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.

 NAVARRO wrote:
So i therms of prices all stayed the same? If that is the case

Saurus Warriors and Saurus Guard (formerly Temple Guard) dropped in price per model, the latter by quite a bit actually.

Thats good news! Tempted with a small force of lizzies.

So, do you think they are getting Rid of the Old char and only keeping the "Leaders" like Kroak. Maybe Nagash and his mortarchs? But keeping the Characters models?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, do you think they are getting Rid of the Old char and only keeping the "Leaders" like Kroak. Maybe Nagash and his mortarchs? But keeping the Characters models?

They have gotten rid of a few models, it seems. The plastic oldblood is missing, for one. A few of the other hero models are gone as well, and some have been changed from named characters to generic ones.

 mikhaila wrote:
Originally Finecase was an attempt to use a cheaper product than metal in the exact same mold process they used for metal. Results were not good, as we saw. Metal is heavy and forces itself into the mold better as it spins. It wasn't innovation, it was a stopgap on the way to all plastic. They just stuck a nice label on a turd.

I could be wrong, but finecast doesn't strike me as having been spun cast. The large frame you get on a finecast model is more something that doesn't really work with spin casting. My understanding was it was some sort of hybrid between regular resin casting and something more akin to plastic injection casting as those frames are more similar to what you'd get in that process. In spin casting it was my understanding that the vents have to be carefully angled, where as the vents on finecast models go every which way.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
Originally Finecase was an attempt to use a cheaper product than metal in the exact same mold process they used for metal. Results were not good, as we saw. Metal is heavy and forces itself into the mold better as it spins. It wasn't innovation, it was a stopgap on the way to all plastic. They just stuck a nice label on a turd.

I could be wrong, but finecast doesn't strike me as having been spun cast. The large frame you get on a finecast model is more something that doesn't really work with spin casting. My understanding was it was some sort of hybrid between regular resin casting and something more akin to plastic injection casting as those frames are more similar to what you'd get in that process. In spin casting it was my understanding that the vents have to be carefully angled, where as the vents on finecast models go every which way.

Yeah, I agree. I always wondered when people talked about Finecast using molds designed for metal.

From my understanding most metal models are spin cast in centrifugal rubber or silicone molds. The metal is poured down the center of a doughnut shaped disc and the centrifugal force pushes the molten metal outwards. To make it work, they use low melting point metals, like lead or pewter -- or they can use certain resins and thermoplastics.

But Finecast models look like the material is forced through a sprue (obviously, since they come on sprues...), and you wouldn't use a sprue system on a centrifugal mold, because that just doesn't make sense. Forge World models and Privateer Press resin pieces have the resin come in though big feeds on one end, and vents on the other, on the other hand, which is another process all together.

For the metal models, because the material is expensive, you don't want to leave too much excess material, so you don't have systems where you have sprues or large feeds. So, I don't see how any of the molds would be interchangeable Though, it is conceivable that the molds use the same equipment as some metal models? I don't know enough about the subject to be able to say -- these are just random thoughts.

In any case, Finecast models can be good or not so good, but the same goes with Forgeworld models. You can buy 2 Sicaran tanks, and one can be awesome, and the other can require *tons* of prep with all sorts of badly warped parts with scars all over the surface. I have 2 of the limited edition Centurions, and one is perfect, that will require 15 minutes to get ready; the other came with 5 hours worth of greenstuff, putty and sanding to prep. In the same way, I had a Sanguinor that was just awful, and another one that looks like it could be used for a magazine product photograph. It's one of the things I hate about resin... it's not consistent.

If finecast was made using the exact same moulding process as metal, metal would have the big sprues around them. So they must have done something different. Whatever it was, it didn't work.

 Talys wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
Originally Finecase was an attempt to use a cheaper product than metal in the exact same mold process they used for metal. Results were not good, as we saw. Metal is heavy and forces itself into the mold better as it spins. It wasn't innovation, it was a stopgap on the way to all plastic. They just stuck a nice label on a turd.

I could be wrong, but finecast doesn't strike me as having been spun cast. The large frame you get on a finecast model is more something that doesn't really work with spin casting. My understanding was it was some sort of hybrid between regular resin casting and something more akin to plastic injection casting as those frames are more similar to what you'd get in that process. In spin casting it was my understanding that the vents have to be carefully angled, where as the vents on finecast models go every which way.

Yeah, I agree. I always wondered when people talked about Finecast using molds designed for metal.

