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.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, that's not true at all. Finecast has two major problems that are not present in metal models:

1) Bubbles. Finecast is full of bubbles that destroy detail, or create a fatal weakness in the part so that something breaks off. Metal models did not have this problem at all.

2) Broken parts. Since finecast is so fragile it's really easy for stuff to break off, detail to be crushed, etc. Metal models don't have this problem, you aren't going to have a metal sword break off in shipping just because the package was handled a bit roughly, or a metal detail bit that breaks off if you touch it too hard with a knife while removing the mold lines.

OK, admittedly, the bubbling problem for obvious reasons didnt exist in the metal moulds, however broken pieces have always been an issue, and that has more to do with the packaging if anything, thats my personal opinion I guess, maybe i've just been incredibly lucky with the new finecast because I have barely had any issues, warping seems to be the biggest issue at the moment.

 QuincyMontenegro wrote:
however broken pieces have always been an issue

No they haven't. It is simply impossible to have the same level of broken parts with metal models since the material is so much tougher. Treatment that would destroy a finecast model will just bend a metal model, and it's a lot easier to repair a bent metal model than to re-sculpt entire new hands for a finecast model because the fingers all broke off.

 Peregrine wrote:
No they haven't. It is simply impossible to have the same level of broken parts with metal models since the material is so much tougher. Treatment that would destroy a finecast model will just bend a metal model, and it's a lot easier to repair a bent metal model than to re-sculpt entire new hands for a finecast model because the fingers all broke off.

OK, you're right I'm wrong, sorry for having some form of opinion and/or say in the matter.

 QuincyMontenegro wrote:
OK, you're right I'm wrong, sorry for having some form of opinion and/or say in the matter.

It's a matter of fact, not opinion. Metal models can not suffer the same level of broken parts as finecast models because the material is much more durable.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a matter of fact, not opinion. Metal models can not suffer the same level of broken parts as finecast models because the material is much more durable.

In my own personal experience there has been many a time where ive bought a metal HQ model and the sword has been bent so far round that it has snapped or fingers have been bent and snapped off of power claws, I'm not saying that finecast is better than the old metal models, there are still alot of faults, all I was saying is that both have has their fair share of problems. 1 thing that i can say that i prefer about the new finecast is the weight and how easy they are to work with [Personal Opinion]

 BryllCream wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

Isengard wrote:
I must be the only person left in the world who has never had a finecast miscast (and I have dozens of finecast models) and thinks it is generally a good medium! Oh well, best keep quiet about that...

Nope, there's two of us.

There's some data on this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/514871.page

Finecast return rate isn't as high as the vocal minority would suggest.

I'm interested that a poll where 48% of respondents say they've had to return a finecast model at some point isn't high?

48% failure rate is atrocious, and that doesn't allow for ones which could/should have been returned but were instead patched up by the customer.

As a record for the best toy soldiers in the world, that sucks.

I wonder what a similar poll would be for metal? I cant remember ever having a problem in 25 plus years of buying minis. My finecast failure rate was 2 failures from 4 purchases, before I just started avoiding it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I would say judging by the sort of posts that people make, that it is actually a case of hyper-sensitivity to "flaws" that most people simply wouldn't be concerned with.

Sure, but "most people" also play with gray plastic, throw their models into boxes and break off fragile detail bits, etc. Most of them wouldn't care if the entire face was one giant bubble as long as it still works the same in the game.

I put a Guardsman with a bayonet on his lasgun into a KR case and when I took him out tonight, his bayonet was bent enough to alter the color of the plastic. So I grabbed a different one. They WERE grey plastic though. Mostly because I hate painting. : D

I also have a metal Death Cult Assassin, one with the long sword held overhead in both hands. Only it's more like a crude, round rock knife because the mould failed to fill all the way. : /

I got her in 2011, along with 5 others for my Sisters. The others were fine, but I'd've liked to have had that one be undamaged, since I prefer that pose to the dual-wielded daggers one.

Lets all just be glad that finecast doesnt melt in sunlight anymore... although that might be because I live in England and we don't understand the concept of sunlight...

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

Isengard wrote:
I must be the only person left in the world who has never had a finecast miscast (and I have dozens of finecast models) and thinks it is generally a good medium! Oh well, best keep quiet about that...

Nope, there's two of us.

There's some data on this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/514871.page

Finecast return rate isn't as high as the vocal minority would suggest.

I'm interested that a poll where 48% of respondents say they've had to return a finecast model at some point isn't high?

48% failure rate is atrocious, and that doesn't allow for ones which could/should have been returned but were instead patched up by the customer.

