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.

How much would it cost GW to invest in another method of producing models other than their spin technique?

The main reason they went this direction was they could use the same machines they used (and still use) for metal models. So I'd say it's slim to nil until the entire metal range is converted to resin.

A lot. That was part of the rationale to switch to Finecast - they could replace an expensive and wildly fluctuating cost medium (metal) with a much more stable cost material while at the same time continue to use the same machinery that they used for metal, so no huge investment needed to switch technology. If they decided to cast resin in the traditional way (As Forgeworld and others do), I suppose it would need a fair bit of money invested to replace the current machinery and moulds. Also, as others have pointed out, GW simply cannot produce resin models like FW in the quantities required because the process is so time and labour intensive.

So I guess than Finecast is their best option available given money and time constraints to delve into other manufacturing processes?

WarOne wrote:So I guess than Finecast is their best option available given money and time constraints to delve into other manufacturing processes?

No. They've got plenty of money, according to their financial reports, to invest in a few vacuum casting machines (well, if they'd stop giving it all to Wells and Kirby). They simply aren't, to cost cut, and are relying on the amiability and apathy of the majority of their customers to ride out the issues.

Another option would be to recut the metal models for injection polystyrene moulds.

This would be a significant investment that would take a long time to pay off. Some models would have to be redesigned.

I hope they will consider it for the long term.

I'm also hoping they will look at multi-coloured plastic, and spray-on-sprue techniques. Either or both could be incorporated into the new machinery.

They're definitely experimenting with moving everything to plastic. Look at Fantasy with its plastic heroes, and now, a plastic special character (Karl Franz), along with a plastic special character for 40k (the Swarmlord). They could have gone cheap and made separate finecast releases for either of those, even finecast upgrade kits.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if 6th edition releases of codices didn't have much new in them, but had plastic versions of models currently in finecast, and dual kits where possible (like, a 'thrope' kit, 'vore' kit and 'guard' kit for Tyranids, making Zoanthropes/Venomthropes/DoM, Biovores/Pyrovores and Hive Guard/Tyrant Guard respectively.

That would make me very happy. Do this, GW!

I think another reason that there seems to be more problems might be that flaws are way easier to spot on FC models?

I mean, is it just me, or was white metal kinda difficult on the eye?

My Marneus Calgar and HG in white metal, I spent a while filing and cleaning it all up, then glueing them. I took a good look at them before I primed them and I still found it hard to make detail out, it was only after I sprayed them black I went "Oh yeah they are pretty cool models"

Whereas when you look at close up photos of unprimed FC, its really easy to see tiny holes and such in that sort of, dull, light grey materiel. A similar pic of a white metal model to me was more or less just a blur!

Concur? Or is there something wrong with my eyes?

Its to do with the way that metal and Finecast reflect light differently. It's one of the reasons that Finecast looks like it is crisper detail-wise, whereas in reality, if you put two identical models side by side and primed, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between the two.

filbert wrote:Its to do with the way that metal and Finecast reflect light differently. It's one of the reasons that Finecast looks like it is crisper detail-wise, whereas in reality, if you put two identical models side by side and primed, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between the two.

True enough. Its definately almost impossible to see a difference detail wise because I was just inspecting the painted FC Marneus and HG in GW last weekend.. and they look identical.

I definitely prefer the feel and weight of FC though, they were really light. I know some people prefer the heft of metal, but when I drop my HG models (happened several times!) they pretty much explode and I have to hunt for both the champions hands.

Since I haven't bothered to varnish my models, metal = say goodbye to your paintjob for me.

Of course the other reason for not going the Forgeworld style of casting, besides lack of resources, is to do with toxicity levels. A good majority of customers are under 15 and all.

zilegil wrote:Of course the other reason for not going the Forgeworld style of casting, besides lack of resources, is to do with toxicity levels. A good majority of customers are under 15 and all.

All resin is toxic in the same way Forgeworlds is toxic. Forgeworld aren't injecting poison into their models. Resin dust is terrible - all resin dust. I really hope you haven't been sanding finecast inside and breathing in the goodness, because it's just as bad.

On that note, no dust is good for you. Plastic dust? Still bad. Metal dust? Ugh. I really hope you aren't breating in the dust after sanding a metal model.