For the metal models, because the material is expensive, you don't want to leave too much excess material, so you don't have systems where you have sprues or large feeds. So, I don't see how any of the molds would be interchangeable Though, it is conceivable that the molds use the same equipment as some metal models? I don't know enough about the subject to be able to say -- these are just random thoughts.

Metal sprues are not really a cost issue, as you just chuck them back in the hopper and melt them again. On a material basis sprues and injection points are relatively more expensive in resin as you can't reuse the material.

I do think that the Finecast molds are based on some understanding of metal casting poorly applied to resin. The vents are not big enough and often not in the right spots for resin pressure casting, and as people have said I don't think the way the sprues are set up makes sense for spin casting. Further, many of the parts are just way too thin for resin, and only really work both in casting and using in metal. I'd say "stop gap" is just about the perfect description, as it certainly isn't a long term solution for any company that cares about quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:
If finecast was made using the exact same moulding process as metal, metal would have the big sprues around them. So they must have done something different. Whatever it was, it didn't work.

Not necessarily. Metal sprues would be valuable enough to cut off and reuse. Resin is lost once it is mixed, so it doesn't make sense to cut it off.

 Wehrkind wrote:
I do think that the Finecast molds are based on some understanding of metal casting poorly applied to resin. The vents are not big enough and often not in the right spots for resin pressure casting, and as people have said I don't think the way the sprues are set up makes sense for spin casting. Further, many of the parts are just way too thin for resin, and only really work both in casting and using in metal. I'd say "stop gap" is just about the perfect description, as it certainly isn't a long term solution for any company that cares about quality.

I don't think it was based on metal casting at all. If GW wanted to do proper resin casting they have more than enough experts employed that they could have done it properly.

I reckon it was just an attempt to make things cheaper, perhaps it's a process that's easier to automate or maybe the cure time is shorter or maybe they can get by with less trained staff. At a guess I'd say it's some sort of pressurized (but low pressure) injection process as in my mind that would make the most sense the way the sprues are laid out.

I figure they just got to the point where they were too heavily invested and/or didn't think the customer would care that the models were full of bubbles and snapped easily.

 mikhaila wrote:
My sales dropped again by 2/3 when they moved to AOS and ignored 40k for 4 months.

So AoS has hurt things? It didn't take up the slack at all?

 mikhaila wrote:
To put something in perspective: My sales dropped in half when GW got rid of metal and put half of the range on the website.

My sales dropped again by 2/3 when they moved to AOS and ignored 40k for 4 months. I'm now doing 1/6th of the sales of GW i did a decade ago. Much worse when you consider the raise in pricing. 1/10th the number of models? 1/20th?

Holy crap, that is almost Australian levels of bad right there.

I'm really curious, with AoS is the issue that it has been poorly supported and that no one cares about the too big a focus on the too few armies that have received any new models (or repacks) since it's release or have people stopped playing in store or buying old models too and just forgotten about AoS now that the initial buzz has died down?

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Of course, they have to do that. What if a new AoS player grabs a box and realizes that it hasn't got round bases when he gets home? On top of that, they have WHFB branding.

It would be cheaper for them to just send out a lot of bags with round bases and instruct the stores to hand them out to anyone who buy the kits packed with squares. It could be confusing for newcomers to have the WHFB branding I guess.

Yeah but then they'd be giving free stuff out. GW hates that.

Well, unless the one poor bastard that makes up the marketing team convinces the Board that it will somehow directly lead to more model sales.

GW rep asks the quantity of older things you have in stock and sends you replacement ones for free. Or, at least, this is how they deal with my FLGS. From spray paints to models. They even instructed them to throw out any Warhammer starter sets still in stock and gave them credit.

 mikhaila wrote:
To put something in perspective: My sales dropped in half when GW got rid of metal and put half of the range on the website.

My sales dropped again by 2/3 when they moved to AOS and ignored 40k for 4 months. I'm now doing 1/6th of the sales of GW i did a decade ago. Much worse when you consider the raise in pricing. 1/10th the number of models? 1/20th?

I don't think anyone expected that AoS would come near 40k dollars, though. The question is... when you compare AoS sales to WHFB sales, are AoS sales better compared to a year prior? Are there any sustained sales? If the 1/3 of sales that you got during the months (where there was no new 40k) were primarily AoS, then GW's experiment was a smashing success. If the 1/3 of sales was primarily 40k (in the form selling old stuff), and nobody bought AoS... then it was a horrible failure.

