42796
Post by: Kizmet
since when have they removed ALL of the painting articles off there website?
18024
Post by: Velour_Fog
A while ago now. It's part of their policy to remove anything useful that doesn't make them money. But we won't go there.
68228
Post by: Deunstephe
It's been a long time since those were up. GW should've left them up, outdated paints or not.. they have a conversion chart, don't they?
42796
Post by: Kizmet
its an absolute pain that they constantly try to destroy the community that has built up around there products
also do art products have to be tested in the uk like they do in the us? could les make his washes in the uk?
55357
Post by: progreen10
They got rid of their main facebook page too. Kinda sucks
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I didn't know that... but having just looked and checked it really is gone - now it is just a page saying who else on my friends list likes them and if there are any posts about them 
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
GW just wants to sell you models, the game and how you paint them are irrelevant to them
get them to buy as much as they can and then get them out
55548
Post by: btldoomhammer
Yeah, GW pulled all articles from their site. Or at least the links to them. Some pdf's are still on their server. Sadly non of the painting ones. For the rest of them here is a linklist to them.
http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=93560
42796
Post by: Kizmet
what does it benifit them to pull all painting files from the server?
55548
Post by: btldoomhammer
I think their reasoning is due to renaming all paints those guides are outdated or something. (And GW probably wants to sell their "how to paint" book more ... )
68228
Post by: Deunstephe
They said everything was outdated, what with new models and paints. They could've made new ones though.
49662
Post by: Mij'aan
Actually it's down to a legal reason.
They no longer own the names to the old paints, the old company that made the paints held the rights to the names.
Therefore the only article you'll find the name of the old paints is the conversation chart, which they will have had to pay the old company rights for to publish.
Meaning they have little choice but to pull the rest, they don't own the paints they are suggesting you use and I imagine somewhere in the background a legal battle was fought and lost.
You lot are always far too synical
25853
Post by: winterdyne
Quite why they don't just call the damn colours what they are - a vibrant red, orange-brown (for example), rather than try to up sell their own (oft time gakky) paints is beyond me.
49662
Post by: Mij'aan
winterdyne wrote:Quite why they don't just call the damn colours what they are - a vibrant red, orange-brown, rather than try to up sell their own (oft time gakky) paints is beyond me.
They either have to name them with code, Red: 001 Red: 002, Red 003, Dark Red: 001 Dark Red 002...
Or we name them, which is far more interesting.
The reason they changed suppliers is also down to the fact they kept having missing orders from the old supplier, (example: all the pinks went missing at one stage, i think they just decided to discontinue some of them) The old supplier werent enthusiastic at all, so instead they bought out the company that now supplies them, pays everyone more, and designed the new range of paints to go with it.
Downside: Rename everything and lose the copyright to the old names.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
No, I meant in the painting guides or modelling articles. Unless deliberately aping GW, that what I'd do. For example, I paint red by starting with a dark red-oxide sort of colour, then go through a vibrant red, up to red orange for the basic blend, then edge with a colour similar to a peach yoghurt. That my dark red tends to be VMC Burnt Cadmium Red, my vibrant red is GW Blood Red (or similar) is irrelevant to the meat of the description or technique involved. Of course, it's convenient to have this particular tone premixed in a pot and that's where the sales pitch can come: one of convenience rather than a (false) implication of requirement.
49662
Post by: Mij'aan
I agree, but the false implication of requirement sells more products than the convenience of them already being premixed.
If people knew how cheap the alternatives really were, and there was only a suggestion toward buying citadel paints for convenience, people would start to use alternatives and less profit would be made.
And we all know:
Step 1. Sell Models and Paints
Step 2. Underpants.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Profit.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
I disagree here. I'm a pro painter, and some citadel products really are very good and can be upsold not just as a minor convenience, but a great help. Also if selling the actual paints used on the example, those following the guide are likely to use them. Older guides can and should be updated with the appropriate conversions to the new range.
In particular Devlan Mud was superb. In the current range there are a lot of places where I find only Mephiston Red will do. Foundation yellows were awesome, thank goodness VGC Opaques copied them very closely. Really GW should rely on their painters to find and employ techniques which show their range of products in a good light comparatively. Every range of paints has advantages in certain situations, and highlighting those is where I think 'good' sales practices lie.
49662
Post by: Mij'aan
I agree with you winter, I honestly do. The citadel paints ARE good, and there are few paints that I've found work as well, but there are some out there that do the job.
They SHOULD update the guides, Really, I mean I for one cannot understand why they haven't updated them, except the obvious answer of pure laziness.
But GW are notorious for expecting you to buy their product. They won't even acknowlege red as a colour, it's Mephiston Red. And we're constantly reminded of that, just incase we forget.
They do not want you to purchase any paints other than their own.
It's the way they've always worked, and it's working for them. Still, the OP has a point, and I tried to answer it the best I could.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
Conversely, some citadel products are the worst pile of crap I've ever had the misfortune to try to use. Ulthuan grey is particularly bad in my opinion.
The reason they didn't update the guides is so they can sell the new ones they put out on the iPad etc. Very much a dick move, even White Dwarf now only has what I'd call at best rudimentary painting guides and at worse misleading. People are now asking what sort of paint a 'glaze' is. It's a frickin' TECHNIQUE. Not according to our friends in GW marketing. Now you can only do a glaze with Citadel Glaze Paint (tm).
[insert barely coherent rant here]
Sorry if I seem opinionated on this. My hobby is my job and I love it. It gets my goat when the company that pretty much introduced me to the hobby, and from whose publications I learned a lot of the tricks I know has reduced itself to desperately trying to simplify the hobby and its many aspects to 'The Hobby', with its blinkered approach.
8666
Post by: Joyous_Oblivion
I have used GW paints for longer than any other company and in general I love them. The basecoat paints are used with every game system I play, as well as the washes.
