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.

Andrew1975 wrote:

When you see a GW product that doesn't have complaints about it, that just means they've hit one out of the park (Dark Eldar).

But you speak like they hit one out of the park with finecast. Clearly not the case. More like a foul ball. The plastic Dark Eldar are great. I've already seen issues with the Dark Eldar finecast though. You like GW are trying to push the failings of this product onto the customers.

Er, no? I think Finecast is, overall, an improvement over metal. I think GW handled the release quite poorly from a PR perspective. That said, saying that Finecast isn't an improvement is, in my view, shortsighted and biased.

Fetterkey wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

When you see a GW product that doesn't have complaints about it, that just means they've hit one out of the park (Dark Eldar).

But you speak like they hit one out of the park with finecast. Clearly not the case. More like a foul ball. The plastic Dark Eldar are great. I've already seen issues with the Dark Eldar finecast though. You like GW are trying to push the failings of this product onto the customers.

Er, no? I think Finecast is, overall, an improvement over metal. I think GW handled the release quite poorly from a PR perspective. That said, saying that Finecast isn't an improvement is, in my view, shortsighted and biased.

You keep saying it's an improvement, how? If the process was perfected I might agree with you, but that is currently all theory. To say that it is already better you are simply ignoring the issues. Generally when a product gets improved you don't simultaneously see an increase in the amount of product return by 1000%. Am I missing something?

Andrew1975 wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

When you see a GW product that doesn't have complaints about it, that just means they've hit one out of the park (Dark Eldar).

But you speak like they hit one out of the park with finecast. Clearly not the case. More like a foul ball. The plastic Dark Eldar are great. I've already seen issues with the Dark Eldar finecast though. You like GW are trying to push the failings of this product onto the customers.

Er, no? I think Finecast is, overall, an improvement over metal. I think GW handled the release quite poorly from a PR perspective. That said, saying that Finecast isn't an improvement is, in my view, shortsighted and biased.

You keep saying it's an improvement, how? If the process was perfected I might agree with you, but that is currently all theory. To say that it is already better you are simply ignoring the issues. Generally when a product gets improved you don't simultaneously see an increase in the amount of product return by 1000%. Am I missing something?

I have to agree with Andrew here.
Finecast may be an "attempt" at improvement over metal ( though I honestly belive it's more of a case of GW trying to save themselves some money), but as the product stands now, it's a case of pedaling chicken gak and calling it chicken salad.

The new material allows more detailed, lighter weight models, and ones that are easier to assemble, convert, and paint to boot. In my book, those factors outweigh the higher rate of miscasts (especially since most are minor) and vulnerability to extreme heat. That said, I'm not sure to what extent these are in fact more vulnerable than plastics-- I have an interesting-looking Land Speeder lying around somewhere that got left on a table in the sun and didn't take too kindly to the process-- but they're almost certainly more vulnerable than metals. Whether that difference is meaningful or not has yet to be seen, of course.

I can confidently say that I would gladly exchange all existing metal models in my army for Finecast ones if doing so were an option, and I think that's a pretty good indicator that the new material is indeed better!

Fetterkey wrote:The new material allows more detailed, lighter weight models, and ones that are easier to assemble, convert, and paint to boot. In my book, those factors outweigh the higher rate of miscasts (especially since most are minor) and vulnerability to extreme heat. That said, I'm not sure to what extent these are in fact more vulnerable than plastics-- I have an interesting-looking Land Speeder lying around somewhere that got left on a table in the sun and didn't take too kindly to the process-- but they're almost certainly more vulnerable than metals.

I dont think the cons outweigh the pros yet. They will, and finecast will be a glorious and amazing thing. But as other people have said, we the consumers should not have to buy GWs buggy test runs.

The new material allows more detailed, lighter weight models, and ones that are easier to assemble, convert, and paint to boot.

Maybe? If you get one that isn't flawed! You contend that it is no big deal to GS stuff. GW's target demographic anymore is 12 year olds, do you really think they have the skill and patience to GS everything. I'm sorry but I started with metal, you know what you did, open the blister, pick off a bit of flash, glue a piece on here or there sometimes and then blast it with primer. THATS IT! 2 minutes and you are ready to paint.