Is there any interest at all in the Seraphon? I don't think anyone cares in my local scene. The lizardmen boxes haven't moved for years, and I really doubt the new ones will either.

not surprised sales are way down. Be interested to see what some other stores are experiencing too but I assume similar results. All GW had to do was add some rules to make balanced pickup games weather it was points or you can only have this many warscrolls or whatever. I'm fine with the round bases and sigmarines and all, I just wish it were easy to show up at a store or club and say "I have 2000 points, who want's to play?"

Honestly I think it's the lack of new, exciting models. While I'm sure there are plenty of people like me who really like the Stormcast, they're only ONE faction. Khorne guys are ok but not really NEW new. Usually you would launch a game with 3-4 factions. In this case the only people who had any reason to buy anything would be Stormcast fans and Chaos Khorne players. The rest is old hat, which makes this less like a new game release saleswise and more like a new WHFB faction release with a few new Chaos models. Not surprised it hasn't made a big splash, and I wouldn't have expected it if I was GW. I'm sure they did anyway though which was mistake. This game will have to stand on its own and grow over time, it really can't ride WHFB's coat tails.

AoS is dead here. Nobody comes into the store and asks for a game atm. One problem with AoS is the lack of proper missions. There are several in the Sigmarine books but they are no exciting at all.

 Mymearan wrote:
Honestly I think it's the lack of new, exciting models. While I'm sure there are plenty of people like me who really like the Stormcast, they're only ONE faction. Khorne guys are ok but not really NEW new. Usually you would launch a game with 3-4 factions. In this case the only people who had any reason to buy anything would be Stormcast fans and Chaos Khorne players. The rest is old hat, which makes this less like a new game release saleswise and more like a new WHFB faction release with a few new Chaos models. Not surprised it hasn't made a big splash, and I wouldn't have expected it if I was GW. I'm sure they did anyway though which was mistake. This game will have to stand on its own and grow over time, it really can't ride WHFB's coat tails.

I don't think you should tag it that way. It's quite clear from the whole reboxing shenanigans that GW wants AoS to be separate from FB from the get go. This not a WHFB faction release - these are the AoS Seraphon!

The thing is, a game that is born with such a schism attached is not going to do well at the start, regardless.

I have made my opinions on AoS known but I am writing this from a neutral stance - either they make some really amazing, acessible and innovative introductions to AoS soon, or it is in serious jeopardy. The Seraphon release was underwhelming at best.

They clearly failed to excite people sufficiently at the beginning. If they planned for a big splash of short term profit from a bombastic release, they didn't succeed. But with the amount of planning and work they have put into this release (several years worth, apparently), they have to stick with it for the long haul. They simply can't afford not to. What this means is that the game will have the time to grow slowly, and hopefully it will.

 Mymearan wrote:
They clearly failed to excite people sufficiently at the beginning. If they planned for a big splash of short term profit from a bombastic release, they didn't succeed. But with the amount of planning and work they have put into this release (several years worth, apparently), they have to stick with it for the long haul. They simply can't afford not to. What this means is that the game will have the time to grow slowly, and hopefully it will.

For the sake of the players that have sunk thousands of $'s and €'s into it, I really hope it does.

The whole release planning seems shoddy to me, just a rehash of the usual Armybook release cycle, just tagged as Battletomes this time (and yes, yes you don't need to buy it to play etc, but this time they have that all new FLUFF in them instead of rules!) and with repackaging of boxes instead of new units.
Is this what Beastmen/Ogres/OnG players can expect? And more importantly, how long will Seraphon players have to wait for an actual new model?

And on a side note - how old are some of those sprues? I remember the Saurus are almost a decade old, or am I wrong?

I really really hope they have a proper update for one of the old factions coming soon. I think I heard something about a big AoS release this Christmas? Might be Dwarves or Elves.

 Mymearan wrote:
I really really hope they have a proper update for one of the old factions coming soon. I think I heard something about a big AoS release this Christmas? Might be Dwarves or Elves.

The logical step would be elves, as it would encompass three of the older factions in one swoop. I guess we'll have to wait for what the birds say.

And in the meantime, 40k/30k will keep saving the reports.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
They clearly failed to excite people sufficiently at the beginning. If they planned for a big splash of short term profit from a bombastic release, they didn't succeed. But with the amount of planning and work they have put into this release (several years worth, apparently), they have to stick with it for the long haul. They simply can't afford not to. What this means is that the game will have the time to grow slowly, and hopefully it will.

