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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
Thumbs up to them for ditching it fast. GW has responded to the people.

Fast?

I dunno, 3 years* is probably fast in GW land.






*Finecrap debuted in 2011 didn't it?

Dwarfus wrote:
A GW's manager explain me that The plastic model are more detailed than finecast /resin model, so they 've in mind to replace it.

You realize the manager was lying to you right? Metal and finecast(when it worked) always had more detail then plastic did. Plastic gave you more options, the others gave you better detail.

I'd hazard it cost them more money in replacements with the finecast rollout. They seemed to change their replacement policy- including asking customers to return model and asking them to fix it first, under finecast. All those models and shipping costs add up over time.

So, someone help me wrap me head around this. If a plastic Space Marine clampack character is now priced at US$30, what would a plastic character in a less popular range cost? Plastics have a more expensive production cost, so they need to sell more/have a longer production run to recoup the investment.

Does this mean we'll see things like plastic Dark Eldar Archon sculpts in production for 20 years or will their characters cost US$50? Or does the current US$30 pricepoint take this sales volume of less popular lines into account, making SM players carry the burden for a larger line of plastic characters?

Lots of implications. But, no worries coz MOAR PLASTICS!!!!!!!1!!!!one!! amirite?

I dunno. Plastic is all good & well for most infantry, support units etc. but when talking about characters - who have to stand out sculptwise - the fact is that most of the plastic character sculpts are huge meh compared to their metal/Finecast predecessors. Well, if they continue to be available from Forgeworld, then it's okay I guess.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

My next question is WHY?

Because it's a terrible product introduced as a cheaper alternative to metal while they prepared to go full plastic. Finecast has always had rumours that it was a temporary measure. It's a substandard product at premium rates.

Absolutely true. Fc was a stopgap that let them use resin in existing molds. If it had worked well, it might have gone on longer. GW wants to use plastic because they make the most money on plastic.

Well, being the rebellious sort, I actually really like finecast. I didn't mind the cost of the "fragility" of it, it was a darn sit easier to use and glue together than metal. At least in finecast you can glue models like sanginor, or Asteroth with any much problems, and certainly the old vanguard vets were easier to build in finecast. But those are only my views from what I have done and used for them. Also, you can add plastic to resin with more ease than plastic to metal.

Well, i am not impressed with the current plastic space marine character releases, i hope they will improve

Well, ding dong and all of that.

 ph34r wrote:
Thumbs up to them for ditching it fast. GW has responded to the people.

Agreed, but they're likely just responding to their bottom line. There's no way finecast models have sold as well as they expected, with all the quality issues, bad press, and resulting unpopularity with gamers.

I just bought my first Finecast blister last month in I don't know how long... after not buying any since just after it's release! If even a small fraction of gamers behaved similarly "voting with their wallets", then GW's hand was forced simply from a profitability perspective.

I love how people are attributing this move to GW trying to please the customer base. I guess you all missed the rumors when Finecadt came out about it only being a stop-gap measure.

 Mick A wrote:
Just as I said on here back in August... Now wait for all the rumours to start again about GW making themselves more appealing to certain big toy companies (no dangerous metal minis and soon to be no resin, just good old kiddy safe plastic...)

Oh, and do people really think they're doing it because they listened to they're customers?!?

Bingo! GW is getting a boob job and a facelift so Hasbro will it. My money is that GW's recent behavior over the past year has been motivated by buyout negotiations. GW is pushing out all of the backlog of extant stock it can and throwing around video game licenses to keep its revenue looking okay, and has been implementing lots of a-typical changes that could very well be smoothing over dealbreakers or be indicative of changes being actively implemented by the buyer in anticipation of a completed deal.

In this context Gill Stevenson leaving could certainly have been motivated by an effort to appease concerns about the Chapterhouse litigation, which I don't think would scare off a buyer, but a big corporate buyer would absolutely demand indemnification and reduce the price by the amount of potential exposure, which is in the 7 figures, so not a small amount.

We'll have to wait and see, but I think the 8-ball is definitely showing "signs point to yes."

