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.

It's been a while but all of my (very few) PP models have gone together very well also. And I do agree, GW's metals lately have been a mess. You have to clean up so many of those little stringy bitz and still end up missing a couple that got curled up and don't catch it till you've already started painting. My razordons and kroxigors were pretty bad and looking at the blisters for the new IG stuff I picked up it looks like more of the same. Dunno what happened, the metals used to be almost flawless. Guess they outsource that to the chinese kiddy labor folks too

AlexCage wrote:I don't think I've EVER returned anything in my life (Even really lame Christmas gifts).

Yeah... you're right. The only thing that springs to mind besides this is when I returned the a PC game called Gun and swapped it for the Diablo II expansion. This is the only other time. I'm surprised.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

PP metal casting quality, too, is better than GW's. Having recently put together some new-style Ratlings and a Primaris Psyker, I've had to spend ages cleaning and filling in mould lines.

GW's depth and consistency are no kind of boons to me, I'm afraid. Every army is so codified that uniqueness and whimsy have to be forcibly inserted into units. Plastic Cadians, for example, might be technically impressive, but an entire army made with them is boring to look at and even more boring to build. 1980s Dwarves, too, had much more variation and expressions than their current brethren, and not only because GW has a strange habit of increasing dwarf beard length over the years.

Selective extract of your post by me. Necros also made the same point. To be honest, when I think about it - other than $200 worth of Warhammer scenery and a few units to top of my OK army I haven't purchased any new metals in at least 6 months. Two of saying the same thing is enough for me to reconsider comments ref casting quality.

The point about Cadians is also accepted - although that is the problem with any massed rank army type - Napoleanics suffer from this for me. 1980's and even early 1990's models had far more character troop wise (don't agree character wise) but sufferred from looking a little bit ridiculous and cartoony.

Of-course I agree with Rackham throwing it all away. Was moving seriously into it as a game - loved C3 and have easily more than $1500 worth of devourers alone - strange that I have not a single prepaint. stupid Rackham.

I recently put together around 4 boxes (including 4 seperate blisters) of metal minis. Overall the quality was decent, but I still had to spend around 2 days to clean everything up, mainly because of my fire dragons. The fire dragons were so much messier than the rest I had to wonder for a minute if I had a bad batch.

My friend plays SM, and he was working on a librarian a while back. After looking at the quality of my pewter, he actually looked a bit angry. Apparently he had serious problems getting the model clean and glued. I have no problem with prep work, but I have to paint this stuff as well; this is the main reason I will never ever buy from forge world, the prep work sounds like I might as well sculpt the thing myself.

Overall the pewter from GW seems decent but there also seems to be very little quality control. When I look at the Blast-scapes things make sense.

For those that think China have a part in the mess up ( seriously guys , its not rocket scientist to produce the crater )

Here is a more realistic scenario:

GW: I want these done cheap , like this (points to white master model)
China : Sure ok no problem , they'll cost 50 cent.
GW: Cant you give us a better deal?
China: K , tell you what i'll modify it alittle to make it easier to mass produce , you wouldnt know the difference
GW: How much will it be?
China: 10 cents.
GW: OK!!!!!

1 Months later:
GW customer: ****!!!!!

Actually dear, the price per part goes down if the total order amount goes up. But this has already been resolved quite cordially (if a bit underhanded and two-faced by GW) through the medium of electronic mail, visits to the store and the sacrifice of virgins to Baz'Tard.

What are the prices of vacuum forming? Would I need to order 2 million to get a good price?

I took a look at the crashed ship at my LGS and it was made to the same if not worse quality then you showed us. The rocks look like mud slides or something.

LunaHound wrote:For those that think China have a part in the mess up ( seriously guys , its not rocket scientist to produce the crater )

Here is a more realistic scenario:

Really no. A more likely scenario is:

GW: We want this!
China: It costs this much.
GW: Ok!
China: Now we make it for half that cost, and pocket the rest of the money. Then we simply change the name or our company and/or move locations before anyone can question us.
GW: Uhh... what?
China: Nothing. We make product for you now.

(/Racial Stereotype Theatre)

H.B.M.C. wrote:

LunaHound wrote:For those that think China have a part in the mess up ( seriously guys , its not rocket scientist to produce the crater )

Here is a more realistic scenario:

Really no. A more likely scenario is:

GW: We want this!
China: It costs this much.
GW: Ok!
China: Now we make it for half that cost, and pocket the rest of the money. Then we simply change the name or our company and/or move locations before anyone can question us.
GW: Uhh... what?
China: Nothing. We make product for you now.

(/Racial Stereotype Theatre)

You-shouldn't-laugh-at-this-funny, but all too true.

HBMC that's genius =p
Why is it that racial stereotyping is so wrong, and yet so funny? lol

Because it reinforces your (false) notion that GW aren't responsible for the quality of the products they sell?

Responsible for the quality, yes. Doesn't mean that the lack of quality is always going to be their fault.