I find GW basecoat paints, then Vallejo or P3 'layer' or normal paints, plus GW washes are my current strategy.
68228
Post by: Deunstephe
If they took down the painting guides because of legal reasons, taking down some of the modelling articles was really silly IMO. I really liked the tutorial of converting one of the Eldar wraithlords into a "sniper" look, and at the time many of their Tyranids articles were very cool. Why were those taken down?
61618
Post by: Desubot
 Deunstephe wrote:If they took down the painting guides because of legal reasons, taking down some of the modelling articles was really silly IMO. I really liked the tutorial of converting one of the Eldar wraithlords into a "sniper" look, and at the time many of their Tyranids articles were very cool. Why were those taken down?
Obviously to sell more books.
Coming soon "Citidels how to convert models" only 50$
68228
Post by: Deunstephe
 Desubot wrote: Deunstephe wrote:If they took down the painting guides because of legal reasons, taking down some of the modelling articles was really silly IMO. I really liked the tutorial of converting one of the Eldar wraithlords into a "sniper" look, and at the time many of their Tyranids articles were very cool. Why were those taken down?
Obviously to sell more books.
Coming soon "Citidels how to convert models" only 50$
Goddammit. But that book might be pretty cool.
Why are the new codices 50 bucks anyway, just for being hardcover? The 5th ed rulebook cost that much, and I don't want to pay 50 dollars for terrible Ward-written articles and rules. Poor Orks, I hope Ward gets pulled..
58702
Post by: Paitryn
Its 50 bucks because we will pay 50bucks for it. Pure and simple. People can blame costs, etc etc. but I'm pretty sure there are still hardcover books being sold with 3x the pages for half the price and the number of copies sold still a lot less than GW gets for Codex prints. It didn't need a hardcover, that was just the cover for them bumping up the price by double.
49662
Post by: Mij'aan
Paitryn wrote:Its 50 bucks because we will pay 50bucks for it. Pure and simple. People can blame costs, etc etc. but I'm pretty sure there are still hardcover books being sold with 3x the pages for half the price and the number of copies sold still a lot less than GW gets for Codex prints. It didn't need a hardcover, that was just the cover for them bumping up the price by double.
But the pretty colour pages.
68228
Post by: Deunstephe
Old codexes had colour pages, they were just in P&M.
61618
Post by: Desubot
sigh and they moved the P&m into its own 50$ book. why gee dubs why.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
They got rid of their facebook page because the community wouldn't stop whinging and spamming it with complaints.
Don't know why they removed the painting articles though. I guess it was too much effort to keep them up.
45733
Post by: keisukekun
Yeh all the articles are gone. Sucks cause they had a few army lists there that I had considered buying stuff for.
27004
Post by: clively
Desubot wrote: Deunstephe wrote:If they took down the painting guides because of legal reasons, taking down some of the modelling articles was really silly IMO. I really liked the tutorial of converting one of the Eldar wraithlords into a "sniper" look, and at the time many of their Tyranids articles were very cool. Why were those taken down?
Obviously to sell more books.
Coming soon "Citidels how to convert models" only 50$
Actually, that would be a subscription to the white dwarf. March had some kit bash articles about flyers... and they even showed *gasp* plasticard being used.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
And it's still available. Just from The Army Painter, and it's called Strongtone Ink. They also have Darktone Ink, which basically is Badab Black. Softtone Ink is a very light version of Devlan mud, though not quite as yellow as Gryphonne Sepia.
Don't confuse these with their dips, they're totally different. Their dips are floor wax. Their inks are basically old GW washes with a bit of flow improver in them.
56400
Post by: Orktavius
In otherwords it's pretty much exactly what Agrax Earthshade is?
Somehow I doubt that using the conversion chart to switch the paint names from the old painting guides to the new colors would actually be a real update. I doubt it's laziness, it's more likely it's not worth the $$$ to go through all the old paint articles and switch colors like charadon granite to skavenblight dinge or boltgun metal to leadbelcher because even after paying someone to go to all the effort to do so it STILL doesn't fix the fundemental problem that all those paints are vastly different from each other.
Some paints that used to be layers are now base paints and paints that used to be foundations are now layers meaning the articles would not only still be out of date but would also result in even more people being pissed off that it was updated wrong....a lose lose situation for them. Also it's been almost a damn year or more since those articles got taken down, obviously the OP didn't need them to badly to only be discovering this now. In regards to the conversion articles who knows why they went to, GW still encourages and supports kit bashes and conversions what with them showing them off monthly in white dwarf and on white dwarf daily all the time.
Frankly you people will lose your heads over anything, no wonder GW had to pull down their main facebook page, it was getting as stupid as their old forums and since deleting idiotic posts on facebooks ends up banning the poster why would a company want to stir that pot and wind up with legions of "OMG GW IS BANNING ME FROM FACEBOOK WTF GAIZ!" posts all over the place.
PS. Ulthan grey is awesome, maybe your using it wrong.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
? Plenty of websites have information that becomes invalidated.
A very simple way of dealing with it is to put a notice up that says "This article refers to paint colors which we no longer produce. Have a look at this conversion chart to see which of our new colors can help you produce the same great effect!"
I mean, GW has hosted articles referring to out of date rules or models for ages. I remember a White Dwarf article where one of the team something like "And I'm feeling very lucky that I bought 50 pots of Hawk Turquoise before it went out of production; here's how I use it to paint my army!" or "This really cool conversion is based on a 4th edition XX".
They could have spun this in many ways. It should be a 10 minute job to do 'replace all' for all colours: s/"Charadon Granite"/"Skavenblight Dinge". Heck, they could have developed a browser plugin that looks for any old paints in the text and creates an on-hover window that shows which new paint is closest/how to mix an equivalent.
It just strikes me as a huge amount of GW not 'getting' how internet communities really work.
