understand statistics its all fine. They made a point estimate based on a sample size of 60. You do not need to know the population size to get a reasonable estimates and confidence intervals. It doesn't matter if they sample 1% or 20% the confidence interval remains the same. Just FYI

And there's another variable that you're not accounting for, which is which "generation" of casts these were. The first production run was riddled with miscasts and things of that nature, but quality has reportedly improved since the "launch" of FineCast.

Does it matter?

Yes, I agree with you they are improving.. Its the nature of resin casting that you need to adjust the size and location of the gates and vents until you get it right.

Sending out mis-casts regardless of the casting "generation" is a problem. It shows a QC issue. Will there be miscasts? sure, always are with resin. It depends on what level you feel is acceptable. Filling a bubble is no much of an issue, but re-sculpting missing parts due to mold fill problems... not acceptable.

Kanluwen wrote:There's actually another thing I'm curious about.

Are these actually recent, right off the truck miscasts or is it stuff that hasn't sold from the Finecast 'release day'?

Because if it's the latter, that's like using the launch 360s as an example for why to not buy the 'current' production run of 360.

While I agree with this, the Finecast models they recieved were still of poor quality, and there's no point in selling them untill they get some in without rampant defects.

MajorTom11 wrote:I find it hard to believe even the most hardcore apologist can hate on this... Wayland are interested in making sure you receive an item you don't have to return... this is bad because???

Not to mention all the extra work it causes wayland to go through the replacement/refund... it's a ton of lost profit and all of it lands on GW's poor QC. Come on guys, this is pretty black and white...

This.

After all the negative feedback regarding Finecost, any retailer would be cautious. Wayland did the logical thing by nipping any possible issue in the bud before they reach the customer. It's simply good business practice. Wayland also did a good job by basing their decision on firsthand data via random sampling. Wayland's not the first company to be cautious with Finecost, the combat company is also avoiding Finecost as well. Hell, it would be smart for any retailer to avoid Finecost until the quality issues are sorted.

Some of the "degrees of inferiority" arguments are getting pretty ridiculous. At the end of the day, with a premium brand, you expect a premium product.