Much better than.

Inspect at shop for major miscast or pray online store inspects for you, open blister inspect again, return it to store for another one, open blister inspect again, remove flash, find bubbles and flaws, GS, wait 2 hours, sand, GS again, wait 12 hours, sand, glue, prime, ohh didn't see that flaw before priming, more GS, wait 2 hours, sand, Pai.......oh wait ANOTHER GD BUBBLE ad nauseam!

In my book, those factors outweigh the higher rate of miscasts (especially since most are minor)

YOUR BOOK SUCKS! I'm judging it by the cover mind you, it says How to be a GW Toadie!

I dont think the cons outweigh the pros yet. They will, and finecast will be a glorious and amazing thing. But as other people have said, we the consumers should not have to buy GWs buggy test runs.

I agree wit you here, it hopefully will get better, until then GW has us paying huge amount to be their guinne pigs. NO OTHER HOBBY COMPANY COULD AFFORD TO DO THIS. Many other companies have switched to resin without these issues. Could you imagine what would happen to companies like mantic if they let this kind of quality regularly slip through CQ, they would loose every customer that they have and be out of business.

Please keep this discussion polite. Vitriol, from any perspective, has no place in a discussion about toy soldiers. If you want to be facetious, watch the venom and post at your own risk: if someone reads your post without getting your intention to be humorous and takes offense, a moderator just might read your post the same way.

Manchu wrote:Please keep this discussion polite. Vitriol, from any perspective, has no place in a discussion about toy soldiers. If you want to be facetious, watch the venom and post at your own risk: if someone reads your post without getting your intention to be humorous and takes offense, a moderator just might read your post the same way.

Sorry, did I forget this guy

Fixed

So basically, what you're saying is: "It's not fair to call GW out for selling you garbage while calling it gold, because other companies do the same thing."

Cool. That is great news. This means the next time I make a sculpting mistake I can make people stop pestering me about it by claiming someone else also did a mistake (and we all know GWs older miniature range is full of absolutely horrible minis) or failing that simply say "try doing better yourself."

Should people still pester me about an ventual mistake I´ll be sure to PM Kan for immediate in-thread assistance. This defense is now after all, Kan-approved.

It's not "playing with semantics" to say that warping does not equal melting. The two are not the same, by any stretch of the imagination.
To use an example:

You are right and I see your point and agree with it BUT... to be 100% tehnically correct "warping" (really a laymans term when applied to "viscoelastic creep - to - temperature graphs") is actually the very same thing as melting.
But then again it depnds on what you mean with "warping", is it as in bended in a mold or as in starting to alter shape and sag while heat is applied (in one of those never ocurring specially setup freakish cases like in a car outside a shopping mall on a warm summer day).

*munches popcorn*

So I'm guessing Fetterkey tagged out and Kan took his place? All we have to do is wait for Redbeard and Mystery to arrive and we'll have ourselves a little hand-waving quartet!

+1
Actually atm munching strawberries to this
Kan vs the world, just cant barely be any better then this.

Ok, being balanced about things, I will admit you have a point. I think, in light of recent event's people have a huge desire to see GW fail,

Personally I have a desire to see GW improove, that or advertise its new product in a more realistic way.

You dont go buy a "fine dining" experiance for a ton of bucks and get an, eh, warped steak with big holes of it missing.

Bottom line, there are as far as I see it NO differences between GW finecast detail levels and FW custom minis, both have great detail, both have "warping" issues, both have swiss cheese holes in them and they both cost their weight in pure silver...but only GWs resin are sold as the worlds best.
The result is people nag and complain about both but we dont see as much complaining and well, hate over FWs resins simply because people buying them know what to expect.

I bet that if FW all of a sudden started to advertise their minis as the worlds best without upping the quality of them (no holes, no warping, no broken pieces) then people would react just as strongly.

Just remembered that there are also some reports of Finecasts thin pointy parts like spears etc snapping extremely easy ( thats another problem of going from minis projected to metal cast to resin cast ) now multiply this for the number of finecasts you will need in your armies... I can understand a resin for display or one special model that you need to take extra care but full units? Just not miniatures for gaming...

