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.

biccat wrote:I don't consider myself a GW apologist, and I do recognize that there are some problems with the models. But to be honest, I probably wouldn't care about these supposed "miscasts" if I purchased the product.

Just a few at random:

Draigo: Would return.
Black Ork Big Boss: Wouldn't return.
Lelith Hesperax: Wouldn't return.
Tyrannid Broodlord: Would return.
Uruk Hai: Would return.
Grimgor Ironhide: Wouldn't return.

I don't know if other people simply have higher standards than I do for models (possible) or they're just looking for a reason to complain about the Finecast models (also possible, less likely), but to me Wayland was being a little picky. At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.








Are you mad - a quater would be acceptable to most customers!!!!!!! I for one will not be spending any money on these products until the quality improves - if ever.



Then again, Wayland is within their right not to accept perfect tender. And they've probably made a business decision that they'll lose money selling and having to replace bad castings.

biccat wrote:I don't know if other people simply have higher standards than I do for models (possible) or they're just looking for a reason to complain about the Finecast models (also possible, less likely), but to me Wayland was being a little picky. At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.

You've hit upon a good point.

If I had purchased the damnable thing, my likelihood of getting pursuing a replacement are only governed partly by how bad the problem is.

Scenario 1: I am in a hurry and need the model for an event: In this case, I would likely grit my teeth and attempt to fix it. Models beyond my ability to fix, such as Draigo, would really piss me off and cause me to change my list. The unusable model, would be returned in this case and not exchanged.

Scenario 2: I am NOT in a hurry, and returning it would take less hassle than repairing it. In this case, I'd probably exchange it.

Scenario 3: I am NOT in a hurry and fixing it would take less hassle than returning it. Be it a drive, a phone call, mail out etc... sometimes, it takes less effort just to fix it. Should it require fixing right out of the box? Definitely not. I just bought 2 resin battle engines for Warmachine and one has some anoying mould slippage on a part of the undercarriage. I can still fix it, and in this case - I will, because I know that my FLGS (a) doesn't have any more to exchange, and (b) I don't have time to wrangle with PP customer service right now, considering how overburdened they are at the moment. I'm not happy about this, as the engines cost a fortune and shouldn't need this degree of fixing - (The first one was almost perfect - some minor damage and a few air bubbles), but it happens, and should only take around 5 minutes of greenstuff to fix.

Nonetheless, getting a defective product is a bit of a turnoff towards the product line IRRESPECTIVE of if I acted to return it or not. Getting CONSISTENT defects is a HUGE turn off. GW points to all those people that didn't return and claims that they are representative of satisfied customers... Quiet maybe, but if they think that they are all satisfied, they are just fooling themselves.

OK well besides that you really do not understand statistics its all fine. They made a point estimate based on a sample size of 60. You do not need to know the population size to get a reasonable estimates and confidence intervals. It doesn't matter if they sample 1% or 20% the confidence interval remains the same. Just FYI

What are you talking about? Ever heard of a confidence interval calculator? Two numbers 95% and 99% confidence can be decided by the sample size taken based on the population size.

To back up my point http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

@ancientsociety Thanks for breaking it down for me. I totally missed the fact that it isn't Wayland games responsibilty to QC GW but then why did they? hmmmm Looks like they bit off more than they could chew with making a statment of "For your information, we sampled and then assessed 60 sealed blisters with 30 taken at random from each of two deliveries of stock. Failures were 17 (57%) of 30 and 16 (53%) of 30, making 33 (55%) of 60 in total." Quoted from OP.

Kanluwen wrote:
And there's another variable that you're not accounting for, which is which "generation" of casts these were. The first production run was riddled with miscasts and things of that nature, but quality has reportedly improved since the "launch" of FineCast.

The reasons for the miscasts aren't the issue though, are they? GW saw fit to ship to their retailers a product that has flaws. That's a trust issue, with Wayland Games caught in the middle of a supplier who isn't conducted sufficient Quality Assurance, and customers who are likely to return products if they aren't satisfied.

If they've dealt with the issue, that's excellent news. But bad casts should be written off as GW's Research and Development costs, not part of their product rollout.

Wayland made their decision based on the percentage of the sample they believe their customers would have returned.