As a record for the best toy soldiers in the world, that sucks.

I wonder what a similar poll would be for metal? I cant remember ever having a problem in 25 plus years of buying minis. My finecast failure rate was 2 failures from 4 purchases, before I just started avoiding it.

You're misrepresenting the statistic.

48% of customers have had at least one finecast models which they had to return, out of a varying number depending on how many they've bought.

That's not the same as 48% of finecast models needing to be returned, because people sometimes, even often, have bought more than one finecast model.

 azreal13 wrote:
48% failure rate is atrocious

That's not actually a 48% failure rate, it's 48% of customers having at least one finecast failure. If a person buys a hundred finecast models and has one failure that's a 1% failure rate, but they contribute to the 48% of people who have had at least one failure.

The actual problem with the poll is that it doesn't account for the people who don't care about their models. Of course the people who carelessly throw their gray plastic hordes into boxes and snap off all the detail bits aren't going to care if a finecast model is missing all of its fingers and has a giant bubble for a face, they'll just cut it off the sprue (probably breaking it even more in the process), glue it to a base, and start playing with it. To get an accurate look at the failure rate of finecast you need to look at the subset of customers who actually care about whether their models have flaws and are willing to return defective models and demand a refund/replacement.

(Anecdotal evidence: finecast, both GW and FW's "we swear this isn't finecast no matter how much it looks exactly like finecast", has a 100% failure rate for me. And that's including kits sent as replacements for the original defective ones that were just as defective.)

 Pouncey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

Isengard wrote:
I must be the only person left in the world who has never had a finecast miscast (and I have dozens of finecast models) and thinks it is generally a good medium! Oh well, best keep quiet about that...

Nope, there's two of us.

There's some data on this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/514871.page

Finecast return rate isn't as high as the vocal minority would suggest.

I'm interested that a poll where 48% of respondents say they've had to return a finecast model at some point isn't high?

48% failure rate is atrocious, and that doesn't allow for ones which could/should have been returned but were instead patched up by the customer.

As a record for the best toy soldiers in the world, that sucks.

I wonder what a similar poll would be for metal? I cant remember ever having a problem in 25 plus years of buying minis. My finecast failure rate was 2 failures from 4 purchases, before I just started avoiding it.

You're misrepresenting the statistic.

48% of customers have had at least one finecast models which they had to return, out of a varying number depending on how many they've bought.

That's not the same as 48% of finecast models needing to be returned, because people sometimes, even often, have bought more than one finecast model.

I believe Miniwargaming did a video about a year back saying 2 out of 100 of their finecast stock were broken, as a statistic thats generally not too bad a figure. I know that only applied to that 1 shop at that 1 time, but statistics vary anyway

 QuincyMontenegro wrote:
I believe Miniwargaming did a video about a year back saying 2 out of 100 of their finecast stock were broken, as a statistic thats generally not too bad a figure. I know that only applied to that 1 shop at that 1 time, but statistics vary anyway

But how are they defining broken? Are they only talking about major damage (like having a sword broken off and missing) that is obvious without opening the box, or are they including smaller problems like detail-destroying bubbles or chipped off fine detail?

 QuincyMontenegro wrote:
I believe Miniwargaming did a video about a year back saying 2 out of 100 of their finecast stock were broken, as a statistic thats generally not too bad a figure. I know that only applied to that 1 shop at that 1 time, but statistics vary anyway

Mmhm. ^^

It's entirely possible that the number of failed Finecast models is GREATER than 48%, if the number and proportion of failed models that people who answered "Yes" have gotten is high enough compared to the same of the people who answered, "No."

 Peregrine wrote:
But how are they defining broken? Are they only talking about major damage (like having a sword broken off and missing) that is obvious without opening the box, or are they including smaller problems like detail-destroying bubbles or chipped off fine detail?

I'm not sure that they went into the details of it, so there is a possibility of warped parts etc... so really, the safest way to buy finecast is to buy it in store and open it infront of the staff so if it's broken they can replace it for you.
And as bad as games workshop buisness plan is, their workers are fantastic and will replace the parts on the spot for you. The real trouble is if you dont have any real access to a store that is fairly local.

Ok, I didn't misinterpret the data, but I definitely didn't do a great job of making my point!

My main point was that I very much doubt that almost half of people who have ever bought a metal model have needed to return it, based on my own experience, those of my gaming friends and the general feedback from users on here when comparing it to finecast.

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok, I didn't misinterpret the data, but I definitely didn't do a great job of making my point!