Some really astute observations above I think. TBH I don't think it should be an 'either/or' between metal and finecast, and both have their advantages.

Of course the lighter material is nicer (and we have all had the sinking feeling in our stomach, and the club going deathly quiet when you hear the 'crunch' of a big metal model hitting the ground), but perhaps because I'm a bit of a loser I actually enjoy pushing little 15mm metal tanks around. Rare earth magnet to revolve the turret, I think it adds a little bit to the experience. I never have the same feeling of connection with my resin tanks

As far as construction goes? Yes resin is easier (although you have to go through the whole cleaning process, if you are doing it properly), but again I grew up through metal dragons and land speeders. I had to learn the hard way about pinning, and for a long time when younger my 1st edition land speeders represented disassembled high-tech lawn mowers moving around the tabletop. But, it is something you learn how to do, and I think nothing of sitting down with glue and paper clips to make sure something stays together.

So arguably the only differences that remain for me (and I realise this is a personal thing) are price and quality. As Filbert said, the difference in detail visible on the unpainted model is how the different materials refract the light - really if there is any difference it is negligible. Price is the same - GW didn't reduce their price when they switched to resin, but then neither have other companies I know of (FoW did the same thing when they switched to resin tanks etc., as well as moving their production to the poorer quarters of the Far East, which is a step beyond even what GW have done) In fact, the only company I know to actually have reduced price are Mantic, who moved some of their models from metal to resin and knocked a couple of quid off.

So, the only final issue is casting quality. Now, I have seen some perfect resin casts (well, at least as good as the metal ones used to be), but I have also seen some pretty poor ones. I couldn't risk mail ordering them - not only to not have to go through the BS of getting replacements, but because quite often stuff I buy goes onto a 'to do' pile and might not get opened for 6 months. When I finally get to painting and notice a problem that wasn't immediately apparent before, it wouldn't be reasonable for me to ask for a replacement from Wayland/Maelstrom after all this time.

So what is the end result of this? It pains me to say it, but it's probably enough to have put me off buying GW stuff. I don't know whether I'm overly picky or principled about stuff (didn't eat a McDonalds for 2-3 years for instance after I read about their sweat shops in Indonesia), but for the prices of the current FC range I expect the quality to be as close to perfect as possible. Yes, resin is perhaps more prone to errors than metal, but it is more the fact that GW have chosen to use spin casting and a lower grade resin. They have focused just on the bottom line, and as a result I think their own pride in the miniatures they produce has slipped. Now I think the company has built up a tremendous amount of good will with their customer base by doing the right things over so many years, but that will gradually be eroded.

I would love to see this get sorted anyway - I still enjoy GW games, and I think it is great that unlike so many other British companies they have managed to keep their head above water and not had to move production to China. But, I don't think they have been doing themselves any favours recently, and for the conscientious customer and fan of the company they are impossible to ignore.

Henners91 wrote:

Edit:

Decided to add pictures in case there's a 'pics or it didn't happen' crowd:





You can see the rounded hole on Isabella's cloak, in the middle of the bottom-left tear.

Kemmler looks fine, but Isabella... I don't even know where to start. I'm sorry but that one looks absolutely horrible.

(click on the picture and look at it close up)

For example look at the left side of her head (right in the picture). There are supposed to be 2 curls there which are almost unrecognizable in the picture. That side of her head looks to be a brittle mass, including the ear. On the other side the bottom of the 3 curls looks totally off, missing a chunk at the bottom. The detail at the bottom of the cloak at the bottom left (right in the picture) is almost gone. There is supposed to be a bottom row of little holes there. Where is it? Also the detail on the boots (the bat figures) severely lack detail. Lots of tiny little brittle bites out of the top part of the dagger holding arm and other places all over the model. Etc...

This is how the model is supposed to look (look at it in 360 especially):

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat720003a&prodId=prod1460010a

ironicsilence wrote:My experience has been that any new models that come out after finecast have generally been pretty solid, its the older models being re-released in finecast that seem to have issues. I recently picked up the new empire witch hunter and the model was flawless

The new necron finecasts have been terrible, so I don't agree with this statement. I've yet to get a decent FC necron model, and have moved on to converting my own crypteks and lords. On the contrary, the two dark elf models I have picked up in finecast, an assassin and dreadlord on cold one, were both fantastic, the assassin being as close to flawless as any model could be. Both of those were older models that did not get a resculpt.