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
Yay! another one of these threads!
68802
Post by: TheAuldGrump
winterdyne wrote:I disagree here. I'm a pro painter, and some citadel products really are very good and can be upsold not just as a minor convenience, but a great help. Also if selling the actual paints used on the example, those following the guide are likely to use them. Older guides can and should be updated with the appropriate conversions to the new range.
In particular Devlan Mud was superb. In the current range there are a lot of places where I find only Mephiston Red will do. Foundation yellows were awesome, thank goodness VGC Opaques copied them very closely. Really GW should rely on their painters to find and employ techniques which show their range of products in a good light comparatively. Every range of paints has advantages in certain situations, and highlighting those is where I think 'good' sales practices lie.
GW paints are good - not my favorites, but good.
I consider Vallejo and Reaper paints to be about tied for first, with GW bringing up respectable third. Fourth... Army Painter primers, then Army Painter paints as a fairly distant fifth. Army Painter brushes are really quite good though. And the Highland Tufts for basing? Superb.
Taking down the painting guides... not too smart. But that's GW for you.
The Auld Grump
56400
Post by: Orktavius
Trasvi wrote:? Plenty of websites have information that becomes invalidated.
A very simple way of dealing with it is to put a notice up that says "This article refers to paint colors which we no longer produce. Have a look at this conversion chart to see which of our new colors can help you produce the same great effect!"
I mean, GW has hosted articles referring to out of date rules or models for ages. I remember a White Dwarf article where one of the team something like "And I'm feeling very lucky that I bought 50 pots of Hawk Turquoise before it went out of production; here's how I use it to paint my army!" or "This really cool conversion is based on a 4th edition XX".
They could have spun this in many ways. It should be a 10 minute job to do 'replace all' for all colours: s/"Charadon Granite"/"Skavenblight Dinge". Heck, they could have developed a browser plugin that looks for any old paints in the text and creates an on-hover window that shows which new paint is closest/how to mix an equivalent.
It just strikes me as a huge amount of GW not 'getting' how internet communities really work.
Right cause all of that costs absolutely nothing and can be done in like 10 minutes right? While there at it there should be an app so that GW heavy metal painters will teach you step by step how to paint your color scheme at the click of a button as well cause that's easy to make to right?
Yeah, I just went to a ridiculous place.....just figure I gotta keep up with the level of the thread.
28238
Post by: Warboss Gubbinz
 BryllCream wrote:
They got rid of their facebook page because the community wouldn't stop whinging and spamming it with complaints.
Don't know why they removed the painting articles though. I guess it was too much effort to keep them up.
Believe me, it takes way more effort to remove them than it does to leave them in the directory on the server.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
Orktavius wrote:In otherwords it's pretty much exactly what Agrax Earthshade is?
Somehow I doubt that using the conversion chart to switch the paint names from the old painting guides to the new colors would actually be a real update. I doubt it's laziness, it's more likely it's not worth the $$$ to go through all the old paint articles and switch colors like charadon granite to skavenblight dinge or boltgun metal to leadbelcher because even after paying someone to go to all the effort to do so it STILL doesn't fix the fundemental problem that all those paints are vastly different from each other.
Some paints that used to be layers are now base paints and paints that used to be foundations are now layers meaning the articles would not only still be out of date but would also result in even more people being pissed off that it was updated wrong....a lose lose situation for them. Also it's been almost a damn year or more since those articles got taken down, obviously the OP didn't need them to badly to only be discovering this now. In regards to the conversion articles who knows why they went to, GW still encourages and supports kit bashes and conversions what with them showing them off monthly in white dwarf and on white dwarf daily all the time.
Frankly you people will lose your heads over anything, no wonder GW had to pull down their main facebook page, it was getting as stupid as their old forums and since deleting idiotic posts on facebooks ends up banning the poster why would a company want to stir that pot and wind up with legions of "OMG GW IS BANNING ME FROM FACEBOOK WTF GAIZ!" posts all over the place.
PS. Ulthan grey is awesome, maybe your using it wrong.
Different paints now entirely. New manufacturer, new colours, new behaviours. Some good, some bad. A search / replace doesn't take long in most DTP packages, but expressly changing one paint name for the newest new one wouldn't work that well. Some have disappeared entirely. That articles are written to sell as opposed to describe the colour and provide a convenient link to the product is a bugbear of mine. There are people that don't know what a glaze is, or that you could make your own wash, or layer with a foundation paint...
I honestly find Ulthuan grey is appalling compared the the Vallejo pale grey I use in preference, which has a much better consistency. Maybe I have a bad pot. As for 'using it wrong', I could take offence, but instead I'll just say I've got a silver demon in my cabinet with a clutch of finalist pins. I kinda know how to use paints of many different sorts. I don't state opinions lightly.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Orktavius wrote:In otherwords it's pretty much exactly what Agrax Earthshade is?
No? If you'd used both agrax earthshade and Devlan mud extensively, you'd know they'd nothing alike except being thin brown paints. Both have totally different flow and strength, and agrax stains a lot darker.
Strong tone ink is almost identical to Devlan mud, but flows a little better.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
BryllCream wrote:
They got rid of their facebook page because the community wouldn't stop whinging and spamming it with complaints.
It's really amazing that people whine and complain, GW got rid of all those nasty old articles, we should be thanking them .
Seriously though they removed them because they had to either get rid of the painting ones or pay the guys who now own the old paints names. While they were at it they probably decided to scrap the lot of them to try and get people to buy WD. And it is moves like that that make people dislike them.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
You're telling me 'Tausept Ochre' and 'Iyanden Darksun' are owned by a non GW entity? Doubtful.
More likely they've renamed simply to allow stronger trademarking; 'Blood Red' / 'Scab Red' / 'Ultramarine Blue' etc are descriptive, thus not strong trademarks. In fact natural Ultramarine as a pigment is really very much like 'Ultramarine Blue'. Competitors could quite happily release (and do) ultramarine paints. 'Macragge Blue' is stronger.