They should simply use the smoothcast 300 series of resin, for the cost of those minis GW could well afford it (especially if said cost is based on how much they can "get away with")
and we´ll get freaking bulletproof impact plastic super detailed miniatures that just might break if run over by a car.
Not that cheap-O microballot diluted crap they use now.

Is it safe for me to say, even from both sides of the argument.

That Finecast , as good as the concept is , still needs lots of work to be done before it turns into what It Intends To be.

Amen!

I have two Thunderfire Cannons, and I will say right now that they are awful models (Techmarine aside). They are terrible. Most reported Finecast problems I've seen are nothing in comparison to the problems I've had with those.

Fully agree.
However its the weight and non locking surfaces that make gluing impossible task.
Now to use your own argumenta against you:
The metal thunderfire cannons are not an issue since they can easily be assembled using greenstuff instead of glue (gluing with GS) for a perfect model that never falls apart and no drilling or pinning needed.

Whereas if the thunderfire cannon was a "finecast", well I shudder thinking of how many barrels and techmarine servo arms etc I would need to resculpt from scratch to fix.

Nah. Lots of people just like complaining, especially online where you're not looking someone in the eye and it's unlikely that they'll have a chance to reply. Further, GW is one of those organizations that, for whatever reason, people love to hate.

Really, I want to know, how much are they paying you? You can PM me discretely.

I can confidently say that I would gladly exchange all existing metal models in my army for Finecast ones if doing so were an option, and I think that's a pretty good indicator that the new material is indeed better!

Same here but unfortunatelly I´ll have to wait till I know for sure I dont need to spend a week resculpting flaws and they dont melt while traveling.
Thus, nice concept but needs tons of work before they get the amounts of customers they want.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Manchu wrote:Please keep this discussion polite. Vitriol, from any perspective, has no place in a discussion about toy soldiers. If you want to be facetious, watch the venom and post at your own risk: if someone reads your post without getting your intention to be humorous and takes offense, a moderator just might read your post the same way.

Sorry, did I forget this guy

Fixed

Is there something about someone having a different opinion that causes internet rage? I see people railing against finecast, and others liking it. You're not going to convince each other. I've got people in my shop buying up metal because they hate the new stuff, and others buying it and dumping the same models in metal on ebay, because they prefer it. People will disagree.

There's really no reason to have to put everyone into the "GW apologist" and "GW hater" catagories.

mikhaila wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Manchu wrote:Please keep this discussion polite. Vitriol, from any perspective, has no place in a discussion about toy soldiers. If you want to be facetious, watch the venom and post at your own risk: if someone reads your post without getting your intention to be humorous and takes offense, a moderator just might read your post the same way.

Sorry, did I forget this guy

Fixed

Is there something about someone having a different opinion that causes internet rage? I see people railing against finecast, and others liking it. You're not going to convince each other. I've got people in my shop buying up metal because they hate the new stuff, and others buying it and dumping the same models in metal on ebay, because they prefer it. People will disagree.

There's really no reason to have to put everyone into the "GW apologist" and "GW hater" catagories.

It wasn't meant to be rage, I thought it was a clever turn of the use of the term "in my book". I can understand if people got a good one liking the stuff, hands down sounds better. But to defend the miscasts as anything but miscasts is just silly. You have to admit many of these responses sound right out of a corporate hand book or a used car lot.

"Of course this car doesn't have a bumper, sure it came with one when it was new, but it's so safe we removed it to save you gas mileage!

I "want" to like Fine Cast, i really do.

I really wanted to buy bunch of finecast Ushabitis that is actually cheaper than the metal ones.

I wanted to assemble the resin ones that is supposed to be easier than metal. Because its not a surprise, i SUCK at assembling things ( not going to deny this ever! )

But you know , the truth is, it makes me sad seeing GW staff's reaction. He knew i loved Ushabities, he know i have been waiting for them, when we open checked on the finecasts one by one,
you can see the staff's face is filled with sadness and sympathy as THEY WERE ALL defective. I wasnt the one that said anything , the staff himself did.