I'm still of the mind that the claims of GW trying to get a buyout are still too far out there. Much less a British company selling themselves to an American toy company.

I'm chalking that up to wishful thinking of a higher degree than that of a plastic Thunderhawk.

Interesting.

This goes in line with a lot of what Ive been hearing.

GW is relaunching its new website in 2014 and all GW stores will have access to forgeworld at their GW stores, and be apart of the GW website.

FW is changing all its resin to something cheaper (unknown if finecast)

If this is true that means you either are going to pay through the teeth for shipping or you are forced to go to a GW store. Regardless gak is gonna get expensive.

So if they are pulling finecast, what is going to happen to fairly recent releases like commander farsight - I can't really picture him in plastic.

I like finecast so I'll be a bit sad to see it phased out. It has been incredibly easy to work with.

From my local GW store, the manager said you'll be able o get the FW stuff, but they will still be charging shipping. He wasn't too pleased about it as well .

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm still of the mind that the claims of GW trying to get a buyout are still too far out there. Much less a British company selling themselves to an American toy company.

I'm chalking that up to wishful thinking of a higher degree than that of a plastic Thunderhawk.

I don't think many would call it "wishful thinking." I suspect that folks who actually like Games Workshop do not want to see it bought out by a big corporation, and the folks who don't like GW could give a crap who owned the company's assets.

You can't measure much in terms of actual behavior against the release of a plastic Thunderhawk, though there is some evidence in the release of big, splashy kits and whatnot. When it comes to rumors of a buyout there's plenty of evidence out there that lends credence to rumors. It is not simply a matter of rumors, though there are plenty of those and from decent sources regarding a buyout.

It is fair to say that at this point a buyout is still very speculative, but I think it is naive to call it "wishful thinking." Evidence that would support such an inference is out there and there is a lot of it. Such evidence however points to several different just as likely conclusions, in my opinion, making it speculative. It would be "wishful thinking" if there was no evidence to support the inference and/or lots of evidence that directly contradicts it, of which I have seen none.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

My next question is WHY?

Because it's a terrible product introduced as a cheaper alternative to metal while they prepared to go full plastic. Finecast has always had rumours that it was a temporary measure. It's a substandard product at premium rates.

This sums up finecast:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm still of the mind that the claims of GW trying to get a buyout are still too far out there. Much less a British company selling themselves to an American toy company.

I'm chalking that up to wishful thinking of a higher degree than that of a plastic Thunderhawk.

You realise there are a lot of british companies, including toy companies, that are owned by us based companies (amid others) right?

FC needs to go. I just got some FC incubi from a guy the other day. I didn't like the paintjob so I set about some research in stripping the models. Most people said Bluewolf cleaner or Brake Fluid worked good. The bluewolf barely took any paint off. The brake fluid took all the paint off by warped and made the models brittle. For reasons like this FC models have hardly any resell value and I have no intentions of getting anymore.

weeble1000 wrote:
I don't think many would call it "wishful thinking." I suspect that folks who actually like Games Workshop do not want to see it bought out by a big corporation, and the folks who don't like GW could give a crap who owned the company's assets.

Oh, it is wishful thinking. GW's biggest problems are caused by their incompetent management and lazy unprofessional game designers. Selling the IP to WOTC (or someone similar) and purging the entire management and game design staff would improve the games significantly in the long run. It's just unfortunate that GW seems to be able to keep their profits up for a while longer and any hypothetical sale won't come until after GW has done even more damage to their games.

All finecast going to forgeworld?Looks at hobbit charactersEAR TOLKIEN NO,I CANT PAY THOSE BISTERDS PRICES AND HOW WILL THIS GAME GET SALES/NEW PLAYERS WHEN HALF THE STUFF ISNT EVEN INSTORES!(Begins LOTR sbg rebellion.)Also:Won't this Hasbro theaory DESTROY the few LOTR sales since EVERY single non movie warrior box is metal/Failcast and has NO chance of being profitable enough to justify plastic.

 mikhaila wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

My next question is WHY?