I'm inclined to believe Wayland know their customers a bit better than some random posters on Dakka, so if they believe a hair in the packaging is going to lead to a customer returning the product, that's their call to make. If they're wrong, then they'll suffer the consequences, If they're right, their customers will see Wayland is looking out for them, and their reputation gets a boost.

I think they made a good call. If they estimate the hassle of handling customer returns on a product line will outweigh the potential revenue generated, then they should drop the line.

I guess finecast ... isn't so fine after all ...

For me this is an issue of confidence and trust. I like this hobby and spend a lot of hard earned money on whatever my latest project is. GW do sell some of the bets minatures in the genre. Their plastic stuff is much better than any of their competitors and to some degree justifies the price. Added to which it is easy to assemble etc,

However, Finecast, at the moment, at least is not!! I dont have the necessary skills to use green stuff etc to repair defaults and as i order most stuff off the internet, frankly cant be bothered with taking the risk whatever i buy is defective and would need to be replaced. Im sure im not in the minority with this and many people will be put off by these horror stories.

what would be helpful would be something official from GW refencing these issues, either to dispel this critcism or to acknowledge it rather than waxing lyrical about how great it is.

However this will not happen, and i for one will look for ebay bargains for metal versions of the models i want and will steer clear of Finecast - like many others i assume.



PS - for all those apologists for poor quality - you know who you are, we shouldnt have to pay top dollar for rubbish just to get a hobby fix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Pael wrote:
@ancientsociety Thanks for breaking it down for me. I totally missed the fact that it isn't Wayland games responsibilty to QC GW but then why did they? hmmmm Looks like they bit off more than they could chew with making a statment of "For your information, we sampled and then assessed 60 sealed blisters with 30 taken at random from each of two deliveries of stock. Failures were 17 (57%) of 30 and 16 (53%) of 30, making 33 (55%) of 60 in total." Quoted from OP.

You're working a little too hard to shift the blame to Wayland Games. They made a good business decision, and decided to provide their customers with the reasoning behind their decision, backed up by empirical evidence. You feel they should have kept their findings secret? Who exactly does that serve?

I must applaud Wayland for taking initiative in customer satisfaction. Hopefully this will cause GW to rethink their whole Finecast line and come out with something much better.

On the subject of the current debate, I should note that if two hairs out of 33 is bad enough for anyone to claim that the entire assessment should be thrown out the window or taken with a grain of salt, then wouldn't that also mean that the remaining 31 models, who do show actual, serious miscasts, be good enough of a percentage to condemn the remainder of the line?

I feel I must also point out again (although several before me had) that Wayland is doing this on their own. They have no responsibility to do this and really shouldn't have to. They also mentioned that they've checked two shipments, possibly because they heard GW tried to fix the miscasts. They possibly heard of the backlash on the internet and decided to see for themselves. if GW products were as good as they say, it should have passed with flying colours. Evidently that did not happen.

They also listed that they do not consider the blisters to be of unsellable quality, but may cause concern with their customers. Going back to the Hair, this could show that the blister was tampered with somehow (the human hair being evident that it was not done in a clean enviroment). If a customer received that, they might feel Wayland was the one doing the tampering and had opened the blister, either taking something out or inserting something in, which would in turn damage Wayland's reputation where they had no fault in.

Just my two cents.

Pael wrote:

@ancientsociety Thanks for breaking it down for me. I totally missed the fact that it isn't Wayland games responsibilty to QC GW but then why did they?

...because there's been tons of detailed reviews over the past few weeks pointing out major issues with this product, they recognize it might be an issue for their customers, and they took the initiative to vet the product?

It's a little thing called customer service. A GW apologist like you wouldn't understand it.

Mastiff wrote:

Pael wrote:
@ancientsociety Thanks for breaking it down for me. I totally missed the fact that it isn't Wayland games responsibilty to QC GW but then why did they? hmmmm Looks like they bit off more than they could chew with making a statment of "For your information, we sampled and then assessed 60 sealed blisters with 30 taken at random from each of two deliveries of stock. Failures were 17 (57%) of 30 and 16 (53%) of 30, making 33 (55%) of 60 in total." Quoted from OP.

