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.

I've had this niggling little spidey-sense about those pots.

The comment about the TM symbol is interesting, but GW might be TMing those names as the paint colors, so this seems a red herring. But then again, the current names should be TM-able if this was the route, so this whole thing is just weird.

However, the spidey sense is with the "classification" of the paints. In this picture



We have paints designated as

Base (metallic, appears to be bronze or copper)
Foundation (we know and love this paint)
Layers (several colors that look exactly like Skull White, Elf Flesh and Fortress or Codex Grey)

This terminology for paints just doesn't make sense. Lemme 'splain. It is needlessly complex because intuitively, "base" is really the same as a "foundation". Unless, they are using

Base - wash - highlight (or something) -> for metallics

Foundation - wash - layer(s) -> for all the rest

But why have two sets of terminology? Unless they are designating certain metallics as equivalent to foundations... but then why not just call them "foundations"?

This is really weird and is bothering me. Of course, it would be just like GW to needlessly overcomplicate something so as to make it the Most Awsomest Paint System EVAR!!111!!1!!! (tm) I bet it will be heralded as a new innovation that revolutionizes the miniature painting experience.

But still, as of now, they already have "foundation", "wash", "colour", and people have really loved the new foundations and washes. Changing the name just for giggles is.... WAIT. These "new" pots say "layer" instead of "colour". "Colour" is not spelled that way in the US, of course, we have our abhorrence of additional vowels.

That's it. They are changing the names to prevent us stupid Americans from getting confused.

I'm kidding!

Another thought. I'm looking right now at two pots of Skill white. Both are stamped on the bottom with what appear to be dates. Since these look just like the lot codes that get put on so much that is line manufactured, I assume these are date of manufacture.

I have an old and a new one.

Old one says: 20100426 (obviously manufactured on April 26, 2010)
New one says: 20110913 (also obviously manufactured Sept 13, 2011)

Can anyone use their photo-fu to get clearer resolution on the stamps on the photos in the eBay pic?

Slaanesh grey? No, no, no...

slaanesh grey?!? if they take pink away from slaanesh then so help me I will eat their limbs

are'nt these new paints exactly what PP are doing?

Hmm, it seems rather than new paints they are just reclassifying the existing colours into groups depending on whether they are typically used as bases/midtones/etc .I think the marketing ploy here is the old 'tutorial' route. If in WD they advertise 'paint your clanrats foundation->base->wash->highlight, then your average gamer is going to buy those paints, your pro-painters are going to continue to mix n match but the majority will be further 'locked in' to gw paints by standardised painting methods.

E.g flog 'screaming bell->dwarf bronze->devlan mud ->mithril silver' as the standard foundation,base,wash,highlight for ALL brass paint schemes and the lazy/ignorant painter will quite happily buy those paints, and only those paints without ever thinking about experimenting with tin bitz for a fdarker shade, or shining gold for a warmer tone

Good idea fundamentally, but i think GW are trying to simplify the hobby to reach a larger audience, shame it upsets so many old hobbyists. I forsee a lot less variation in army paintschemes in the future, moreso than is present now

As an army painter, I'm wary, but willing to give it a shot. I hate having to go back and touch up an older model, or try to match colors when adding a new unit to an army that was mostly finished two or more years ago.

If the colors aren't close though, I'm probably going to give up on citadel paints. It pissed me off when they cancelled the inks and the handful of colors they removed in the last go around. If they're going to make me go through range redesigns every few years, I'm just going to switch over to a more stable range entirely.

NecronLord3 wrote:So you are talking about paint pots from like 15 years ago?

About the end of when they were using screw tops. I threw out some screw tops because while the paint was still liquid, I couldn't open them at all. And I didn't fancy drilling a hole in the top. The flip tops from just after are fine.

-Loki- wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:So you are talking about paint pots from like 15 years ago?

About the end of when they were using screw tops. I threw out some screw tops because while the paint was still liquid, I couldn't open them at all. And I didn't fancy drilling a hole in the top. The flip tops from just after are fine.

If you are talking about screw tops then you were just lucky. Those pots sucked and could dry up without opening and I can testify to the "exploding pot" as it happened to me once with enchanted blue, it sprayed all over my finished Orc Lord on a Wyvern. Once those bottles were opened you could practically set a timer to when they would be dried and unusable.

How about a theory that the "base" paint is either a version of the dirt stuff from forgeworld that you can put on tanks, or a line of paints designed for painting bases? The metallic pigments look way to big from what i can see in the pics..

Base paints are likely None heavy pigmented paints (such as the foundation paints) but dark and therefore designed to be used as a basecoat. Meaning that for painting articles they can do Base/Foundation -> Layer -> Wash -> Layer/Highlight.

Base and foundation seems to be redundant. I'm thinking we may see foundation go away.