The objective is always money. If GW produce painting guides using specific mixes and trademarked names, they can sell those paints to those that can't mix to match at a premium. Expect the pot cost to go up significantly as this takes effect over the next couple of years.
26890
Post by: Ugavine
Maybe GW are listening to the fans on Dakka and matching their rivals that also have no painting tutorials on them 
But if you're online anyway you can just as easily find better articles here, YouTube or on miniwargaming.
5256
Post by: NAVARRO
Taking down Black gobbo, now articles, dumbed down white dwarf... rumors of no GD's will not help them sell more paints... But hey it's their call.
I find vallejos, P3's quite nice and I avoid GW pots as much as I can since they dry fast... but then again some athlete with a sanity tracking record of nil will pop in and say I'm doing it wrong
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
winterdyne wrote:Conversely, some citadel products are the worst pile of crap I've ever had the misfortune to try to use. Ulthuan grey is particularly bad in my opinion.
Oh, good. I thought that color would be perfect for my Retribution models so I bought a bottle but haven't tried it out yet. What's wrong with it?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
BryllCream wrote:They got rid of their facebook page because the community wouldn't stop whinging and spamming it with complaints.
Complaints related to them strong-arming a self-published writer for using the words "space" and "marine" in the title of one of her children's books.
If you're going to make excuses for GW at every turn, at least tell the whole story and avoid being so disingenuous.
70253
Post by: jmswargaming
25853
Post by: winterdyne
 Sidstyler wrote:winterdyne wrote:Conversely, some citadel products are the worst pile of crap I've ever had the misfortune to try to use. Ulthuan grey is particularly bad in my opinion.
Oh, good. I thought that color would be perfect for my Retribution models so I bought a bottle but haven't tried it out yet. What's wrong with it?
It's not smoothly mixed. Terribly lumpy - like lumps of cement powder in snot. The pot I have is incredibly difficult to get an even coat with, even with adding all sort of mediums. VMC Light Grey is my go-to base for whites and light greys (Unless I'm using Codex Grey). Like I said, could be a bad pot, but I don't think so. It's reminiscent of what happens with old pots of Humbrol acrylic.
Mephiston Red is BRILLIANT stuff though. Caledor Blue is also very nice. With any paint range, there'll be some winners, and some things to avoid. It's just a case of working out which are which.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
 H.B.M.C. wrote: BryllCream wrote:They got rid of their facebook page because the community wouldn't stop whinging and spamming it with complaints.
Complaints related to them strong-arming a self-published writer for using the words "space" and "marine" in the title of one of her children's books.
If you're going to make excuses for GW at every turn, at least tell the whole story and avoid being so disingenuous.
I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.
10 years ago my country went to war with Iraq and killed thousands of innocent people, but I didn't sent vitriolic bs to my MP (who supported it). Now I know that the deaths of millions of people aren't as important as corporate dickery but still 
24779
Post by: Eilif
I always chalked the removal of useful articles -and the ceasing of posting certain kinds of things that they used to- to GW simply wanting you to buy one of their expanding range of painting books or the latest issue of White Dwarf.
Want to paint a space marine - We have a book for that!
 ascended_mike wrote:Actually it's down to a legal reason.
They no longer own the names to the old paints, the old company that made the paints held the rights to the names.
Therefore the only article you'll find the name of the old paints is the conversation chart, which they will have had to pay the old company rights for to publish.
Meaning they have little choice but to pull the rest, they don't own the paints they are suggesting you use and I imagine somewhere in the background a legal battle was fought and lost.
Do you have a source for this info? I'm skeptical.
Alot of the old paints had GW IP in the names which I doubt would be owned by the previous company. Also, IIRC, some of the paint color names were carried over from two companies ago (remember the Cote d Arms produced softer plastic bottles?) to whatever company made the paints last time.
I'm not saying you're explanation isn't possible, but I need a little more evidence than an imagined legal battle.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
BryllCream wrote:
I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.
A company whose target demographic is 12-13 year olds gets immature comments on Facebook. Surprise!
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
BryllCream wrote:
I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.
10 years ago my country went to war with Iraq and killed thousands of innocent people, but I didn't sent vitriolic bs to my MP (who supported it). Now I know that the deaths of millions of people aren't as important as corporate dickery but still
Ahhh, the good old "your problems aren't as bad as starving children so you have no right to complain about anything" discussion tactic... Well played good sir, well played!
9892
Post by: Flashman
Painting Guides were removed because GW operates a "Nothing for free" policy these days.
It's dumb because I never visit their site anymore... well except to flick through the still moderately cool Specialist Games section which surely can't be long for this world.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
I think the most direct reason makes the most sense:
Why make available free content if you have competing product you are trying to sell? "Nothing for free" as stated earlier does seem to be the main rule they follow now.
From what has been demonstrated by GW as of late is anything that does not make money will be removed.
Can they sell product in Facebook? No? Get rid of it.
They used to have forums on their site, it costs money and they cannot charge for access so get rid of it.
They might have been able to hold "official" tournaments at FNGS and charge for admission (Magic the gathering springs to mind) but that goes against direct sales.
This unwillingness to participate in the community without having their hand out for payment is a poor buisness move. They have made themselves less relevant or attractive for new customers.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
GW don't own the copyrights to the names in anything other than gaming/models, the confusion with that is what sparked the whole thing about them owning the term 'space marine'.
It is entirely possible for the manufacture making the paints to copyright them the second their contract is done and then try to squeeze GW for money only to send them to another manufacturer. I have no real source for it but that's what I heard happened at the time the paint lines switched.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
I heard that Mars Rover found a kitten and chased it up a tree. I've heard no such rumour locally.