After the whole in shop stock of Ushabities wasnt up to standard to be sold to the customers, they offered solution of mail order. Which i said, i know GW will honor to replace the defects,
but im just burnt out upon seeing all of them to be failures, and i doubt the replacements will be perfect. And i dont want to phone them time after time to get new ones ( which isnt exactly guaranteed to be none defective )
So i told them i'll wait few months till maybe they fix the issues and i will just work on something else during the time. Everyone was just depressed about it ....

Its weird isnt it, many people think im Anti GW, but when i look at my own actions, i really dont think so. Im not even the type that gets happy to receive additional replacements for defective things,
infact i have held back MANY TIMES on not getting replacements.

Fetterkey wrote:That said, saying that Finecast isn't an improvement is, in my view, shortsighted and biased.

No offense, but imo that statement seems very shortsighted. I think a fairer statement would be to say that Finecast is an improvement is some areas, but has failed in others (as others have pointed out). As with anything, there's always room for improvement and who knows, maybe when they sort out the current problems, Finecast may indeed be an improvement overall in the long run.

But just because someone has a different opinion, doesn't make them shortsighted or biased (well not always.. I guess it depends on how they say it).

Kanluwen wrote:
If I actually had any Finecast, sure I would.

Kanluwen wrote:
If I actually had any Finecast

Kanluwen wrote:
If I actually had any Finecast

Kanluwen wrote:
If I actually had any Finecast

So you're defending something that you haven't even purchased? And in all likelihood will never purchase because you know, deep down inside, that finecrap is a scam and an embarrassment? Good job dan man, really taking one for the team there.

LunaHound wrote:

Ouze wrote:perhaps we should stick with the less-ambiguous topic at hand until there is real evidence of the above, at which point a new post should be made discussing it.

You are right, this topic seems ambiguous at first glance , but only because finecast has so many present problems , agreed?

The only reason its talking about warping atm is because kanluwen deflected the discussion away from the miscasts. Intended or not, hmm! good question.

We are indeed agreed. I think theoretical finecast is awesome, but current reality finecast is not. I mentioned that we should not be discussing the heat element for a reason... Throughout this conversation, the people who think the current finecast QC is acceptable and this is all a big to-do about nothing have been hopping on the slightest hair (literally) to divert the discussion into a direction that doesn't involve the fact that over 50% of models Wayland polled had moderate to extreme casting flaws. I can understand why, from an apologist perspective, this is an undesirable avenue to explore.

The heat issue, I dunno. 2 anonymous people on the internets is kinda meaningless to me. The fact that you leave a mini in a car on a hot day and it gets ruined is not in my mind is not necessarily a problem. Dogs, ice cream, and minis all shouldn't be left in a car on a hot day for any amount of time. The only point in which this becomes a finecast-specific problem is if the heat sensitivity is in excess of what you'd expect plastic to tolerate. We haven't established this one way or the other.

We have established that Wayland Games looked at 60 blisters and found more then 50% had casting flaws and that the hairs in some indicate a sloppy manufacturing process. I'd rather stay away from the dubious and uncertain problems that finecast may or may not have and continue focus on the clear and unambiguous ones, is what I was saying.

mikhaila wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Manchu wrote:Please keep this discussion polite. Vitriol, from any perspective, has no place in a discussion about toy soldiers. If you want to be facetious, watch the venom and post at your own risk: if someone reads your post without getting your intention to be humorous and takes offense, a moderator just might read your post the same way.

Sorry, did I forget this guy

Fixed

Is there something about someone having a different opinion that causes internet rage? I see people railing against finecast, and others liking it. You're not going to convince each other. I've got people in my shop buying up metal because they hate the new stuff, and others buying it and dumping the same models in metal on ebay, because they prefer it. People will disagree.

There's really no reason to have to put everyone into the "GW apologist" and "GW hater" catagories.

It's easier to call someone a hater or a fanboi than to engage with their arguments.

Pyriel- wrote:

I have two Thunderfire Cannons, and I will say right now that they are awful models (Techmarine aside). They are terrible. Most reported Finecast problems I've seen are nothing in comparison to the problems I've had with those.

Fully agree.
However its the weight and non locking surfaces that make gluing impossible task.
Now to use your own argumenta against you:
The metal thunderfire cannons are not an issue since they can easily be assembled using greenstuff instead of glue (gluing with GS) for a perfect model that never falls apart and no drilling or pinning needed.

