Official WarSeer Finecast Poll.

[Druchii Monkey]

I wish I could change my vote in this poll. My initial impressions were positive. I bought 6 blisters on release day (returning some unopened metal models to exchange), and all 6 had no issues.

Can't remember 100% but i think there was a post from someone, responded to by Wintermute a while back, about setting up a new Finecast poll after a certain time period had elapsed from the original release of Finecast. I think setting up a new one with a wider range of responses would be a good idea at some point and Finecast has been around for about a year now i think.

Possible radio button choices.

1. For me Finecast has been a disaster. I've ordered one or more Finecast models and all of them have had serious issues.
2. Finecast is pick and mix. It is a 50/50 chance as to whether you get a good one or a bad one. I've ordered multiple models and they've been of variable quality from none or barely any issues to products with multiple serious flaws.
3. Finecast is a bit pick and mix but it's a big improvement over metal so i'll take my chances.
4. I've ordered one or more Finecast products and they have been mostly of a good quality.
5. I am extremely happy with all the Finecast models i have ordered. They are all of excellent quality.
6. I am put off this whole Finecast thing. Although i have not tried it it sounds like metal or plastic are a much better bet. I won't try Finecast.
7. I have not tried Finecast but sounds good so will try it in the future.

Just suggestions but i think a fresh poll would be good at some point.

[winterdyne]

I'd probably add an option to allow folks (like me) who've had at least one decent one to say, even if the rest are fails. Perhaps change the 100% fail option to 'more than 9/10 had serious issues'.

Or perhaps:
1. Many (10+) models bought/received, all faulty
2. Many (10+) models bought/received, most faulty
3. Many (10+) models bought/received, 50-50 faulty
4. Many (10+) models bought/received, most good
5. Many (10+) models bought/received, all good

6. Few (<10) models bought/received, all faulty
7. Few (<10) models bought/received, most faulty
8. Few (<10) models bought/received, 50-50 faulty
9. Few (<10) models bought/received, most good
10. Few (<10) models bought/received, all good

11. No models bought.

[Sgt John Keel]

I'd prefer if we could avoid any subjective quality assessments in any follow-up poll.

[Druchii Monkey]

I'd probably add an option to allow folks (like me) who've had at least one decent one to say, even if the rest are fails. Perhaps change the 100% fail option to 'more than 9/10 had serious issues'.

Or perhaps:
1. Many (10+) models bought/received, all faulty
2. Many (10+) models bought/received, most faulty
3. Many (10+) models bought/received, 50-50 faulty
4. Many (10+) models bought/received, most good
5. Many (10+) models bought/received, all good

6. Few (<10) models bought/received, all faulty
7. Few (<10) models bought/received, most faulty
8. Few (<10) models bought/received, 50-50 faulty
9. Few (<10) models bought/received, most good
10. Few (<10) models bought/received, all good

11. No models bought.

I prefer your list to mine. More scientific. I'd probably choose option 3 or 4 but it's still not specific on scale of fault. I'd say i'd answer 3 except in the 50/50 mix of the faulty ones 25 percent have had minor rectifiable faults and the other 25% were not of sufficient quality i.e. returnable.

I'd prefer if we could avoid any subjective quality assessments in any follow-up poll.

So what would you suggest?

How about - most of my Finecast models....

(1) .. have had no air bubbles.
(2) .. have had minor air bubbles but rectifiable with a little green stuff.
(3) .. have had air bubbles obscuring key detail.

Something like that....?

[Jonahmaul]

I think that both those options give too many choices and for the amount of people that are likely to answer it probably wouldn't give much data. Personally I would do something like this:

1: All good
2: Mostly good
3: Around 50/50
4: Mostly bad/faulty/miscast
5: All bad/faulty/miscast

Of course this is still subjective which is problematic.

Wayland Games have just posted saying they expect most GW stuff to be hit with a price rise on May 28th - oh joy. Now we can pay even more for miniature lottery.

[75hastings69]

That will be why the models in new WD have no prices next to them then!

[Druchii Monkey]

I think that both those options give too many choices and for the amount of people that are likely to answer it probably wouldn't give much data. Personally I would do something like this:

1: All good
2: Mostly good
3: Around 50/50
4: Mostly bad/faulty/miscast
5: All bad/faulty/miscast

Of course this is still subjective which is problematic.