18698
Post by: kronk
 Kizmet wrote:since when have they removed ALL of the painting articles off there website?
Last year. Around October. The same time they dumped all of the links to their Apocalypse Data Sheets.
They want you to buy the How to Paint books, I guess.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
BryllCream wrote:
I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.
10 years ago my country went to war with Iraq and killed thousands of innocent people, but I didn't sent vitriolic bs to my MP (who supported it). Now I know that the deaths of millions of people aren't as important as corporate dickery but still
No, perhaps you didn't. But I guarantee others did. Some people just marched in the streets. What a dreadful comparison, please don't use the death and suffering of others as some way of enhancing your argument.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
 kronk wrote: Kizmet wrote:since when have they removed ALL of the painting articles off there website?
Last year. Around October. The same time they dumped all of the links to their Apocalypse Data Sheets.
They want you to buy the How to Paint books, I guess.
To be fair to GW (fairness in an internet thread? madness I say!), it would probably be really confusing to little Timmy if he wen't to GW's site looking for a way to paint his brand new spech murines and all the guides he found all contained paints that aren't really available to purchase any more...
(of course that could be solved with a disclaimer and a link to the paint conversion chart, but that would just make too much sense)
24779
Post by: Eilif
 jonolikespie wrote:GW don't own the copyrights to the names in anything other than gaming/models, the confusion with that is what sparked the whole thing about them owning the term 'space marine'.
It is entirely possible for the manufacture making the paints to copyright them the second their contract is done and then try to squeeze GW for money only to send them to another manufacturer. I have no real source for it but that's what I heard happened at the time the paint lines switched[u].
Again, this is far to vague to be taken without more evidence.
Also, a correction. GW does own trademarks for many terms outside of games and models, as evidenced by the copyright/trademark notices in black library novels, video games, etc. I've not seen any evidence that GW doesn't also own the names for it's paints. There is no reason to think that a paint name with a GW trademark in it would be owned by a company other than GW. (Blood Angel, Space wolf, etc, etc.)
Space Marine is in contention recently, but try to use Tyranids or Sisters of Battle in a paint and see what happens.
68802
Post by: TheAuldGrump
 NAVARRO wrote:Taking down Black gobbo, now articles, dumbed down white dwarf... rumors of no GD's will not help them sell more paints... But hey it's their call.
I find vallejos, P3's quite nice and I avoid GW pots as much as I can since they dry fast... but then again some athlete with a sanity tracking record of nil will pop in and say I'm doing it wrong
I forgot about P3.
Adding that in:
1-2 Reaper/Vallejo (depends on the individual colors)
3 GW (Mostly their Foundation colors - but they lose points on the bottles)
4 P3
5 Army Painter
And some big ol' bottles of Americana that I use for base coats on low detail or large models.
Now if I could find brown ink in quart sizes....
The Auld Grump, pints would do....
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
I looked through the cpyright link at the bottom of their page and couldn't find any evidenc they do own the copyright. As for the ones that have things GW does own in the name, what we saw with the Spots the Space Marine thing was that GWs copyrights are limited to games and the like, it is entierly possible they don't own the words Tyranid or Sister of Battle outside of games and books.
I am afraid I can't find a link to anything about it but it is what I, and several other people were told by GW staff. The company that GW were using in China to manufacturer their paints registered them as their own IP (or trademark or whatever), and then decided to increase charges to GW, as GW were using the names and colours that they didn't own. As a result they swapped their entire line rather than continue to deal with them.
60791
Post by: Sean_OBrien
The mention was in the 2012 Financial report...
We have also ensured that each of the paints has a trademark protected name to prevent anyone else from mimicking our colour palette.
The problem of course is that while they have trademarked the names, it does nothing to prevent a company from copying the palette - they just have to name it something different...as they have already done in the past with lines like VGC.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
jonolikespie wrote:
I am afraid I can't find a link to anything about it but it is what I, and several other people were told by GW staff. The company that GW were using in China to manufacturer their paints registered them as their own IP (or trademark or whatever), and then decided to increase charges to GW, as GW were using the names and colours that they didn't own. As a result they swapped their entire line rather than continue to deal with them.
Store monkeys have a habit of being 'enthusiastic' with their story telling. I've had store staff tell me numerous times things which I have known outright to be false. Unless your source is in or close to head office, I'd take most things with plenty of salt. They are told very little indeed; bear that in mind.
37755
Post by: Harriticus
 Rainbow Dash wrote:GW just wants to sell you models, the game and how you paint them are irrelevant to them
get them to buy as much as they can and then get them out
This more or less sums up GW. They seem to dislike veteran customers and most of all people concerned with things beyond collecting like gameplay/painting. It's a bizarre mindset to say the least, because there's no reason GW can't cater to both the young impulse buyers and long-term customers.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
BryllCream wrote:I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.
Yes, yes you can.
10 years ago my country went to war with Iraq and killed thousands of innocent people, but I didn't sent vitriolic bs to my MP (who supported it). Now I know that the deaths of millions of people aren't as important as corporate dickery but still
Just because you're apathetic doesn't mean everyone else is. Here is what other people in your country did...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
Honestly I think you've lost sight of the arguments as you too easily devolve in to accusations of whinging, immaturity and blind hate instead of either just arguing the actual topic or leaving the topic.
34906
Post by: Pacific
BryllCream wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote: BryllCream wrote:They got rid of their facebook page because the community wouldn't stop whinging and spamming it with complaints.
Complaints related to them strong-arming a self-published writer for using the words "space" and "marine" in the title of one of her children's books.
If you're going to make excuses for GW at every turn, at least tell the whole story and avoid being so disingenuous.
I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.
