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.

I'm really, really thinking it's a bad batch and the customer service reps haven't been told.

It wouldn't be the first time, it took them almost a month to know the citadel spraybrush wasn't working like it was supposed to.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm really, really thinking it's a bad batch and the customer service reps haven't been told.

It wouldn't be the first time, it took them almost a month to know the citadel spraybrush wasn't working like it was supposed to.

I thought that was an actual error in the design of the spraybrush, rather than simply a bad production batch?

Lagduf wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I'm really, really thinking it's a bad batch and the customer service reps haven't been told.

It wouldn't be the first time, it took them almost a month to know the citadel spraybrush wasn't working like it was supposed to.

I thought that was an actual error in the design of the spraybrush, rather than simply a bad production batch?

That's what I was referring to.
People were having issues with it and reporting the issues with the first shipments of them--but the CS reps didn't know it, until after a month or so.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
To check them. To see if more of them are like this. Maybe it was a bad run, or the initial batch are all screwy - doesn't matter - just take a look and report back.

Im sure thats what GW will tell us "its a bad batch"

though how gullible do they take us for , im sure they have done quality checks >.>

LunaHound wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
To check them. To see if more of them are like this. Maybe it was a bad run, or the initial batch are all screwy - doesn't matter - just take a look and report back.

Im sure thats what GW will tell us "its a bad batch"

though how gullible do they take us for , im sure they have done quality checks >.>

Or you could realize that bad batches DO get through quality checks, and not just from GW.

That's why companies do these magical things called "product recalls".

And hey, if GW futzes up--it's not killing anyone, and just like every other company who ever does a product recall, they WILL replace it.

LunaHound wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
To check them. To see if more of them are like this. Maybe it was a bad run, or the initial batch are all screwy - doesn't matter - just take a look and report back.

Im sure thats what GW will tell us "its a bad batch"

though how gullible do they take us for , im sure they have done quality checks >.>

Tell that to all the people that got an IG Codex instead of Planetstrike!

I ordered mine directly from GW, it only shipped Mondayish, I will post pictures when I get mine.

yeah,
H.B.M.C.
I think the first email responce from GW was a bit cheeky!
your second email explains the issue perfectly, I'm looking forward to your next GW response.

I can't see many people being happy with these, and despite how much I want blastscapes, I think these are going back.
And I'll be complaining in writing about the level of misinformation...

PAnic...

cancelled my preorder for now

Kanluwen wrote:

Lagduf wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I'm really, really thinking it's a bad batch and the customer service reps haven't been told.

It wouldn't be the first time, it took them almost a month to know the citadel spraybrush wasn't working like it was supposed to.

I thought that was an actual error in the design of the spraybrush, rather than simply a bad production batch?

That's what I was referring to.
People were having issues with it and reporting the issues with the first shipments of them--but the CS reps didn't know it, until after a month or so.

My point still stands:

The Citadel Spraybrush had a fundamental error in its design that caused it to be dangerous.

That is different from simply a "bad batch" of spraybrushes.

Hopefully these Blastscapes are just from a couple bad batches rather than the whole lot of them just being poorly produced [ie what the customers would consider to be a design flaw]

Ah, see I misunderstood you then

But yeah. If it's a big issue with the blastscape, I'd fully expect them to do a big huge news post about it like they did with the spraybrush.

yeah,
Kanluwen... People are losing eyes!

jamunition wrote:AAARGH there disgusting take them away please! (gouges out eyes)

Panic...

I got mine from my local GW on pre order yesterday, on closer inspctions it's the same as everyone elses, and yes i'm dissapointed. I'll probably talk to my local store manager at the weekend

Hi Guys,

So after reading everyones replies I must say I have an opinion. Before I say that, I must also point out I pre ordered these stupid things already and should have mine in a couple days.

Now, the picture on GW's site clearly is or are, one off terrain models. I have built terrain for a very long time and the only way to get those crisp rock edges you see in the color pictures is with high density foam. If anyone knows foam its me, lol. Also on the hatch thing you can see that they used plastic card for the very top edges of the design. Only plastic card can create that hard edge metal look so it has to be the product used. After a little painting and easy dry brushing you get those amazing pics.

So why would GW do something so out of this world as to post pics of nice models and send out trash. Well, its about money. As you all know, blown plastic is cheap. Its outrageously cheap in China and I can't imagine each one of those crappy blown craters costing GW more then $ .50 each their cost. No joke, I looked into this for a Battle Foam project. I got quoted $ .50 freakin cents for a terrain piece made in China as long as I ordered 500 pieces.

I was looking into it for an upcoming tournament we are hosting.

So anyway, like I said. Its about money. GW surly ordered more then 500. Heck, they may of ordered 5000 so their price could be even lower per unit. Yet like suckers we get in line and we buy it because its new and cool. GW probably was thinking nobody would notice. Make a quick buck and pull the product later as a limited item type deal.

Well, I must say that if mine look like any of the ones pictured, I'm getting my money back. Knowing GW spent $.50 cents to make that crap and they want $20.00 is almost stomach turning.

As President Bush said.

" Fool me wants, shame on you, Fool me twice................ Oh, you just can't fool me again, you know"

Romeo
Battle Foam

Just got off the phone with the Amsterdam store, I can trade in the crappy ones for a new bag Saturday at no extra cost.

Let us know how that goes.