Whereas if the thunderfire cannon was a "finecast", well I shudder thinking of how many barrels and techmarine servo arms etc I would need to resculpt from scratch to fix.

Unfortunately, the Thunderfire Cannons I have suffer not only from the above flaws but are also seriously miscast or misaligned somehow, so the holes in the barrel for the recoil compensators don't line up correctly and the compensators cannot be fit onto the barrels. Were they Finecast, I could probably cut new holes myself, but they are not. If the TFC goes to Finecast I'll be buying two.

Pyriel- wrote:

Nah. Lots of people just like complaining, especially online where you're not looking someone in the eye and it's unlikely that they'll have a chance to reply. Further, GW is one of those organizations that, for whatever reason, people love to hate.

Really, I want to know, how much are they paying you? You can PM me discretely.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor do I ever plan to be on the GW payroll.

Pyriel- wrote:

I can confidently say that I would gladly exchange all existing metal models in my army for Finecast ones if doing so were an option, and I think that's a pretty good indicator that the new material is indeed better!

Same here but unfortunatelly I´ll have to wait till I know for sure I dont need to spend a week resculpting flaws and they dont melt while traveling.
Thus, nice concept but needs tons of work before they get the amounts of customers they want.

That's fair. If I were less confident in my ability to work around potential air bubbles and the like, I too would wait before pulling the trigger on Finecast. Make no mistake about it, the current error rate is much higher than I'd like to see, but in my eyes it's acceptable in the context of the first run of a new casting process, especially given GW's well-known generosity when it comes to returns.

I have nothing to contribute concerning Finecast, but wanted to add my two cents on the pube-in-blister question.

A while back, I picked up a Winged Vampire Lord at my FLGS. When I got it home, there appeared to be a big, nasty pubic hair in the package. I took a bunch of pictures, planning to send a scorching email to GW.

However, I didn't really want to go to the trouble of getting a replacement, and I wash the minis before I paint them anyway, so I opened the blister. And found, to my immense relief, that what had looked absolutely exactly like a pubic hair was in fact a strand of plastic coming off the base sprue:



I wonder if what Wayland encountered was something similar.

Nice find, Motor.

It's possible I suppose, makes more sense. Looking at the photos though it seams unlikely.

A couple misconceptions have been thrown around in this thread.
1. The plastic models from Privateer Press are NOT the same as Finecast.
2. The plastic/resin used by Mantic is NOT the same as Finecast, nor is it the same as Privateer's plastics.

Both of these competitors' materials are sturdy, strong plastic materials with no air bubbles or missing detail.

I have multiple Warjacks, Fennblades for Trollbloods, and a Denegra and Stryker plastic models.
The weakest of these are the 2 casters, where there was mold slipping.
Otherwise, there is barely mold lines to remove, and most work involved cleaning off injection ports.

I have the Mantic Revenant Knights cavalry unit, made of their plastic/resin. I have the same models in metal.
These have no mold lines to speak of, and again, only the sprue attachments need to be cleaned up.

The differences between the two are minimal, but they are different. The PP stuff is less brittle or rigid.
There is a color difference, but I believe that to be just a pigmentation difference.

I bought an Emperor's Champion from my local GW on Thursday this week. It is a Finecast.
It went together well, and there are only a few flaws.
The top of the sword arm shoulder pad is flawed. It looks as though the mold has the flaw.
There is no rim to it, it is gouged a bit. Once it is assembled, it is unseen.
Another thing is the flash was so thick, I took off the rivets on the thighs without realizing it.
And I knew they were supposed to be there.
Also, the sword is curved. I have straightened it under hot water/cold water twice already and it goes back.

As nice as my model turned out, I am unhappy with it. It feels cheap and fragile in a way that metals and even plastics do not.
I am positive that with very little pressure, the hilt pieces would break off, where a metal version would merely bend.

Also, I really feel for the shop manager.
There were 2 other Champions on the shelf that I left.
One had the flawed Terminator cross on the chest, where a bubble had displaced the bottom bar of the cross.
The other had bubbles on the tabard.
If other customers look these over, and see what I did, they will sit on the shelf.
The manager cannot send them back. A customer has to buy and return them first.

