| Steve Blease | 16 Jul 2009 12:24 p.m. PST |
Really interesting thread on Dakka Dakka about the quality of the GW blastscape craters compared to the advertised models: link |
 Saber6   | 16 Jul 2009 12:32 p.m. PST |
Looking at the pictures they appear to be very different (shapes do not align) |
| aecurtis | 16 Jul 2009 12:37 p.m. PST |
The fanboyz are a little rattled… |
| Thomas Whitten | 16 Jul 2009 12:56 p.m. PST |
Not this fanboyz. Like the temple of skullz or whatever, I'll pass this one by. If they are like the moonscape, at the store one will be able to see them in the packaging before buying. If someone ordered these online and doesn't like them, I would advise them to send them back. If someone couldn't return them, then I would see them getting rattled. |
| Deeman | 16 Jul 2009 1:03 p.m. PST |
Wow. Those are terrible. I was thinking of ordering them but not anymore. That's weird about the pen pushing through because there is no way you could have done that to the moonscape craters GW has had out for a while without providing excessive pressure. |
| Regards | 16 Jul 2009 1:08 p.m. PST |
Sad to see. The regular crater set of 5 was delightful and very tough and thick. Wasn't planning on picking these up but I agree with someone on the list that they should call GW and talk to them about the problem. Erik |
| Top Gun Ace | 16 Jul 2009 1:14 p.m. PST |
Reminds me of the photos from Fast Food restaurants as well, to show you what you are ordering. Bait and switch, I tell you, since those aren't anywhere similar to the original photos of the masters. |
| Backyardpatrol | 16 Jul 2009 1:25 p.m. PST |
They look like blow molded copies of the original 3d models, no undercuts. Prototype vs production piece. |
| Angel Barracks | 16 Jul 2009 2:14 p.m. PST |
blimey they are different.. |
| darthfozzywig | 16 Jul 2009 2:27 p.m. PST |
|
| Privateer4hire | 16 Jul 2009 3:21 p.m. PST |
I was going to buy the GW craters (I thought they looked good at the store) but wound up buying the Pegasus pre-painted ones. You get fewer craters but you get fewer painting headaches, too. Not bashing GW, just pointing folks to an excellent alternative. |
| Farstar | 16 Jul 2009 3:31 p.m. PST |
The Moonscape craters have not been disappointing at all. They only barely need paint unless you are one of those "all dirt is brown" types. Heavy plastic, good detail, easily painted. The Blastscape Craters sound like a different, and disappointing, change. |
| Craig Grady | 16 Jul 2009 3:54 p.m. PST |
The painted ones look like masters whilst the purchased ones look like very poor vacu-form plastic copies. |
| Paul Hurst | 16 Jul 2009 4:05 p.m. PST |
"The fanboyz are a little rattled…" Oh. What. A. Shame! |
| Farstar | 16 Jul 2009 4:33 p.m. PST |
Oh. What. A. Shame!
When your favorite manufacturer suddenly and without notice changes from quality goods to cheap and wrongly advertised garbage, we'll be sure to save some sympathy for you. Or not. |
| Mick A | 16 Jul 2009 8:24 p.m. PST |
The Temple of Skulls pictures are misleading as well. The picture on the box must be the master as the item in the box has a lot less detail…
Mick |
| streetline | 17 Jul 2009 2:09 a.m. PST |
Are these still made in Nottingham, or has GW switched to a less competant supplier? |
| CmdrKiley | 17 Jul 2009 6:44 a.m. PST |
The bag of Moonscape Craters I purchased, which I thought were quite nice and durable for vacuuformed plastic, were Made in China. I wouldn't be surprised if the source switched to a thinner and cheaper material without GW's knowledge or approval. |
| streetline | 17 Jul 2009 8:00 a.m. PST |
That might be a decision GW come to regret, judging by the crys of betrayal around the net. Should have put some quality control in place, and there was a check then whoever did it should be out of a job shortly… |
| Syrinx0 | 17 Jul 2009 8:29 p.m. PST |
I hope I can cancel my order. Ick. |
| Bedoggey | 18 Jul 2009 1:14 p.m. PST |
They are craptastic Vacuum mounded…don't buy em. |
| f u u f n f | 19 Jul 2009 8:53 a.m. PST |
The set of these I held yesterday were a bit of a mix. The plastic did seem to be on par with the craters. I didn't see any thin spots anywhere in the plastic. But there was none of the detail that the painted one has. Very blob-ish. I of course tried to point this out to the guys showing it to me and the jumped down my throat telling me that it was the same thing as the picture. That it would look just as good as the picture once it was painted. I just shook my head, played my game (oh what a waste of time THAT was) and went my merry way.
I think at this point in my life GW has sucked enough of my money away. Other then a few more of their Ork Trukks and Wagons for P-A gaming I think I am ready to move on without looking back. |
| GypsyComet | 19 Jul 2009 6:34 p.m. PST |
I picked up a set of these on Friday and broke them out of the bag earlier today. A couple thin spots on high points, found by "candling" the pieces with the overhead light, but no breaks. Its pretty obvious that these are, as per the topic of this thread, "not as advertised". The differences between the prototypes in the pictures and the reality in hand are very apparent. So my solution is to stop looking at the pictures and deal with these as delivered: Pretty good looking terrain that I will have some fun painting. |
| Paul Hurst | 24 Jul 2009 5:03 p.m. PST |
"When your favorite manufacturer suddenly and without notice changes from quality goods to cheap and wrongly advertised garbage, we'll be sure to save some sympathy for you. Or not." "Oh. What. A. Shame!" is sarcasm – I guess we need a sarcasm icon to alert those who can't spot it. |
| Farstar | 26 Jul 2009 4:14 p.m. PST |
Oh that was clearly sarcasm. I just decided to call you on the fact that it wasn't at all friendly or helpful. |
| Paul Hurst | 27 Jul 2009 2:48 a.m. PST |
Too bad. (And yes, thats sarcasm as well) |