For the sake of the players that have sunk thousands of $'s and €'s into it, I really hope it does.

The whole release planning seems shoddy to me, just a rehash of the usual Armybook release cycle, just tagged as Battletomes this time (and yes, yes you don't need to buy it to play etc, but this time they have that all new FLUFF in them instead of rules!) and with repackaging of boxes instead of new units.
Is this what Beastmen/Ogres/OnG players can expect? And more importantly, how long will Seraphon players have to wait for an actual new model?

And on a side note - how old are some of those sprues? I remember the Saurus are almost a decade old, or am I wrong?

It's a really strange tactic, re-releasing old models as new factions. By pushing these reboxed kits out and insisting, "no no no, these aren't lizardmen, they're Seraphon, guys," GW is just reminding everyone about the destruction of WHFB, which for prospective players at best a non-issue, and at worst an insult. How do they expect this to play out?

^ well in GW's defense it's more like "They were the Lizardmen, and then the End Times happened, and a few more million years, and now they are the Seraphon".

They are a new faction that is a progression of the previous faction.

 Guildsman wrote:

It's a really strange tactic, re-releasing old models as new factions. By pushing these reboxed kits out and insisting, "no no no, these aren't lizardmen, they're Seraphon, guys," GW is just reminding everyone about the destruction of WHFB, which for prospective players at best a non-issue, and at worst an insult. How do they expect this to play out?

I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. If anything, this should reassure people that their models are going to be good for a long time. What does it matter if they're for WHFB 8e rules or AoS rules? Base them however way you want, play whatever rules you want. The issue for GW is that nobody was buying lizardmen. Even if they pumped out 3 new model boxes, still... very few people would buy lizardmen. Same for bretonians and empire.

 Talys wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
To put something in perspective: My sales dropped in half when GW got rid of metal and put half of the range on the website.

My sales dropped again by 2/3 when they moved to AOS and ignored 40k for 4 months. I'm now doing 1/6th of the sales of GW i did a decade ago. Much worse when you consider the raise in pricing. 1/10th the number of models? 1/20th?

I don't think anyone expected that AoS would come near 40k dollars, though. The question is... when you compare AoS sales to WHFB sales, are AoS sales better compared to a year prior? Are there any sustained sales? If the 1/3 of sales that you got during the months (where there was no new 40k) were primarily AoS, then GW's experiment was a smashing success. If the 1/3 of sales was primarily 40k (in the form selling old stuff), and nobody bought AoS... then it was a horrible failure.

Is there any interest at all in the Seraphon? I don't think anyone cares in my local scene. The lizardmen boxes haven't moved for years, and I really doubt the new ones will either.

Oddly enough my FLGS moves AoS a lot more than they ever did with WHFB. But they also have a league running and lots of events and generally keep the atmosphere pretty positive for AoS. I would think one would be setting themselves up for failure if they badmouthed the game and didn't actively support it. You still have to sell product, the product doesn't sell itself.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
To put something in perspective: My sales dropped in half when GW got rid of metal and put half of the range on the website.

My sales dropped again by 2/3 when they moved to AOS and ignored 40k for 4 months. I'm now doing 1/6th of the sales of GW i did a decade ago. Much worse when you consider the raise in pricing. 1/10th the number of models? 1/20th?

I don't think anyone expected that AoS would come near 40k dollars, though. The question is... when you compare AoS sales to WHFB sales, are AoS sales better compared to a year prior? Are there any sustained sales? If the 1/3 of sales that you got during the months (where there was no new 40k) were primarily AoS, then GW's experiment was a smashing success. If the 1/3 of sales was primarily 40k (in the form selling old stuff), and nobody bought AoS... then it was a horrible failure.

Is there any interest at all in the Seraphon? I don't think anyone cares in my local scene. The lizardmen boxes haven't moved for years, and I really doubt the new ones will either.

Oddly enough my FLGS moves AoS a lot more than they ever did with WHFB. But they also have a league running and lots of events and generally keep the atmosphere pretty positive for AoS. I would think one would be setting themselves up for failure if they badmouthed the game and didn't actively support it. You still have to sell product, the product doesn't sell itself.

Tell that to Mikhaila, quoted above, who worked his butt off, and arguably put too much effort into fixing the "game." Positivity only sells so much product if no one wants it.