You're working a little too hard to shift the blame to Wayland Games. They made a good business decision, and decided to provide their customers with the reasoning behind their decision, backed up by empirical evidence. You feel they should have kept their findings secret? Who exactly does that serve?

Let me first apologize I do not mean to come across as argumentitive.

My first post was just to say that Wayland's "numbers" should not be taken seriously. This news should be considered anecdotal not as fact, since more information is needed.

I don't mind the GW bashing I just mind that the facts are straight and concise.

*edit for spelling...

Charax wrote:Wayland made their decision based on the percentage of the sample they believe their customers would have returned.

I'm inclined to believe Wayland know their customers a bit better than some random posters on Dakka, so if they believe a hair in the packaging is going to lead to a customer returning the product, that's their call to make. If they're wrong, then they'll suffer the consequences, If they're right, their customers will see Wayland is looking out for them, and their reputation gets a boost.

I think they made a good call. If they estimate the hassle of handling customer returns on a product line will outweigh the potential revenue generated, then they should drop the line.

Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

biccat wrote:.
At least 1/4 of their "rejects" wouldn't be objectionable to most customers.

I disagree. If I am paying $22.25 for a single miniature, it better be damned near perfect. Good on Wayland for doing what they're doing. Maybe others, like-minded, can get GW to step up in the QC department.

Also I, like others, am surprised to see any backlash at all over this. Course, it is Kanluwen.

Just from reading some of the opinions and rationales being posted in here, it's really no wonder that GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....

With regard to Finecast - some things are just indefensible. I would suggest even the most pro-GW fan would be at the least slightly peeved at receiving a mini with some of the defects that Wayland have highlighted. Trying to suggest that Wayland haven't been 100% scientific in their sample size or whatever is just missing the point completely. For a mini to be marketed as premium and for the price they are sold at, there should not be this type and range of defects, let alone pubes in the pack.

Kanluwen wrote:

Charax wrote:Wayland made their decision based on the percentage of the sample they believe their customers would have returned.

I'm inclined to believe Wayland know their customers a bit better than some random posters on Dakka, so if they believe a hair in the packaging is going to lead to a customer returning the product, that's their call to make. If they're wrong, then they'll suffer the consequences, If they're right, their customers will see Wayland is looking out for them, and their reputation gets a boost.

I think they made a good call. If they estimate the hassle of handling customer returns on a product line will outweigh the potential revenue generated, then they should drop the line.

Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

Hmmm, that's funny, not according to their returns policy:

"Returns Policy

You may return all unopened items purchased at Wayland Games within 7 days of the original delivery. We will pay the return shipping costs if the product is defective or the return is a result of our error. If the item is returned for any other reason you are responsible for the return shipping amount. No returned merchandise will be accepted without a Return Material Authorization (RMA). We will credit you in the same manner as your original payment within 7 days of receiving the returned item.

Instructions for returns will be supplied in response to an email. For questions regarding our return policy please use the "Contact Us" form link on this website."

http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/returns-policy/info_5.html

ancientsociety wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Charax wrote:Wayland made their decision based on the percentage of the sample they believe their customers would have returned.

I'm inclined to believe Wayland know their customers a bit better than some random posters on Dakka, so if they believe a hair in the packaging is going to lead to a customer returning the product, that's their call to make. If they're wrong, then they'll suffer the consequences, If they're right, their customers will see Wayland is looking out for them, and their reputation gets a boost.

I think they made a good call. If they estimate the hassle of handling customer returns on a product line will outweigh the potential revenue generated, then they should drop the line.

Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

Hmmm, that's funny, not according to their returns policy:

"Returns Policy

You may return all unopened items purchased at Wayland Games within 7 days of the original delivery. We will pay the return shipping costs if the product is defective or the return is a result of our error. If the item is returned for any other reason you are responsible for the return shipping amount. No returned merchandise will be accepted without a Return Material Authorization (RMA). We will credit you in the same manner as your original payment within 7 days of receiving the returned item.

Instructions for returns will be supplied in response to an email. For questions regarding our return policy please use the "Contact Us" form link on this website."

http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/returns-policy/info_5.html

GW has a great customer service where you can call them up and return any product for defects. All they ask is where you bought the item. Also just call me little Jervis cause I really don't care if I am viewed as a "GW apologist" I know where I spend my money.

knightdrake wrote:I believe Wayland has misunderstood these blister defects. These aren't defects in the product, they are intentional hobby challenge models. Select packages sent out to test the hobbist skills in modelling so they have a more involve experience with the minis.