The do have it in their power to stop things from hitting the shelves.

Or they didn't thoroughly check them... same thing really.

I can't imagine not seeing this problem weeks before sale.

Maybe the higher ups just went "feth it" and gave it a green light regardless.

Lordy be, tell me aint so, I couldn't handle such frightful news.

I do declare good lordy be.

Ugh, another one of them religious types. Now calm down miss' Daisy and have a cuppa tea.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Responsible for the quality, yes. Doesn't mean that the lack of quality is always going to be their fault.

If GW felt that they had been let down by the manufacturer then they would not have released (or recalled) the product, this has not happened. So yes the lack of quality is always their fault (in a very real and legally binding way).

GW chose to put (and keep) the product on their shelves, how can that not be their fault?

George Spiggott wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Responsible for the quality, yes. Doesn't mean that the lack of quality is always going to be their fault.

If GW felt that they had been let down by the manufacturer then they would not have released (or recalled) the product, this has not happened. So yes the lack of quality is always their fault (in a very real and legally binding way).

GW chose to put (and keep) the product on their shelves, how can that not be their fault?

But the molds fell from the tall tower and that's why they were damaged!!

George Spiggott wrote:GW chose to put (and keep) the product on their shelves, how can that not be their fault?

Whilst that is true it doesn't change the fact that the lack of quality within the product (probably) wasn't their fault. Yes, their actions after the fact were hamfisted and underhanded - underhamhanded, perhaps - but the initial issue, assuming that it was more likely the fault of the Chinese manufacturer than GW, is not something we can specifically blame GW for. Everything after that point, yes, you're right, they should have taken responsibility. Instead we get nothing aside from fine-print shoved in our faces and a hasty cover-up with replaced pictures, and then a 'Corporation Speak' memo telling staff that the Blastscape is still a great product.

LunaHound wrote:Here is a more realistic scenario:

GW: I want these done cheap , like this (points to white master model)
China : Sure ok no problem , they'll cost 50 cent.
GW: Cant you give us a better deal?
China: K , tell you what i'll modify it alittle to make it easier to mass produce , you wouldnt know the difference
GW: How much will it be?
China: 10 cents.
GW: OK!!!!!

Any modification wouldn't have been to make it easier to mass produce. It would have been simply to meet the requirements of vacuum moulding... And GW would have been asking specifically for vacuum moulding, since they don't do that themselves.

Are you saying that GW wouldn't have known they were going to be vacu-formed, or that they wouldn't've cared?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Whilst that is true it doesn't change the fact that the lack of quality within the product (probably) wasn't their fault.

What lack of quality? There is none, ask anyone who works for GW. You're just a GW hater H.B.M.C.

Ah! The truth comes out! You... you... casual gamer!!

George Spiggott wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Whilst that is true it doesn't change the fact that the lack of quality within the product (probably) wasn't their fault.

What lack of quality? There is none, ask anyone who works for GW. You're just a GW hater H.B.M.C.

There is a reason we never ask a sock puppet for anything informative and unbiased.

I'm just shocked, for all the complaints about GW over the years, I've almost never complained about their quality. I even recently lauded them in a review of some FRP products when compared to the Moonscape.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Review:_FRP_Games_28mm_Future_Zone_Terrain

Hello Dakkadakka!

I live in the Seattle area and went up to the Seattle BattleBunker to not only check out the new renovations but also take a closer look at the Blastscape. When I first eye'ed these cool looking pictures I knew I wanted a set and it was more of a question if I wanted 2 and not just 1. After seeing the pictures posted here I delayed my trek in to the store to pick them up. Luckly the "White Shirt" was present at the store so I was able to directly give my feedback to someone who might be able to carry that information up the chain of command.

The first thing I noticed was how the Blastscape was packaged, even the picture on the back showed the Master models and not the lower detailed parts in the bag. I pointed out how even the package was very misleading to their clients. He nodded and smiled and knew already what I was about to say, not wanting to truly rant to him I asked that he relay my displeasure with this current release and misleading ad's up through his chain of command and include the loss of sales that this directly effected.

Like many before me in the thread I suggest that you politly express your displeasure with GW via feedback not only to a manager but also via writen form. Remember its not the manager or employee's fault, so be nice about it .

With some luck GW will not use this vender again, and maybe even re-release these items more in line with their pictured ads.

Thank you,
Blasto

I have finished my project and started a new thread for those that are interested.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/249508.page

Thanks!

H.B.M.C. wrote:Are you saying that GW wouldn't have known they were going to be vacu-formed, or that they wouldn't've cared?

No, I'm saying that GW knew they would be vacuum moulded, and that the loss of detail was a side-effect of that (possible badly done) vacuum moulding, not a deliberate change to reduce casting costs.

Or, in other words, that the standard 'bait with a nice prototype before making incredibly dodgy production versions' that has caught out other companies looking into cheap Chinese production in the past is a far more likely scenario than the one suggested by Luna.