I'll probably head into my local GW on Saturday (it's sad that they're literally 5 mins up the road) and see what they'll do for mine.

well, a new bag doesnt necessarily equal a good quality bag now does it? A shame really. I liked em a lot.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Let us know how that goes.

I'll probably head into my local GW on Saturday (it's sad that they're literally 5 mins up the road) and see what they'll do for mine.

Has that ever tempted you to buy from the local store instead of maelstorm?

Walk up the road for five minutes... or save 30% off all GW items.... hmm... I'll take the "spend less money" option thanks.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Walk up the road for five minutes... or save 30% off all GW items.... hmm... I'll take the "spend less money" option thanks.

That means you arnt a compulsive buyer ;p

Well, they promise to put one aside for me "as they'll be selling like naked pictures of Keeley Hazel with her hand not covering the lower area" on Saturday. I'm not that optimistic yet, as when I presented my case of the markers not looking like those on the site the red/blue shirt quickly shouted that they weren't pre-painted products.

But I'll give the bag a look before I take it home. And if it's the same crappy quality as before I'll just take a bag of Moonscape or dare I say, a refund thankyouverymuch.

And the moral of the story... never pre-order!

Sure you (probably) get it on the day of the release, but there is a distinct chance that it'll disappoint.

I've learned with GW (and anyone else) never to buy anything unless until I'm damned certain of the quality.

That can be a result of seeing it in the flesh, or more likely (as I never go to GW stores these days) seeing an independent review of some discription.

I'm not in any way criticising anyone for making their "buy" decision based on GW's previously published photos as GW on te whole don't tend to pull too many shennanikins, but as they say, once bitten, twice shy!

And of course, its worth remembering that GW aren't the first or the only miniatures manufacturer to pull the somewhat shady trick of advertising forthcoming releases with gorgeously painted studio photos, only to have the actual products that hit the street be somewhat worse quality. I recall Mongoose' Battlefield Evo figures and Rackham's in the early days of CAoR. Both learned terrible lessons with massive financial implications about the perils of misleading advert pictures.

I'm not making any assumptions as to why they advertised one thing and sold something different - for instance they themselves could have been misled as to quality by a third party manufacturer. But right now the ONLY recourse they have that will restore any respect from me over the matter is to take down the misleading images and replace them with ones of the actual product being sold, and to offer refunds to anyone who bought them on pre-order on false pretenses. To do anything less stinks. I hope and trust GW's reputation for quality in customer support will lead them to the same conclusion.

Personally I was considering buying them myself, but after seeing these pics - no way! I do own the moonscape craters, which were perfectly fine after a coat of texture spray, but these.... nah. As someone said above - if I wanted cheap, vacu-formed low-detail terrain, I'd buy it from Amera at a fraction of the price.

Alternitavely, you could take a plaster-casting of a Cow-flop and pour some resin in it.

They would look better too. More detail.

I would send them A e-mail with your photos..its not like their stuff is Cheap..................

Osbad wrote: But right now the ONLY recourse they have that will restore any respect from me over the matter is to take down the misleading images and replace them with ones of the actual product being sold, and to offer refunds to anyone who bought them on pre-order on false pretenses. To do anything less stinks. I hope and trust GW's reputation for quality in customer support will lead them to the same conclusion.

Alternatively, they could recall the faulty stuff, give a voucher or something like that, and have it cast properly.
You'd have to wait some time for you scenery, of course.

I'm very glad with this thread, as I was planning to get these. I would have assumed these would be the same excellent quality as the moonscape craters.
How big are the odds the crashed lander scenery is equally bad?

The crashed Lander is plastic most likely, seeing as the Macragge shuttle was done that way.

Was in GW at lunch and having bought planetstrike, was asked whether I'd be interested in any of the "fantastic new terrain". I grinned, thinking of this thread, and said "No thanks."

EDIT - The book's pretty cool though... Needs more army specific strategems though. At least 1 attacker and defender per race.

The point about vac-formed pieces is when you blow the plastic down onto the form, the side in contact gets all the detail. The other side comes out 'blobby' because of the thickness of the plastic.

GW's suppliers have done the vac-forming on the wrong form. They should have taken a master form off the top of the piece shown in WD, then blown the plastic into it from below. Does this make sense?

It could be a fairly trivial mistake in the chain of making positive and negative moulds and masters.

Keep sending in complaints to GW.
This is borderline fraud. Not only does the terrain pieces lack detail, they are clearly not the ones being shown off on the GW page (apart from spaceship and boulder detail/crispness, just look at the individual boulders, not even spaces between them...).

No way GW can claim the painted pics are of the actual product.
It would take *a lot* more time (and talent) to fix a really poor vac-formed scenery piece than to scratch build a new one.

Hoping for a "Total Recall".

We have three coming in 1 for our shop table, one for a customer and one for sale on the wall. If they look remotely like this tomorrow they'll be sent back for a refund.

Damn shame - they've had a close to perfect 3 year run with all their terrain items......

Fred

I am certainly disappointed to see the bad quality. However, I am neither shocker or surprised because they did exactly the same with Moonscape. They advertised Moonscape craters using either Chad's masters or resin copies of them and the actual vacuformed pieces turned out to be much lower in quality. While the Moonscape craters weren't quite as horrible as these, they weren't very good either. On a positive side, my experience with Moonscape prevented me from pre-ordering these, thus saving me a few buckazoids.