Someone over at Warseer said this:

Spectrar Ghost wrote:They are real. I've just been talking with a friend who is more tuned to these developments than I, and he's seen the same from other sources as well.

I was told some of the lighter colors will be discontinued, due to the ease of mixing white with the next darker color in the progression, and that colors that are not named to the GW background will probably continue in a new name, e.g. Red Gore will probably be Khorne Red. There is also a good chance of some discontinued colors returning (Tentiacle Pink, Nauseating Blue, and Imperial Purple were mentioned). Tentacle Pink will likely return as Slaanesh Pink, for instance.

Lighter colours... discontinued?

[vader]Nooooooooooo[/vader]

I'm glad I'm sitting on a grand of paint pots and my updated Necrons are nearly done. My only other army is GK and they use pretty much the same colors.

I am glad that I have been building my paints for years.

I am always surprised when people say paint dries in the bottles. I have had it happen, but only to a few paints, Blood Red, White, Brass and Bone. I have flip top hex pots that date back to 2002 and the paint is still usable.

Only colours I am missing are Bad Moon Yellow, Tanned Flesh and Vomit Brown...

Kroothawk wrote:Someone over at Warseer said this:

Spectrar Ghost wrote:They are real. I've just been talking with a friend who is more tuned to these developments than I, and he's seen the same from other sources as well.

I was told some of the lighter colors will be discontinued, due to the ease of mixing white with the next darker color in the progression, and that colors that are not named to the GW background will probably continue in a new name, e.g. Red Gore will probably be Khorne Red. There is also a good chance of some discontinued colors returning (Tentiacle Pink, Nauseating Blue, and Imperial Purple were mentioned). Tentacle Pink will likely return as Slaanesh Pink, for instance.

Ah HA! All those colors have been crossed match to paints with very generic names.

Out of curiosity, here is a photo of my paints of the same colors... (don't mind the dog fur)

These are:

Dwarf bronze - Mechrite Red - Skull White - Elf Flesh - Fortress Grey

I'd be upset if they discontinued Shadow Grey and Hawk Turqoise, since they're a key part of my Behemoth scheme, but I'll just move to Vallejos comparable colour when I run out. I've already switched from GW Blood Red to Vallejo Bloody Red.

The fact that they might be continuing with their current terrible pots might make me convert completely to Vallejo anyway.

Leigen_Zero wrote:Hmm, it seems rather than new paints they are just reclassifying the existing colours into groups depending on whether they are typically used as bases/midtones/etc .I think the marketing ploy here is the old 'tutorial' route. If in WD they advertise 'paint your clanrats foundation-base-wash-highlight, then your average gamer is going to buy those paints, your pro-painters are going to continue to mix n match but the majority will be further 'locked in' to gw paints by standardised painting methods.

E.g flog 'screaming bell->dwarf bronze->devlan mud ->mithril silver' as the standard foundation,base,wash,highlight for ALL brass paint schemes and the lazy/ignorant painter will quite happily buy those paints, and only those paints without ever thinking about experimenting with tin bitz for a fdarker shade, or shining gold for a warmer tone

Good idea fundamentally, but i think GW are trying to simplify the hobby to reach a larger audience, shame it upsets so many old hobbyists. I forsee a lot less variation in army paintschemes in the future, moreso than is present now

I think this is 100% dead on correct.

For big army painting this can make things very easy.

the How to Paint Citadel Tanks book has a chart in the back that lists Base-Midtone-Highlight to achieve various colors used in the book. Foundation paints are included. So this idea was firmly entrenched as of 2009 when the book was published.

So I for one welcome our new organized paint color scheme overlords.

What you are not seeing is GW put a new chemical in the paint that glows under black lights in a special patented style, TOs will now be able to see if you are using actual GW paints. So now you will be forced to use GW paints if you want to enter tournaments. Also their new Glue will have a distinct yet pleasant smell that will be immediately recognizable by TOs
This is also why the new pots will be $10 a piece.

Don't give GW ideas, Andrew1975

Give it time...

I wouldn't be surprised if the Base colour is a new formula metallic designed to be used as a foundation.

My reasoning for this is due to some comments from the Eavy metal team last year at a masterclass I attended. When painting metallics they suggested mixing in some foundation colour to the metallic paint in order to get better coverage. Something to do with the metal pigments clump more easily than normal colours (or some such sciency-thing).

If they are revisiting the paint range, it makes sense to produce a set of metallics that actually provide decent coverage.

We'd like to let you know that eBay has ended an item you were bidding on for breaching of one or more of our policies. As it's important that eBay maintains member privacy, we can't tell you exactly why the listing was removed.