Because it's a terrible product introduced as a cheaper alternative to metal while they prepared to go full plastic. Finecast has always had rumours that it was a temporary measure. It's a substandard product at premium rates.

Absolutely true. Fc was a stopgap that let them use resin in existing molds. If it had worked well, it might have gone on longer. GW wants to use plastic because they make the most money on plastic.

Mostly because plastic pellets cost a couple cents by the pound.

GWs biggest mistake was mentioning that finecast resin was 1/10th the cost of pewter back when they switched, then mentioned plastic is much cheaper then that. So plastic kits going at pewter costs is gouging in its purest form.

weeble1000 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm still of the mind that the claims of GW trying to get a buyout are still too far out there. Much less a British company selling themselves to an American toy company.

I'm chalking that up to wishful thinking of a higher degree than that of a plastic Thunderhawk.

I don't think many would call it "wishful thinking." I suspect that folks who actually like Games Workshop do not want to see it bought out by a big corporation, and the folks who don't like GW could give a crap who owned the company's assets.

You can't measure much in terms of actual behavior against the release of a plastic Thunderhawk, though there is some evidence in the release of big, splashy kits and whatnot. When it comes to rumors of a buyout there's plenty of evidence out there that lends credence to rumors. It is not simply a matter of rumors, though there are plenty of those and from decent sources regarding a buyout.

It is fair to say that at this point a buyout is still very speculative, but I think it is naive to call it "wishful thinking." Evidence that would support such an inference is out there and there is a lot of it. Such evidence however points to several different just as likely conclusions, in my opinion, making it speculative. It would be "wishful thinking" if there was no evidence to support the inference and/or lots of evidence that directly contradicts it, of which I have seen none.

You haven't seen the threads I have which contain posts like "I hope GW gets bought out by Hasbro/Lego/WotC/ect". It's wishful thinking by a number of people that's bleeding over to everyone else.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DrSchwartz wrote:
So same goes for plastic and resin. Yes resin/metal is highly detailed and provides modelling tricks that plastic can't accomplish AS WELL AS resin, however it is still very detailed in it's own right, and it doesn't suffer from as many defects as resin does.

You have a right to have low standards. Some of us, however, don't share them.

I have bought the odd finecast model, and yes they are superbly detailed and look good once completed, they require to much work to put together, and dare you break off a sword or even a finger (did this once on a cryptek), it is the single biggest pain in the bum to get back on. Although if you do this with plastic the thing may not snap off but will be eternally screwed, it has a much lesser chance of snapping and is way more durable.

That's because you're talking about finecast, not resin. Finecast is garbage, it's a terrible material cast by incompetent people and sold with nonexistent quality control. Real resin kits do not have those problems.

1) Plastic is not low standards. Yes it's detail is inferior to some other compounds however it is still very detailed, and I am not trying to press my opinions on anyone.

2) Well yes of course I am talking about finecast here, as this is the matter of the topic.

 DrSchwartz wrote:
1) Plastic is not low standards. Yes it's detail is inferior to some other compounds however it is still very detailed, and I am not trying to press my opinions on anyone.

Like I said, low standards. Plastic may be adequate for basic troops or if you don't care too much about painting, but resin indisputably allows a better and more detailed model. If GW moves everything to plastic there will be sacrifices in quality. And the fact that you're content with the "adequate" plastic kits says way more about your standards than about the quality of the models.

2) Well yes of course I am talking about finecast here, as this is the matter of the topic.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that plastic is the answer. Finecast is garbage, but the solution is proper resin casting, not moving all those models over to plastic and throwing away quality.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm still of the mind that the claims of GW trying to get a buyout are still too far out there. Much less a British company selling themselves to an American toy company.

I'm chalking that up to wishful thinking of a higher degree than that of a plastic Thunderhawk.

I don't think many would call it "wishful thinking." I suspect that folks who actually like Games Workshop do not want to see it bought out by a big corporation, and the folks who don't like GW could give a crap who owned the company's assets.