10 years ago my country went to war with Iraq and killed thousands of innocent people, but I didn't sent vitriolic bs to my MP (who supported it). Now I know that the deaths of millions of people aren't as important as corporate dickery but still
What's the point you are trying to make here exactly? That you couldn't feel motivated by a war, so that means everything else is just water under the bridge? It must be wonderful to be such an unemotional and nihilistic person, who answers 'who gives a crap?' about everything, but you should at least recognise that others might have a different sense of perspective to yourself. Especially on a forum where people have come to write about such things. Of course in one sense you're absolutely right - toy soldiers, and the discussions surrounding them, pale in comparison to the greater evils happening on this planet. But, that still doesn't mean things like that should be ignored.
Quite rightly, the sci-fi/fantasy writing fraternity, and more, opposed GW about their attempts to take ownership of the term 'Space Marine', and protested about it because of the precedent it could potentially set . That loads of kids (and older kids) posted lots of immature references on the facebook page (some of which, you have to admit, were quite amusing! ) doesn't take anything away from the core of the issues involved. And the fact that, almost without exception, everyone fell on the opposite side of the fence to GW should tell you a lot about who was considered to be in the wrong.
1795
Post by: keezus
The new paint colour names are a running joke at my FLGS. I mean seriously, is it so hard to have an actual colour in the name of the paint? Do they realize how nonsensical these names are to someone who is new to (or not participating in) the GW hobby?
BUGMAN'S GLOW. What the hell is a bug man. It's a green maybe? What colour is its glow? It's a yellow right? Maybe an orange?
Actual colour: BROWN
THE FANG. Ok. It's a brown right? Maybe a beige or bone right?
Actual colour: PURPLE
XV-88. ???!?!???? (Educated guess from GW enthusiasts might suggest a yellow-brown a-la bubonic brown or a beige.)
Actual colour: BROWN
KINDLEFLAME: Ok. Red, Yellow or Orange. I've got to have this one right.
Actual colour: PINK
SKAVENBLIGHT DINGE: ?!??!??!???!?!??!
Actual colour: DARK BROWN-GREY
DAWNSTONE is GREY but KARAK STONE is BEIGE
Honorable Mentions:
Screaming Bell - Bronze
Incubi Darkness - Purple
Firedragon Bright - Orange
Daemonette Hide - Purple
67781
Post by: BryllCream
AllSeeingSkink wrote: BryllCream wrote:I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.
Yes, yes you can.
10 years ago my country went to war with Iraq and killed thousands of innocent people, but I didn't sent vitriolic bs to my MP (who supported it). Now I know that the deaths of millions of people aren't as important as corporate dickery but still
Just because you're apathetic doesn't mean everyone else is. Here is what other people in your country did...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
Honestly I think you've lost sight of the arguments as you too easily devolve in to accusations of whinging, immaturity and blind hate instead of either just arguing the actual topic or leaving the topic.
I don't know what about my post made people think that I did nothing. I did get a detention for spreading anti-war literature around school after all
Anyway if you don't understand my point then I've clearly failed as a communicator but I don't think that's cause for attacking my charector.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
BryllCream wrote:Anyway if you don't understand my point then I've clearly failed as a communicator
Ok. We'll just go with this.
12313
Post by: Ouze
BryllCream wrote:You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.
That is exactly what you should do. The whole point of social media is interacting with the public, and if you've done something the public deems distasteful, then they will tell you so.
it's not any different then writing them a letter voicing your complaint. And then taking that letter, putting it in your buggy, hitching up your horses, and then driving them 50 miles to the general store and affixing a penny stamp and asking them to mail it while also picking up ammunition, bear furs, and barrels of dried meat, because it's obviously 150 years ago since we're writing a letter on paper instead of electronically.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Thread killer. 
Excellent find and plenty of gems in there, as well.
And here is a little word from our sponsor-
“Games Workshop has had a good year. We have launched some great new products including the new Citadel paint range. We have made good progress on all our major initiatives. This has resulted in an encouraging level of volume growth. We have a strong management team and excellent staff who are committed to delivering a healthy return on capital. We have honoured our commitment to distribute genuinely surplus cash to our shareholders.”
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
winterdyne wrote: jonolikespie wrote:
I am afraid I can't find a link to anything about it but it is what I, and several other people were told by GW staff. The company that GW were using in China to manufacturer their paints registered them as their own IP (or trademark or whatever), and then decided to increase charges to GW, as GW were using the names and colours that they didn't own. As a result they swapped their entire line rather than continue to deal with them.
Store monkeys have a habit of being 'enthusiastic' with their story telling. I've had store staff tell me numerous times things which I have known outright to be false. Unless your source is in or close to head office, I'd take most things with plenty of salt. They are told very little indeed; bear that in mind.
Still no actual source unfortunatly but apparently this has happend before. These guys http://www.blackhat.co.uk/coat_darms/paintcolours.php made the GW paints back in the early 90s. GW moved to a new retailer and copyright wasn't as strong so Coat'd'arms kept on making the paints and just sells them to other companies now. There are no GW trademarked words in there but it hasn't stopped them keeping most of the line and just remaning things like dark angel green to US dark green. Also that would explain why GW want all of their colours named after their things now, so that this can't happen again.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Ouze wrote:it's not any different then writing them a letter voicing your complaint. And then taking that letter, putting it in your buggy, hitching up your horses, and then driving them 50 miles to the general store and affixing a penny stamp and asking them to mail it while also picking up ammunition, bear furs, and barrels of dried meat, because it's obviously 150 years ago since we're writing a letter on paper instead of electronically.
Is that metaphor about to give birth, 'cause it has some major stretch marks.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I read it in my head in Sterling Archer's voice.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ouze wrote:I read it in my head in Sterling Archer's voice.
Don't worry. I did as well!
68228
Post by: Deunstephe
 Grot 6 wrote:
Thread killer.
Excellent find and plenty of gems in there, as well.