Any offers or bids placed on this listing are now null and void. If you were the winning bidder, you're no longer obliged to pay for the item:

260948310834 - Games Workshop-CITADEL PAINTS- x5 *Brand New*

now we'll not get a closer look at these :(

biccat wrote:

-Loki- wrote:I don't know how people have their paint dry out in GW pots at all. I had about 20 paints in various old pots sitting in a box for my ~4 year hiatus, and when I opened them, they were good as new. This is after sitting in extremely hot and dry garages and sheds for those 4 years.

Had a similar environment (moving, garages, hot and cold, dry and wet...), but all of my GW paints were rock-hard. Except for a couple bottles of Ink, there was no hope of reclaiming them. Surprisingly, the old reaper screw tops are just about good as new and my Vallejo came back to life with vigorous shaking. Seems to be luck of the draw.

I had a few pots (don't remember brand) that actually sounded like liquid when shook, but the cap had sealed to the bottle, making them impossible to open.

Kroothawk wrote:Two comments from Warseer on the ebay auction pots:

Galgaroth wrote:I'm calling fake. After the name of each paint is a little TM mark. And I'm pretty sure none of those names are. They're not marked on the UK Intellectual Property Website. And I doubt 'White Scar' or 'Screaming Bell' are distinct enough terms to Trademark anyway.

1) You don't need to register a mark to put "TM" on it. However, if you want to use (R), then it must be a registered mark.
2) You don't need to have a distinct term to slap a TM on a logo.

lol, part of the names are already trademarked/patented/cannot be used by anybody else till doomsday already, galgaroth. clearly you are not a golfer.

Foundation + metallics = good idea. One thing that always bugged me is the transparentness of with most of their metallics except for really silver and boltgun. Golds have crappy coverage, I started mixing em with Indayn darksun or whatever and that makes a really nice & bright gold color.

I just really hope they're killing the new paint jars or at least making the lids all be able to stay open on their own

biccat wrote:
1) You don't need to register a mark to put "TM" on it. However, if you want to use (R), then it must be a registered mark.
2) You don't need to have a distinct term to slap a TM on a logo.

Sorry. I was under the impression that you had to have a distinction to allow a TM. Otherwise someone could just trademark Green™ and sue anyone who then uses. I remember looking into the McDonald's strapline (I'm Loving It) for work in relation to whether it was copyable or not. I'm sure I found a court case that say it wasn't distinct enough to warrant a TM. But then it may have been a registered TM. Can't remember.

I was going to say, I've never noticed TMs on much of their product before. However, a quick glimpse of the website, and it's obvious on both the Necron, Dark Eldar and Blood Angel Codexs, but not on the older Space Marine, Tau and Eldar books. Maybe it's a more recent policy to affirm their Trademark wherever possible. I've just noticed it properly on these paints.

Gymnogyps wrote
Can anyone use their photo-fu to get clearer resolution on the stamps on the photos in the eBay pic?

I echo Gymnogyps on this. Anyone good with the old Photoshop?

Orinoco wrote
galgaroth. clearly you are not a golfer.

You're right. I'm not. No idea what you're referencing here...

ThomasPolder wrote:

We'd like to let you know that eBay has ended an item you were bidding on for breaching of one or more of our policies. As it's important that eBay maintains member privacy, we can't tell you exactly why the listing was removed.

Any offers or bids placed on this listing are now null and void. If you were the winning bidder, you're no longer obliged to pay for the item:

260948310834 - Games Workshop-CITADEL PAINTS- x5 *Brand New*

now we'll not get a closer look at these :(

I guess the ending of the auction from ebay itself is the confirmation that these paints are the real deal.

Not really - if theyre counterfeit that would also be cause for the auction to be removed

Galgaroth wrote:Sorry. I was under the impression that you had to have a distinction to allow a TM. Otherwise someone could just trademark Green™ and sue anyone who then uses.

Yes...ish.

You could slap a "TM" on the word Green if you wanted to. But you probably wouldn't be able to successfully sue someone for using it. A big risk of using "TM" indiscriminately is that you could use it too broadly, and get sued yourself for false labeling. Like if McDonalds slapped a "TM" on the word "Hamburger," that might be a problem (I'm not completely familiar with this part of the TM law).

Galgaroth wrote:I remember looking into the McDonald's strapline (I'm Loving It) for work in relation to whether it was copyable or not. I'm sure I found a court case that say it wasn't distinct enough to warrant a TM. But then it may have been a registered TM. Can't remember.

Depends on what you want to use it for. McDonalds has registered the mark "I'm Lovin it" for restaurant services and food, so if you wanted to use it for a gaming product you might be OK (although I can almost guarantee that McDonalds will send you a C&D letter regardless).

At this point, what do we know for sure about the upcoming changes to the paint range?

Orinoco wrote
galgaroth. clearly you are not a golfer.

You're right. I'm not. No idea what you're referencing here...