Wayland Games have just posted saying they expect most GW stuff to be hit with a price rise on May 28th - oh joy. Now we can pay even more for miniature lottery.

I'd choose 3 on this scale. No doubt. Mine have been "mostly acceptable" which translates as "around 50/50" and not "mostly good".

[loveless]

That will be why the models in new WD have no prices next to them then!

The US WD haven't had prices for ages. It always bugs me and, frankly, is part of the reason I don't buy the mag.

[Sgt John Keel]

So what would you suggest?

Well, I suppose you could just enumerate the possible flaws.

E.g.:

All of my models were flawless or had minor bubbling in non-detailed areas and/or some fixable bending
Some of my models suffered from bubbles in detailed areas or mould slip or rough surfaces or misshapen parts or had unfixable bending or sagging issues but most were flawless
Many of my models suffered from bubbles in detailed areas or mould slip or rough surfaces or misshapen parts or had unfixable bending or sagging issues but the majority were flawless

und so weiter.

Obviously it can be combined with winterdyne's more nuanced categories.

Also, if we're making a multiple-choice poll you might as well have a subjective assessment of the material at the bottom.

[75hastings69]

How about:-

A/ finecast is an appalling medium that isn't suited to mass producing finely detailed miniatures
B/ GW tells me it's awesome, so therefore it must be

Lol

[Daniel36]

Hahaha... Hastings, you are so bitter.
Oh and I vote B.

[azhagmorglum]

What about options like :

#) I bought flawed models and did the replacement ballet
##) I bought flawed models and didn't do anything at all

Finecast is pick and mix. It is a 50/50 chance as to whether you get a good one or a bad one. I've ordered multiple models and they've been of variable quality from none or barely any issues to products with multiple serious flaws.

Well, what would choosing this answer demonstrate? I think creating a new poll is going to be hard in the options provided for answers. What would be the point of the poll in the first place? Still I agree that the current is lacking in options, I haven't replied to it yet since none of the option suits me (I haven't bought a single FC model, and I don't plan to because of the several issues discussed in this thread and the prices demanded by GW)

[Hendarion]

I'd probably add an option to allow folks (like me) who've had at least one decent one to say, even if the rest are fails. Perhaps change the 100% fail option to 'more than 9/10 had serious issues'.

Or perhaps:
1. Many (10+) models bought/received, all faulty
2. Many (10+) models bought/received, most faulty
3. Many (10+) models bought/received, 50-50 faulty
4. Many (10+) models bought/received, most good
5. Many (10+) models bought/received, all good

6. Few (<10) models bought/received, all faulty
7. Few (<10) models bought/received, most faulty
8. Few (<10) models bought/received, 50-50 faulty
9. Few (<10) models bought/received, most good
10. Few (<10) models bought/received, all good

11. No models bought.

This is good except 11. Just because someone didn't buy some, it doesn't mean he didn't inspect them. If I went to GW to buy minis and I inspected them inside the blisters and could already decide they don't match my quality expectations (i.e. at least as good as metal), I wouldn't buy it. But that doesn't mean my experience wouldn't be useful for the poll.

[Spiney Norman]

How about:-

A/ finecast is an appalling medium that isn't suited to mass producing finely detailed miniatures
B/ GW tells me it's awesome, so therefore it must be

Lol

A pretty well sums it up, finecast resin is so fragile and soft it's not suitable for models full stop even in the case of a hypothetical perfect sculpt. I can accept some utility of a lighter material for larger models (but they definitely should use plastic as its ten times more durable than FC), in the case of small man-sized models finecast doesn't really have any advantages over metal, I suppose it is slightly easier to glue together but that really is it.

[Ebon]

Finecast is officially Flawed. (As official as the word of a Customer Service rep can be) .

But will they switch back to metal and adjust the price back down? Hell, no.

3) the price increase. Well, no particular reason to give here apart from "we want more money from you", and could you think differently? Children and new customers are going to pay the full price, aware or not of the many problems the models can have, and presumably not even seeing them since GW would have advertize well their product; veterans may not buy or would buy less, then paying more can compensate for buying less, who knows?
And then, when they will eventually sort out all the problems and be able to release "normal" resin models, they will increase the price again, saying that it's normal since now the models are "perfect" and thus more expensive to produce (more QC/QA, better resin, new box art and packaging ) and blablabla...
Something they could have done since the beginning that would justify to a minimum the current prices !