And here is a little word from our sponsor-
“Games Workshop has had a good year. We have launched some great new products including the new Citadel paint range. We have made good progress on all our major initiatives. This has resulted in an encouraging level of volume growth. We have a strong management team and excellent staff who are committed to delivering a healthy return on capital. We have honoured our commitment to distribute genuinely surplus cash to our shareholders.”
Oh my.
46630
Post by: wowsmash
I actually bought the painting guilde and I was disappointed in the content. For 50 dollars I expected more information than was in the book. Everything was super basic. I don't know maybe watching all the painting tutorials on utube and buying other painting guide's has made me a bit Jaded, but I just expected more some how.
As far as the paints go. I like them but at the same time I dont really want to pay 4 dollars for 12ml of paint when I can buy the same color in a different range for 2.50 that has 17ml instead and that paint range has a bottle top that doesn't let the paint dry out as easy.
12313
Post by: Ouze
The only thing that is more tiresome than "these threads" is when people like you see the thread title and go out of their way to go crap in it.
No one puts a gun to your head and makes you read them, much less post in them.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Ouze wrote:
The only thing that is more tiresome than "these threads" is when people like you see the thread title and go out of their way to go crap in it.
No one puts a gun to your head and makes you read them, much less post in them.
I actually feel ill saying this, but...SoloFalcon kind of has a point. I realize he's often...abrasive...but this is a thread complaining about something we all discussed in N&R last year, we all got upset, and it's just a thread pulling us all back into angry-at- GW mode. Ugh. I need a shower after my agreement, but it's true. Mods, how is this thread still alive?
*And yes, this is coming from someone quite annoyed with how GW has been acting over the past few years.
59413
Post by: Jaeger wulf
Interesting information, after GW moved away from Coat D'Arms paints, they changed, and not all for the better, IMHO, I mean none of the bottles have gotten any better yet, but if this new line of paints is because they got barked at over in china, then I say GOOD, I know I won't ever buy another GW paint pot for as long as they are priced ridiculously and are in those god awful bottles that allow my pot to dry out while not in use..
Yes I'm a fan of dropper bottles, cause I also airbrush, and mix colours, but I am not against bottles, infact I have gone out of my way to source some "old GW" paints from Coat D'Arms, all I can say is at least those bottles work, and don't kill the paint they hold..
GW is as business, but it has very much changed its business model from answering to the community it helped grow to answering to the shareholders, which is understandable, without the aid of shareholders GW would have gone bust by now, but I can see that dire age of grim dark at GW looming again, but this time for a different reason.. Pissing off your customers is one dire way to ensure they don't come back again, and that is something I feel sadly GW is very good at these days..
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ouze wrote:The only thing that is more tiresome than "these threads" is when people like you see the thread title and go out of their way to go crap in it.
No one puts a gun to your head and makes you read them, much less post in them.
Ouze, I believe you and I have discussed this before: Without such posts Solo would have literally nothing else to do at this site, so leave him be.
18698
Post by: kronk
Many thanks for this you wonderful man!
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
I do miss the LOTR masterclass tutorials. Most GW painting tutorials tended to focus on using out of the pot paints to create models where the colours didn't quite look right and a bit cartoonish as transitions were too abrupt and colours didn't quite match. The LOTR tutorials were the first thing that taught me about mixing paints, particularly browns and creams, to give the model a duller but more unified look kind of like using a filter on your camera.
69226
Post by: Selym
Kizmet wrote:since when have they removed ALL of the painting articles off there website?
Haven't yet read the whole thread, but if you're in need of painting instructions, Miniwargaming.com has a few video samples of low-cost painting DVD's, and if you make an account on their website, you can get new painting DVD's for free 
61618
Post by: Desubot
My god, download all the things!
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Item of note:
The names were trademarks, not copyrights. One cannot copyright a color, and the names themselves are not protected as copyrights.
The fact that GW never managed to hold on to those trademarks is a matter if idiocy.
Also, certain terms cannot be trademarked as they are far too vague or are terms that existed far before any specific use.
An example of that would be Ultramarine Blue. VGC range has that exact name, as did the old GW range.
The reasoning for the new naming scheme is that while the colors are not trademarked, the "fluff" names added to them are.
I maintain that the only colors in the current GW range worth using are Mephiston Red and Ceramite White.
Also known to every 3 year old as red and white.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 Aerethan wrote:I maintain that the only colors in the current GW range worth using are Mephiston Red and Ceramite White.
Also known to every 3 year old as red and white.
Have you tried the Averland Sunset (also known as yellow)? I like that, it's more vibrant than the old foundation yellows which tended to be more brownish but still has very good coverage. Actually I haven't been disappointed by any of the base paints, as a whole they're more vibrant than the foundations while maintaining good coverage.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
Aerethan wrote:Item of note:
The names were trademarks, not copyrights. One cannot copyright a color, and the names themselves are not protected as copyrights.
The fact that GW never managed to hold on to those trademarks is a matter if idiocy.
Also, certain terms cannot be trademarked as they are far too vague or are terms that existed far before any specific use.
An example of that would be Ultramarine Blue. VGC range has that exact name, as did the old GW range.
The reasoning for the new naming scheme is that while the colors are not trademarked, the "fluff" names added to them are.
I maintain that the only colors in the current GW range worth using are Mephiston Red and Ceramite White.
Also known to every 3 year old as red and white.
Ultramarine is a pigment. Oddly, it's blue. Ultramarine Blue would be a blue paint made with (or looking like) Ultramarine. Not a good trademarkable name.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
Why do GW even want to make sure that each name for their paints is trademarkable? How could this benefit offset the impact of making pretty much all the names feth-ugly to say.
The old names were actually pretty cool, the older ones anyway (the newer ones got kinda weird). I will always have a place in my heart for Skull White...I remember my first tub of that with the Ork Bad Moon symbol thing on it. Good times.