 Guildsman wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
Oddly enough my FLGS moves AoS a lot more than they ever did with WHFB. But they also have a league running and lots of events and generally keep the atmosphere pretty positive for AoS. I would think one would be setting themselves up for failure if they badmouthed the game and didn't actively support it. You still have to sell product, the product doesn't sell itself.

Tell that to Mikhaila, quoted above, who worked his butt off, and arguably put too much effort into fixing the "game." Positivity only sells so much product if no one wants it.

That is one hundred percent the wrong attitude. Despite your witty use of quotes, it is, in fact, a game, and one which does not need fixing. No wonder it's failing. You can't tell a customer "so here's a product that I think is broken and here's a way to change it to fit my own personal vision of what it will be, please spend money on it now". Anyone who does that is a fething moron and a gakky salesperson and deserves to never sell anything and have their business fall apart. You tell a customer "this game is good and fun and here's the reasons why". Then you sell through 80 copies and have a community actively involved in it.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Guildsman wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
Oddly enough my FLGS moves AoS a lot more than they ever did with WHFB. But they also have a league running and lots of events and generally keep the atmosphere pretty positive for AoS. I would think one would be setting themselves up for failure if they badmouthed the game and didn't actively support it. You still have to sell product, the product doesn't sell itself.

Tell that to Mikhaila, quoted above, who worked his butt off, and arguably put too much effort into fixing the "game." Positivity only sells so much product if no one wants it.

That is one hundred percent the wrong attitude. Despite your witty use of quotes, it is, in fact, a game, and one which does not need fixing. No wonder it's failing. You can't tell a customer "so here's a product that I think is broken and here's a way to change it to fit my own personal vision of what it will be, please spend money on it now". Anyone who does that is a fething moron and a gakky salesperson and deserves to never sell anything and have their business fall apart. You tell a customer "this game is good and fun and here's the reasons why". Then you sell through 80 copies and have a community actively involved in it.

judgedoug, knowing Mik and how he runs his store as I do, you are so, so far wrong on this one. If anyone could sell AoS to people who were ambivalent, it was Mik. He has a really active store, a huge one by most game store standards, that frequently ran WHFB stuff, and had people playing at all times. Seriously, you are way, way off mark here.

AoS does not appeal to people who want a mass unit game with some sort of balance mechanic for pick up games. It appeals for other reasons, but not that. If your community likes the other reasons, they will pick it up, but if they don't, they won't.

 judgedoug wrote:
[Anyone who does that is a fething moron and a gakky salesperson and deserves to never sell anything and have their business fall apart.

Whoa dude. A bit harsh don't you think?

 Wehrkind wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Guildsman wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
Oddly enough my FLGS moves AoS a lot more than they ever did with WHFB. But they also have a league running and lots of events and generally keep the atmosphere pretty positive for AoS. I would think one would be setting themselves up for failure if they badmouthed the game and didn't actively support it. You still have to sell product, the product doesn't sell itself.

Tell that to Mikhaila, quoted above, who worked his butt off, and arguably put too much effort into fixing the "game." Positivity only sells so much product if no one wants it.

That is one hundred percent the wrong attitude. Despite your witty use of quotes, it is, in fact, a game, and one which does not need fixing. No wonder it's failing. You can't tell a customer "so here's a product that I think is broken and here's a way to change it to fit my own personal vision of what it will be, please spend money on it now". Anyone who does that is a fething moron and a gakky salesperson and deserves to never sell anything and have their business fall apart. You tell a customer "this game is good and fun and here's the reasons why". Then you sell through 80 copies and have a community actively involved in it.

judgedoug, knowing Mik and how he runs his store as I do, you are so, so far wrong on this one. If anyone could sell AoS to people who were ambivalent, it was Mik. He has a really active store, a huge one by most game store standards, that frequently ran WHFB stuff, and had people playing at all times. Seriously, you are way, way off mark here.

AoS does not appeal to people who want a mass unit game with some sort of balance mechanic for pick up games. It appeals for other reasons, but not that. If your community likes the other reasons, they will pick it up, but if they don't, they won't.

Quoted for truth and all that stuff. I was barely on the fence till Mike's enthusiasm convinced me it was worth my money (and he had it on sale opening weekend, that helped too )

I'm still hoping GW will eventually decide to put together an official rulebook that balances things, in the meantime I'll keep on painting my sigmarines