My main point was that I very much doubt that almost half of people who have ever bought a metal model have needed to return it, based on my own experience, those of my gaming friends and the general feedback from users on here when comparing it to finecast.

The real problem is price of manufacture. Obviously finecast is a heck of alot cheaper to make than the metal is, and as a company theyre just trying to maximise profits.
The thing that has slipped under the radar a little bit is how they are lowering points costs for units and raising the price it is to buy them, so what we are doing now is paying even more money now to stay in the points brackets for bigger games, a little off topic I know, but it's something to think about.

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok, I didn't misinterpret the data, but I definitely didn't do a great job of making my point!

My main point was that I very much doubt that almost half of people who have ever bought a metal model have needed to return it, based on my own experience, those of my gaming friends and the general feedback from users on here when comparing it to finecast.

I had a metal model that was worthy of being replaced. : D

But I didn't, because of my anxiety issues combined with me only wanting to use 5 of the 6 I ordered (they came in packs of 2).

QuincyMontenegro wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok, I didn't misinterpret the data, but I definitely didn't do a great job of making my point!

My main point was that I very much doubt that almost half of people who have ever bought a metal model have needed to return it, based on my own experience, those of my gaming friends and the general feedback from users on here when comparing it to finecast.

The real problem is price of manufacture. Obviously finecast is a heck of alot cheaper to make than the metal is, and as a company theyre just trying to maximise profits.
The thing that has slipped under the radar a little bit is how they are lowering points costs for units and raising the price it is to buy them, so what we are doing now is paying even more money now to stay in the points brackets for bigger games, a little off topic I know, but it's something to think about.

Valid points, but there are still many companies who wouldn't benefit from the economies of scale GW would benefit from, selling metal miniatures for less money than the equivalent sized Finecast models, presumably for a profit. There's equally as many casting resin minis that aren't anything like as problematic too. I believe GW could fix them, but its probably like the urban legend about vehicle recalls, ie is the cost of fixing the problem likely to be higher than compensating the injured or families of the dead? I'm guessing, with the low cost of the medium, probably not.

Pouncey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok, I didn't misinterpret the data, but I definitely didn't do a great job of making my point!

My main point was that I very much doubt that almost half of people who have ever bought a metal model have needed to return it, based on my own experience, those of my gaming friends and the general feedback from users on here when comparing it to finecast.

I had a metal model that was worthy of being replaced. : D

But I didn't, because of my anxiety issues combined with me only wanting to use 5 of the 6 I ordered (they came in packs of 2).

I very much doubt there's never been a poor metal cast ever, but I don't recall any discussions about consistently poor casts from GW before Finecast was introduced. Having received one, I think that makes you special!

 azreal13 wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok, I didn't misinterpret the data, but I definitely didn't do a great job of making my point!

My main point was that I very much doubt that almost half of people who have ever bought a metal model have needed to return it, based on my own experience, those of my gaming friends and the general feedback from users on here when comparing it to finecast.

I had a metal model that was worthy of being replaced. : D

But I didn't, because of my anxiety issues combined with me only wanting to use 5 of the 6 I ordered (they came in packs of 2).

I very much doubt there's never been a poor metal cast ever, but I don't recall any discussions about consistently poor casts from GW before Finecast was introduced. Having received one, I think that makes you special!

Yay! I'm special! : D

But I seem to recall people saying that when GW switched from lead to white metal there were different, but similar quality issues.

Could easily be wrong. Wikipedia has nothing on the matter. Might not mean much, since the Internet wasn't as popular in the mid-90s as it is now... I think.

Since about 1988 I've bought close to 5-600 metal models fr Battletech. I've had to return 2 ever (one was broken in the box, not a blister so I couldn't see beforehand, the other was only a partially full mold).

For Finecast I'm 1/3 for returns.

 azreal13 wrote:

Valid points, but there are still many companies who wouldn't benefit from the economies of scale GW would benefit from, selling metal miniatures for less money than the equivalent sized Finecast models, presumably for a profit. There's equally as many casting resin minis that aren't anything like as problematic too. I believe GW could fix them, but its probably like the urban legend about vehicle recalls, ie is the cost of fixing the problem likely to be higher than compensating the injured or families of the dead? I'm guessing, with the low cost of the medium, probably not

I suppose to understand why GW are doing it you would have to be GW or have a fair few degrees in business studies, we look at it from a consumer stand point, and as a general rule of thumb, we will criticize change, where as the manufacturers will only bend so much to fix the problem as they still have to make increasing rates of money from their products. Another major problem is that the owner of GW is incredibly old school in how he wishes for business to be dealt with, it was a long time before he could be convinced that online sales were the only thing that could boost performance in this day and age.