They increase prices simply because they can. I wish people would understand this. No corporation in the world sets their prices by working out raw materials+labour+X% profit. Every corporation sets their prices at the maximum the market will bear. GW, like every other corporation, has one and only ever one motivation: To increase profits by absolutely any (legal) means necessary. The days of GW putting out fun little models like the Citadel devil I still have in my VC army are long gone, they are a corporation and run just like every other corporation. If GW could charge you for the time you spend thinking about the hobby, they would do it in a heartbeat. Unlike most corporations, GW has little in the way of competition to force prices down (yes, there are other companies but they don't have anything like the visibility or retail support). Also unlike most corporations, GW's retail model is based on churn and burn kiddies, not retaining established customers (indeed, it often seems that they're actively trying to drive veterans away). The result is that they can continually raise prices because the kids who make up the majority of their preferred customer base don't know any better. Failcash works the same way. How many of those kids will be returning their models because of bubbling or bends? I don't have figures but I'd imagine that for every one returned, two more don't bother. In the game of postal tag that can often go five or six or more exchanges, a certain percentage will just give up.
So you've got a customer base which will soon not know any better than the flawed Failcash models, two-thirds won't bother to exchange faulty models and some percentage who think having to fix the bloody thing with green stuff is somehow acceptable (how many posts have we seen that say "perfectly fine, but I had to fill bubbles"). Add in quite how miniscule the cost of resin is compared to metal and Failcash will have increased their profits by a substantial margin (I would not be at all surprised if their per-model profit has doubled or more).

I am also of the opinion that GW is just flat lying about their QA/QC process and have completely given up on QA/QC. Given the sheer amount and severity of errors we're seeing in Failcash models, even nominal QA/QC would stop the majority of them from leaving the factory.

Small bubbles are a natural part of casting in resin and almost every resin model will have them somewhere. Same for thin parts bending, resin is naturally flexible and will curve and bend. These are all normal processes involving Resin and anyone thats worked with it will tell you the same.

If bubbling is a normal part of resin casting (and I have no idea so I'll take your word for it), then GW has no business using it and still proclaiming their models to be the best in the world, especially since Failcash was hyped as the biggest thing since the moon landing.

I bought one Finecast mini. I was not impressed with it. Haven't bought any since.
There have been a few models I would have bought without a second thought if they had been released in a good, reliable material (Isabella von Carstein and the Witch Hunter come to mind), but since they are Finecast I found it more prudent to not waste my money on them.

Greant in theory but certain armies don't have any choice. IIRC, all character models for Necrons and Tomb Kings are now in Failcash, you either deal with it or you don't play those armies. Give it another year or two, I suspect that will be true of every army (granted, it's possible they will have got someone with a brain to sort out the casting process by then too).

How about:-

A/ finecast is an appalling medium that isn't suited to mass producing finely detailed miniatures
B/ GW tells me it's awesome, so therefore it must be

Lol

Hastings, you are a man after my own cynical heart.

[CrazyChib]

Received my replacement Huron this morning. The blister pack had a hole cut in it, so I believe it was 'verified as meeting the required standard for the Finecast range'. It also arrived in a hand written padded envelope - Not the usual printed label box.

There are a few bubbles (the worst being on his chin), that will be easily covered, but most importantly (to me) don't destroy any details .

Overall, I'm pretty pleased with him. It's just a shame it took 3 attempts and Customer Services to double check before I received a decent one.

[Zinge]

Where are the end of his claws and thumb?

[Jonahmaul]

Overall that cast looks pretty good. A few air bubbles really wouldn't bother me as I found cleaning metal miniatures a real pain compared to resin, especially when you get mold lines across faces etc. But that Huron is definitely supposed to have four fingers AND a thumb! His fingers are different lengths but the ones on this cast seem too extreme in their difference.

[CrazyChib]

Where are the end of his claws and thumb?

His thumb is separate (in the corner of the backpack sprue). The claw tips on the fore and ring fingers look worse in the picture, but yes, they're bubbled off

Luckily, I have the arms from the 2 previous models to swap with. But that's it! I really doubt I will be buying any more Finecast. I really wanted some of the Necron characters, but no.

[Sgt John Keel]

A few air bubbles really wouldn't bother me

Not me either, but this particular cast has in excess of 40 (not counting whatever happened to the claw).

But this time you can at least see what things are supposed to be, so I guess it's a success in that regard.