Gaps and flash are flaws that we lived with in metal. They are still going to happen with Finecast.
In addition, we get bubbles and missing parts in some cases.

If other customers look these over, and see what I did, they will sit on the shelf.
The manager cannot send them back. A customer has to buy and return them first.

I think Mikhaila would argue with you on that point. GW for all it's faults does seam to handle returns well. I personally wouldn't know, I haven't had to return anything since I bought the original Eldar Harlequin box set in 1992 (1miscast and 1 missing). Since then I have never had a quality issue with GW, it has been one of their saving graces to me.........until now that is.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's easier to call someone a hater or a fanboi than to engage with their arguments.

I'd agree with you, if the argument was valid.

Wait, wait wait, so you're saying the only time you'd engage someone in a discussion is if their argument is valid?

Isn't an invalid argument really easy to take down without calling them names?

I think Fetterkey and Kanluwen are dead wrong. Like wrong in so many ways as to be kind of funny really, but I don't need to call them a fanboi, or a troll, or a GW plant to get my point across.

Omegus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's easier to call someone a hater or a fanboi than to engage with their arguments.

I'd agree with you, if the argument was valid.

The new material allows more detailed

Personally I think that has yet to be proven. They only really look more detailed because of the way light hits the material, the edges on metal look softer or rounder than they really are. From the examples I've seen of primed models the difference between metal and Finecast is almost unnoticeable. Or rather it would be, if the Finecast model wasn't covered in bubbles that made it a dead give away.

Fetterkey wrote:
Er, no? I think Finecast is, overall, an improvement over metal. I think GW handled the release quite poorly from a PR perspective. That said, saying that Finecast isn't an improvement is, in my view, shortsighted and biased.

I can confidently say that I would gladly exchange all existing metal models in my army for Finecast ones if doing so were an option, and I think that's a pretty good indicator that the new material is indeed better!

Just because you would exchange all your stuff doesnt mean others would, nor does it make for evidence that the material is any better. You seem very good at claiming your opinion as objective fact.

I prefer metal, I think it's more robust, there's also a matter of personal preference which shouldn't be dismissed, that counts for something too. The melting I'm not sure about, I doubt they will melt, but a big figure might bend over at the legs and then I'd have to ask if that would be correctible or whether the legs would have stretched slightly or show other signs of deformity once they have been straightened. Would the figure also need repainting? I'm also not convinced by the 'more detail' argument which is overhyped by GW spin. The difference is tiny if anything at all, hardly worth the swithchover in materials. The other thing I don't like are the number of runners that go into the figures on the sprues, there is a lot of potential for the figure to be damaged in packaging or transit or when trying to remove them on the modelling table.

The only advantage I cantake seriously with finecast is that they are softer, easier to cut. Frankly, I don't see that metal was a great hardship. It might be quicker to clean up a finecast, but didnt the hype claim you wouldn't have to be doing this? Paint straight from the pack or something. I'm not in a rush, metal being a harder more durable material is something I'm happy to live with actually, it's hardly worth changing to resin which presents more issues.

And all this before the quality control issues with airbubbles and miscasts. I've never seen this many with metal, just hasn't happened with any other company I can think of to send figures out with these many problems. All the claims that finecast is better hinge on the product being defect free. The reality is that it isn't. How long until it is? Six months? When will finecast be proven to be so superior? As far as I'm concerned even if fully defect free it isn't an improvement, it's no wonder product, just a money saving tactic from GW. One which will burn them badly if they are having a lot of returns to deal with.

Motortree wrote:I wonder if what Wayland encountered was something similar.

Unlikely, given that GW doesn't do bases on sprues any more.

Kilkrazy wrote:<some asian girl making an ugly dumbass face>

What's the deal with you and pictures of asian girls making ugly dumbass faces?

Omegus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:<some asian girl making an ugly dumbass face>

What's the deal with you and pictures of asian girls making ugly dumbass faces?

Kilkrazy posts really weird pictures of asian girls and Frazzled posts like the crazy mod uncle. Someone's gotta keep moderation "interesting".



no ban plis