However all this being said, GW probably enjoys the competition with the smaller companies and because of that, what has actually happened is the smaller companies have now had a gap that GW refuses to fill due to profiteering which has boosted overall sales of miniatures. So in the grand scheme of things, because GW are such a dreadnought of a company, when people buy into other mini war games, they still have the vast majority of the market which means even if other people are playing these other games they are still likely to gain those players onto their products because (ignoring finecast faults) they still do have the best product thanks to the lore of their products (including previous games *bloodbowl* *space hulk* etc...) and the details of everything they have in their net worth.

Pouncey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok, I didn't misinterpret the data, but I definitely didn't do a great job of making my point!

My main point was that I very much doubt that almost half of people who have ever bought a metal model have needed to return it, based on my own experience, those of my gaming friends and the general feedback from users on here when comparing it to finecast.

I had a metal model that was worthy of being replaced. : D

But I didn't, because of my anxiety issues combined with me only wanting to use 5 of the 6 I ordered (they came in packs of 2).

I very much doubt there's never been a poor metal cast ever, but I don't recall any discussions about consistently poor casts from GW before Finecast was introduced. Having received one, I think that makes you special!

Yay! I'm special! : D

But I seem to recall people saying that when GW switched from lead to white metal there were different, but similar quality issues.

Not to this extent. I personally had no issue with the white metal, and I was on good personal terms (ie we socialised outside of the shop) with the FLGS owner, and he never once mentioned it being an issue in any talks we had about hobby stuff.

QuincyMontenegro wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Valid points, but there are still many companies who wouldn't benefit from the economies of scale GW would benefit from, selling metal miniatures for less money than the equivalent sized Finecast models, presumably for a profit. There's equally as many casting resin minis that aren't anything like as problematic too. I believe GW could fix them, but its probably like the urban legend about vehicle recalls, ie is the cost of fixing the problem likely to be higher than compensating the injured or families of the dead? I'm guessing, with the low cost of the medium, probably not

I suppose to understand why GW are doing it you would have to be GW or have a fair few degrees in business studies, we look at it from a consumer stand point, and as a general rule of thumb, we will criticize change, where as the manufacturers will only bend so much to fix the problem as they still have to make increasing rates of money from their products. Another major problem is that the owner of GW is incredibly old school in how he wishes for business to be dealt with, it was a long time before he could be convinced that online sales were the only thing that could boost performance in this day and age.

However all this being said, GW probably enjoys the competition with the smaller companies and because of that, what has actually happened is the smaller companies have now had a gap that GW refuses to fill due to profiteering which has boosted overall sales of miniatures. So in the grand scheme of things, because GW are such a dreadnought of a company, when people buy into other mini war games, they still have the vast majority of the market which means even if other people are playing these other games they are still likely to gain those players onto their products because (ignoring finecast faults) they still do have the best product thanks to the lore of their products (including previous games *bloodbowl* *space hulk* etc...) and the details of everything they have in their net worth.

GW does not enjoy competition, believe me if they could hit a button and make it all go away, they would. Have a read around some of the threads in general discussion about either the Chapterhouse lawsuit or some of the various threads about GWs financial health. While they're in no imminent danger of going squit, there's strong evidence to suggest that their competition is gaining ground rapidly, while GW are struggling to really grow. Kirby is feathering his nest, he's 62, he will retire very soon, and maybe then we may see some genuine culture change from GW, but not before, unless the bottom falls out of their finances and forces the issue, which ain't gonna happen.

rigeld2 wrote:
Since about 1988 I've bought close to 5-600 metal models fr Battletech. I've had to return 2 ever (one was broken in the box, not a blister so I couldn't see beforehand, the other was only a partially full mold).

For Finecast I'm 1/3 for returns.

Ah, so I'm probably wrong. Thanks. ^^


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
Not to this extent. I personally had no issue with the white metal, and I was on good personal terms (ie we socialised outside of the shop) with the FLGS owner, and he never once mentioned it being an issue in any talks we had about hobby stuff.

Good to know, thanks. ^^

I was born in 88. I would've been 5 when the change to non-lead metals happened.

 azreal13 wrote:

Pouncey wrote:GW does not enjoy competition, believe me if they could hit a button and make it all go away, they would. Have a read around some of the threads in general discussion about either the Chapterhouse lawsuit or some of the various threads about GWs financial health. While they're in no imminent danger of going squit, there's strong evidence to suggest that their competition is gaining ground rapidly, while GW are struggling to really grow. Kirby is feathering his nest, he's 62, he will retire very soon, and maybe then we may see some genuine culture change from GW, but not before, unless the bottom falls out of their finances and forces the issue, which ain't gonna happen.