I also agree with TBD that the Isabella model is far from acceptable.

Looks fine to me. Stop yer moanin'.

Squigsquasher wrote:Looks fine to me. Stop yer moanin'.

Are you talking about Henner's vampire count finecast pics?

Isebella have bunch of flaws.

As previously pointed out by others + If you look carefully from the back side, you'll see why her collar is so thick from the first front view.
There is a whole chunk of resin goop.

Doesn't look fine at all sir.

I cannot see any of the supposed flaws. Really, I think it just looks like there are problems because of the picture quality. If there are flaws, they're so small as to be easily fixable, and not really worth making a fuss over.

TBD wrote:
Kemmler looks fine, but Isabella... I don't even know where to start. I'm sorry but that one looks absolutely horrible.

(click on the picture and look at it close up)

For example look at the left side of her head (right in the picture). There are supposed to be 2 curls there which are almost unrecognizable in the picture. That side of her head looks to be a brittle mass, including the ear. On the other side the bottom of the 3 curls looks totally off, missing a chunk at the bottom. The detail at the bottom of the cloak at the bottom left (right in the picture) is almost gone. There is supposed to be a bottom row of little holes there. Where is it? Also the detail on the boots (the bat figures) severely lack detail. Lots of tiny little brittle bites out of the top part of the dagger holding arm and other places all over the model. Etc...

This is how the model is supposed to look (look at it in 360 especially):

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat720003a&prodId=prod1460010a

I don't want to pick a fight with you here TBD, but I'm not sure how you can say the "curls are unrecognizable in the picture".
The ones on the right side of her head (left in the picture) look fine to me--the part about you saying them looking "off" is very likely due to the angle of how the curls attach to the head. You pointed out the 360 degree image.

That said...Henners mounted her onto the base at a very strange angle. It looks like she's missing a tiny amount of her left(right in the picture) foot which is where she is supposed to mount to the base with. Look at the 360 degree image and compare it to Henners' image and you'll see what I mean. There's a small clearance between the base and her.

I'd thought the left (from the viewer's PoV) foot was meant to be lifting to step?

Tbh I was paranoid I'd cut her off her mounting wrong, there was a bit of crap left on it.

I stuck her on a normal base and filed off the bottom because I wanted her to stand diagonally so she'd rank up more easily.

Henners91 wrote:I'd thought the left (from the viewer's PoV) foot was meant to be lifting to step?

Tbh I was paranoid I'd cut her off her mounting wrong, there was a bit of crap left on it.

I stuck her on a normal base and filed off the bottom because I wanted her to stand diagonally so she'd rank up more easily.

When you look at her, front on, the left from viewer's POV foot is already in the air.

The other foot is stepping into the movement.

This is what she is supposed to look like, compare it to Henner's "good" cast

I'm gonna file that under semantics...

Here are my Dark Eldar girls Finecast.

LunaHound wrote:
This is what she is supposed to look like, compare it to Henner's "good" cast

Don't think that's a good cast, though. Face looks unnaturally bent and stretched, but maybe that's just the paintjob?

That I can't tell, but atleast the painted one's left leg knee armor is complete and her collar is good.

The QA is still bad. Just this weekend, a friend of mine decided to add a termi librarian to his GK and bought the fig. Since he doesn't keep up to date with 40k on the web, I told him to open the package and inspect every part for defects before leaving the store. We found the eagle half obliterated by a bubble on the staff tip as well as the middle part of the staff (about 3mm missing between the eagle and hand). The front cloak has several small bubbles (easily fixed but still obvious) as well as one on the crotch and a break in a cloth fold on the back side. Finally, the combibolter was missing most of the ammo belt. The second model he exchanged it for had several small bubbles on the cloth but no other noticeable defects. Finecast is still (as of this weekend) quite far from "fine" if this weekend's 50% moderate success rate in casting is an indication.

I got a Krell, Lord of Undeath and it was flawless. I haven't got pics of it unpainted but i have painted images in my gallery.