You can't measure much in terms of actual behavior against the release of a plastic Thunderhawk, though there is some evidence in the release of big, splashy kits and whatnot. When it comes to rumors of a buyout there's plenty of evidence out there that lends credence to rumors. It is not simply a matter of rumors, though there are plenty of those and from decent sources regarding a buyout.

It is fair to say that at this point a buyout is still very speculative, but I think it is naive to call it "wishful thinking." Evidence that would support such an inference is out there and there is a lot of it. Such evidence however points to several different just as likely conclusions, in my opinion, making it speculative. It would be "wishful thinking" if there was no evidence to support the inference and/or lots of evidence that directly contradicts it, of which I have seen none.

You haven't seen the threads I have which contain posts like "I hope GW gets bought out by Hasbro/Lego/WotC/ect". It's wishful thinking by a number of people that's bleeding over to everyone else.

Wanting something to happen does not mean that predicting it is wishful thinking. I wish I had a billion dollars. I do not expect a billion dollars to materialize in my lap, and if it did, I like to think that I would be incredibly skeptical about it and assume that I might be suffering from sort of adult onset schizophrenia. I wish I did not feel hungry. I predict that as I am now eating lunch I will not feel hungry in half an hour. I wish that I get a good bonus this year. I predict that I will get a good bonus because I have worked hard this year, met goals, billed more hours over last year, and have received compliments from my employer. Wanting something to happen might bias one towards thinking it will happen, but that does not make deductive reasoning impossible.

For example, I think GW is getting bought out. If GW is getting bought out, I think it would probably be Hasbro. This does not mean I cannot say that such thinking is speculative. It is. But it is not wishful in the sense that a buyout is one possible scenario that seems to fit with the available data. I have not seen any evidence that suggests a buyout is an unreasonable inference to make. The fact that some folks wish a buyout was in the works is not evidence that contradicts the existence of a buyout.

Do you know something that makes inferring the existence of a buyout unreasonable? If you do I'd love to know. Until I see some I will continue to think that amongst the possible scenarios that fit available information, a buyout is the most likely. This particular opinion, that a buyout is the most likely scenario, is certainly the product of personal bias. I'd like to see a buyout happen, but that does not prevent me from A) recognizing that bias and B) thinking critically.

 the_Armyman wrote:
So, someone help me wrap me head around this. If a plastic Space Marine clampack character is now priced at US$30, what would a plastic character in a less popular range cost?

$20, going by the plastic Shadowblade and Fleet Admiral for Dark Elves.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
So will Eldar now be squatted?

As long as it brings the Squats back I'm fully behind that

LMAO!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dang it! I was about to chance it and buy the tech-marine with the Thunderfire Cannon... Guess I'll wait for a plastic kit... what, maybe 10 years?

 gossipmeng wrote:
So if they are pulling finecast, what is going to happen to fairly recent releases like commander farsight - I can't really picture him in plastic.

I like finecast so I'll be a bit sad to see it phased out. It has been incredibly easy to work with.

There were rumours of a new XV8 sprue that would have included Farsight/Generic Commander parts in the box.

I really hope that this means that we get more HQ 'multibuild packs' in plastic.
Like the SM commander, Empire Wizards, High Elf Lord, Orc Warboss/banner, CSM termie Lord etc.
I'd be happy to spend £30-£50 on a set that included 3 to 5 Captain, Wizard, Hero, Pysker multibuild models for the same army.

Being able to buy all of the HQ options for an army, 'in a handy in-store box', is a very GW kind of thing to do.
A cheeky add on to the 'Well what you need is core box/rules, battleforce, paints aaaaaand this cool extra £40 box gives you all the leaders with the cool rules for your army'.

Hopefuly there would be loads of great bits in the box and if I needed to buy a second box then the spares would go on ebay or be made into a Vet squad/sergeants/captains etc.
I dunno, just a thought but I think that it's possibly a viable way to do all HQs in plastic with re-cuts for existing armies and minimal new sprues?

Edited to insert GW bash:
Chances are that they'll just release more clamshells with awful weapon loadouts and no weapon options.
These great new kits are in very 'dynamic' (hard to disguise the sillouette with conversions)poses.
That's more like it!