Wasn't the law suit over models that were too similar to some of GW's own? When Kirby retires, we shall dance the streets in joy... and then return for another apocalypse game lol
I can't see GW changing how they do business just because he retires though, however maybe they might start doing sales (something that he is very against), that would be nice.
As for the smaller companies, I think it's great that they have grown, GW have been on that high horse for too long without real competition, I might actually start collecting Cryx from the Privateer Press range, they are fantastic looking models and with a bit more lore pushed behind each of the armies, that company can only grow to better things. Saying that, I think even Privateer Press may bow down to the dark money gods.

Dark Potential is where the real excitement lies for me, the second MWG get round to releasing scavengers, i will be on that like flies on nurgle.

 QuincyMontenegro wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
GW does not enjoy competition, believe me if they could hit a button and make it all go away, they would. Have a read around some of the threads in general discussion about either the Chapterhouse lawsuit or some of the various threads about GWs financial health. While they're in no imminent danger of going squit, there's strong evidence to suggest that their competition is gaining ground rapidly, while GW are struggling to really grow. Kirby is feathering his nest, he's 62, he will retire very soon, and maybe then we may see some genuine culture change from GW, but not before, unless the bottom falls out of their finances and forces the issue, which ain't gonna happen.

Wasn't the law suit over models that were too similar to some of GW's own? When Kirby retires, we shall dance the streets in joy... and then return for another apocalypse game lol
I can't see GW changing how they do business just because he retires though, however maybe they might start doing sales (something that he is very against), that would be nice.
As for the smaller companies, I think it's great that they have grown, GW have been on that high horse for too long without real competition, I might actually start collecting Cryx from the Privateer Press range, they are fantastic looking models and with a bit more lore pushed behind each of the armies, that company can only grow to better things. Saying that, I think even Privateer Press may bow down to the dark money gods.

Dark Potential is where the real excitement lies for me, the second MWG get round to releasing scavengers, i will be on that like flies on nurgle.

[Remove the quote tags from Pouncey and you'll fix that thing. ^^]

It reminds me of the South Park episode about Walmart. After they defeat Walmart, everyone goes to shop at a local store, which grows, and grows, and grows, and then they have to burn it to the ground while singing "Kumbayah" like they did to Walmart earlier in the episode.

This may just be luck on my part, but I've only seen two Finecast models show up bubbled irreparably or broken, both made from older molds (the Terminator Librarian and a Wood Elf Spellweaver, if anyone's keeping track); most of the Finecast I get works just fine. I find that Finecast models stick together better than metal models do, and the fact that they're much closer to the plastics in weight makes things like transporting things you can't fit in a foam case around rather easier.

Sure, it'd be cool if every character came as a posable plastic kit, but scale-wise it's exceedingly improbable that's ever going to happen, even for generic characters.

Looks like we have some interesting results, right now 24% of people who take their models quality seriously don't have a problem, or are below 5%

Peregrine wrote:
Sure, but "most people" also play with gray plastic, throw their models into boxes and break off fragile detail bits, etc. Most of them wouldn't care if the entire face was one giant bubble as long as it still works the same in the game.

Woah, source on this? Please don't claim that anyone who doesn't hate finecast is some kind of apathetic slob.

Exactly. A professional painter has no reason to refuse to paint finecast out of anti-GW spite. The only reason to have a no-finecast policy is if the failure rate on finecast kits is so high that it disrupts their business.

So a majority of professional painters refuse to paint finecast? You sure about that? If the quality was that bad, it wouldn't be profitable for anyone to do it. Sounds like anti-GW grandstanding to me.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:Looks like we have some interesting results, right now 24% of people who take their models quality seriously don't have a problem, or are below 5%

You can definitely get such accurate results from that poll question eh? And from a sample of 27

The poll didn't include '0% because I DO care'.

However, I've never actually had a need to buy a finecast miniature, but I suppose I would if something worthwhile came along.

I have purchased two different finecast VC models and both were flawed, severely. One was a unit of knights and it had several models that were unacceptable.

It is quite clear from the rather long finecast thread on Warseer that many people will just accept a flawwed figure rather than go to the bother of getting it replaced. The rate of customer returns is not a good measure of finecast quality over all.

Any one that is a long term collector of wargaming miniatures would recognize the whole finecast release by GW as a fiasco.