I had a GW Troll (back when they still had them) try to feed me this line of bullfeces once. I was amazed that he actually tried it. Got to give him credit for having some spine and gall, I'll give him that.

Ultimately, one thing that is pretty interesting to me is how different sources seem to have different occurances of FAIL in Finecast. Mikhaila was reporting, a few weeks ago I think, that he was receiving few pieces that had issues. My FLGS back home tells me they have had very few issues, and yet here is Wayland taking sweeping action due to high rates of FAIL in the product they received. Ultimately, if it's bad, get it replaced; if it's good then paint it up.

What kind of experience are other sources reporting? DIfferent online sources and B&M?

Kanluwen wrote:
Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

No, they return it to the company that provided the item. They may ALSO have the option of returning to GW, but Wayland has a returns policy in place, which means Wayland pays twice to ship a defective product.

Of course, Wayland Games risks losing a customer, wondering why WG didn't notice the missing bolter. It takes much more effort to gain new customers than it does to keep existing customers, it makes perfect sense not to take unavoidable risks.

puma713 wrote:
I disagree. If I am paying $22.25 for a single miniature, it better be damned near perfect. Good on Wayland for doing what they're doing. Maybe others, like-minded, can get GW to step up in the QC department.

Also I, like others, am surprised to see any backlash at all over this...

I agree. If I'm forking out that much money for a model, I should be able to open that model, paint it up, and set it on the table.

If Wayland games sells finecast models that are lacking quality, what does that say about wayland? What about their other products? This would enter my mind the instant I opened up my package and spotted a problem: "Not ordering from there anymore, this model sucks." But, as well, it's not wayland's fault for the miscasts, it is GW's.

I appreciate all the previous examples of "well, it's not that bad" in comparison to whatever. If I pay for a $700 computer, it better be in pristine condition, ready to run when I want it to. I forked out the cash, paid for it's capabilities, it better have them.

Same goes for miniatures: $22.50 + S&H for a messed up mini? No way. Hair or not.

filbert wrote:Just from reading some of the opinions and rationales being posted in here, it's really no wonder that GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....

That's completely unnecessary, thanks. Trying to blame GW for your name-calling doesn't make them less insulting.

grizgrin wrote:
What kind of experience are other sources reporting? DIfferent online sources and B&M?

Try:

Google-Fu
http://frothersunite.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=683659#683659
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=87820
http://piratevikingpainting.blogspot.com/2011/05/finecast-review.html
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/371719.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/371720.page#2856689
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=234667
http://www.fantasyladen.de/cgi-bin/frameset/link.pl?LINK=http://www.fantasyladen.de/ausgepackt/110615/finecastfolterer.html

I've yet to find an entirely positive review...

Also consider that this is the same type of resin Mantic is currently using and customers are reporting no issues.

Mastiff wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

No, they return it to the company that provided the item. They may ALSO have the option of returning to GW, but Wayland has a returns policy in place, which means Wayland pays twice to ship a defective product.

Of course, Wayland Games risks losing a customer, wondering why WG didn't notice the missing bolter. It takes much more effort to gain new customers than it does to keep existing customers, it makes perfect sense not to take unavoidable risks.

Just adding on: Many companies perform seemingly redundant checks and all to ensure that they're not liable for damages they didn't incur. Wayland has the return policy, so does GW. But GW doesn't ask for the product back (usually). Someone could potentially exploit this and tell GW of the miscast, keeping the miscast pieces, then sending them back to Wayland for a refund, while still getting an essentially free miniature from GW. This also puts Wayland in the firing line for potential legal damages (being accused of exploiting the system to get free products. Even if Wayland had nothing to do with it and was to have found to not be at fault, it's still a legal battle with costs).

Mastiff wrote:

filbert wrote:Just from reading some of the opinions and rationales being posted in here, it's really no wonder that GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....

That's completely unnecessary, thanks. Trying to blame GW for your name-calling doesn't make them less insulting.