</nostalgia>
61618
Post by: Desubot
sadly i never got to experience the wonders of the older pots, only the hex pots where designed to dry out :/
i still call any new paints by there old names like skull white and scorched brown.
also Averland Sunset is one of my new favored paints, though slightly orange brown.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
BryllCream wrote:Why do GW even want to make sure that each name for their paints is trademarkable? How could this benefit offset the impact of making pretty much all the names feth-ugly to say.
The old names were actually pretty cool, the older ones anyway (the newer ones got kinda weird). I will always have a place in my heart for Skull White...I remember my first tub of that with the Ork Bad Moon symbol thing on it. Good times.
</nostalgia>
Yeah, the good old days. I liked the old names too, even if m parents would comment on them ( FYI, I always bought my own stuff with money from chores, my parents just liked to know what it was, lol). Skull white they assumed was an off white and they assumed Blood Red was more like blood red rather than the orange-red that it was. It is annoying that half the new paints don't even have a reference to what colour they might be.
Desubot wrote:sadly i never got to experience the wonders of the older pots, only the hex pots where designed to dry out :/
i still call any new paints by there old names like skull white and scorched brown.
also Averland Sunset is one of my new favored paints, though slightly orange brown.
It's confusing to call the new paints by their old names because they aren't actually the same and I still own a lot of old paints, lol. The pots are definitely a major source of contempt with me and GW, I'd have far less problems buying their paints if they used proper pots. The fact that they HAD good pots that didn't dry out (have some paints that are well over a decade old still going strong), and then changed to pots that DID, and have subsequently changed pots, what, 3 or 4 times, and they STILL suck (eliminating the possibility that it was just a once off error) makes me want to punch whoever is in charge of choosing their pots.
59456
Post by: Riquende
I have a 20 year old pot of Shining Gold that still has perfect consistency.
61618
Post by: Desubot
They just don't make em like they used too.
luckily i started switching over to Valejio and transferring to dropper bottles.
though tzeench be damned there is no substitute for charadon granite.
57811
Post by: Jehan-reznor
Some awesome stuff , there even were the rules for Dark future!
14
Post by: Ghaz
Every time one of these threads comes up, I feel compelled to remind people that you can still buy the Coat d'Arms paints (the old, old GW paints).
http://www.scalecreep.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=2501_2502
68228
Post by: Deunstephe
This is about the painting articles, which Coat d'Arms does not have.
59456
Post by: Riquende
I think the point is you can still buy the paints listed in those articles from C d'A.
68228
Post by: Deunstephe
While this is true, where are the articles? Other than that amazing list someone posted.
10972
Post by: Ruglud
I used to regularly visit the Black Gobbo articles back in the day - was a great e-zine and SOOO much better than WD... Recently rediscovered the pages on the web archive site...
http://web.archive.org/web/20080406213302/http://us.games-workshop.com/e-zine/archive.htm. Can be a little hit and miss for captured content but still a useful resource...
59456
Post by: Riquende
Deunstephe wrote:While this is true, where are the articles? Other than that amazing list someone posted.
Which articles? I don't know what you're getting at.
The previously posted articles refer to colours that GW no longer produce, the person above was pointing out you can still get those colours from Coat d'Arms (as an option instead of working out the new GW equivalents). I'm not sure where the confusion is, really.
68228
Post by: Deunstephe
Riquende wrote: Deunstephe wrote:While this is true, where are the articles? Other than that amazing list someone posted.
Which articles? I don't know what you're getting at.
The previously posted articles refer to colours that GW no longer produce, the person above was pointing out you can still get those colours from Coat d'Arms (as an option instead of working out the new GW equivalents). I'm not sure where the confusion is, really.
I'm getting at the fact that although he posted that you can get Coat d'Arms paints, the information isn't really relevant to this thread since it's about the painting articles and not the paints.
I guess the confusion is that I'm referring to the original part of the thread and not these parts about paints.
21613
Post by: ellis_esquire
Winter dyne - if shooting in an airbrush use some slow dri and johnsons klear with maybe a bit of ab cleaner. Makes Ulthuan grey work a lot smoother. Though my pot was lumpy not as bad as yours so maybe a return...
3806
Post by: Grot 6
SHH! Be quite, you or GW will end up deep sixing them and sending out the C and D letters.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
ellis_esquire wrote:Winter dyne - if shooting in an airbrush use some slow dri and johnsons klear with maybe a bit of ab cleaner. Makes Ulthuan grey work a lot smoother. Though my pot was lumpy not as bad as yours so maybe a return...
I'm sure he appreciates the advice, but I feel I'd better point out that he is a pro painter (and a good one too) so while we're all here to share, he tends to give more advice than he receives!
Seriously, see if you can find his decals tutorial, changed the whole way I approached them.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Deunstephe wrote:I'm getting at the fact that although he posted that you can get Coat d'Arms paints, the information isn't really relevant to this thread since it's about the painting articles and not the paints.
I guess the confusion is that I'm referring to the original part of the thread and not these parts about paints.
And if we only had 'relevant' posts then this thread would only be a single page long. And on top of that, how are your posts complaining about what somebody else posted 'relevant' to the to subject either?
68228
Post by: Deunstephe
 Ghaz wrote: Deunstephe wrote:I'm getting at the fact that although he posted that you can get Coat d'Arms paints, the information isn't really relevant to this thread since it's about the painting articles and not the paints.
I guess the confusion is that I'm referring to the original part of the thread and not these parts about paints.
And if we only had 'relevant' posts then this thread would only be a single page long. And on top of that, how are your posts complaining about what somebody else posted 'relevant' to the to subject either?
I just came back to the thread and saw people talking about paints when this was about articles.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Yep, the thread has made a logical progression towards a related topic.
It happens, especially after the various guesses as to why GW has moved the articles have been explored and discussed.
|
|