My name calling? I suggest you read and inwardly digest the following threads:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/420/369325.page#2981277

http://www.infinitythegame.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=5052&pid=96428#pid96428

Customers don't return product to Wayland Games. They return it to GW.

I'd assume that GW know their customers' returns a bit better than Wayland Games, who have no involvement whatsoever in the returns process.

So stores have no obligation to insure that the products that they sell to their clients are of good quality? GW never should have let these things leave the factory. As a shop owner I have returned product back to the warehouse if it was not fit for my customers. I'm not losing customers because of your faults. I will not allow you to inconvenience my customers, I worked hard to get them.

With the prices that GW charge I expect nothing but perfection, if they can't deliver then they better stop charging like they can. I don't mind flash so much, but if I ever have to GS something I'm returning it. I don't care if it's a bubble nose, I must now spend extra time and material on a product that is priced for perfection.

The hairs while not a quality call on the miniature scream no QC, and while I might be able to get over the hair other people wont. I'd take it if it was the last one, but you can bet if there was another one there I'd grab it. Any defect is a defect.

Ultimately, one thing that is pretty interesting to me is how different sources seem to have different occurances of FAIL in Finecast. Mikhaila was reporting, a few weeks ago I think, that he was receiving few pieces that had issues. My FLGS back home tells me they have had very few issues, and yet here is Wayland taking sweeping action due to high rates of FAIL in the product they received. Ultimately, if it's bad, get it replaced; if it's good then paint it up.

They may not know unless they checked themselves. If I got a bad one I'd call GW and get a new one while keeping the old one for bits. My retailer would never know. Unless I then decided to return the miscast to the retailer also.

Pael wrote:
GW has a great customer service where you can call them up and return any product for defects. All they ask is where you bought the item. Also just call me little Jervis cause I really don't care if I am viewed as a "GW apologist" I know where I spend my money.

Oh, I love GW too. You know why? The quality of their miniatures. I haven't complained once about the consistently rising prices for the last 25 years because I've seen an equal improvement in quality over that time.

But I won't stand for letting quality slide. They aren't a newcomer to the game, so they don't get to take a pass on first run mistakes. Quality Assurance needs to be part of their R&D costs, not just handed over to their customers.

htj wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Looks more to me like Wayland's implementing their own version of "Quality Control" and deciding anything is a flaw.

2 out of 31, though. That still leaves 29 of those images that are depicting genuine flaws.

I swear, you guys are a bunch of bellyachers. Just smear some superglue over the problem spots like GW said and stop being such sissies about it.

Mastiff wrote:

Pael wrote:
GW has a great customer service where you can call them up and return any product for defects. All they ask is where you bought the item. Also just call me little Jervis cause I really don't care if I am viewed as a "GW apologist" I know where I spend my money.

Oh, I love GW too. You know why? The quality of their miniatures. I haven't complained once about the consistently rising prices for the last 25 years because I've seen an equal improvement in quality over that time.

But I won't stand for letting quality slide. They aren't a newcomer to the game, so they don't get to take a pass on first run mistakes. Quality Assurance needs to be part of their R&D costs, not just handed over to their customers.

I agree I am pretty surprised with this release/switch in general.

1- A complete overhaul of their lines with little to no announcement of the change to customers.
2- No information after the fact. Just hey guys to "save money" we are switching to this "stuff" we aren't going to tell you about. No a thing, nothing nope. Not even hey we would but you know trade secrets and all.
3- Amateur production, yes we barley even noticed the switch. One minute metal the next “finecast” but a lot of their product seems shoved out the door.

It would be real interesting to see the numbers GW has for their QC. If any are even taken.

I may just go out and purposely by a bunch of miscasts. If GW sends me new ones, I just got a bunch of free minis and I'll return the miss casts to the store. Winning!

Doesn't matter what generation something is. If it's a miscast it's a miscast. Even if castings will get better over time, is like 3 weeks enough for that to happen? Even if there's been a 10% improvement since the very first cast, it doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be selling an inferior product when they claim it's the bestest in the whole wide world.

Kanluwen wrote:

I really, really want to know exactly what they're using as standards for "unsellable". It seems quite frankly...random as heck.



I'm not sure where you think this is "random", other than the fact that you took 2 random images with hairs in them to support your "defense".

lol for best talkback ever.