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 remember back around the time she joined GW, she hosted a warhammer preview stream alongside the other painting tutorial guy. It was honestly the best preview show I can remember, in terms of commentary. No waffling or corporate monotone droning about "wow... that is the best _____ ever..." Instead it just seemed like the two of them pure geeking out for an hour. They shouldve just let her do the preview shows from then on.

TreeStewges wrote:
How do we know they downplayed personalities?

I think it was Peachy that said there was a certain amount of bad blood when Duncan left. Basically no one at GW saw it coming and then he left suddenly and set himself up in a very GW adjacent business, including ultimately competing with their paint range. Management at GW realised (correctly) that they'd create a substantial wargaming personality using their resources and then he left to compete with their content, which they weren't pleased about. It's not all bad blood because he is after all still pushing people towards GW miniatures, however GW do like to control to narrative and maximise their own revenue out of their products, so after that point they got wise and starting slowly pushing towards the videos just showing hands/voices, so that there wouldn't be another Duncan situation. People like Peachy and Louise were the people remaining from when GW was using their presenters personalities more and were to a certain extent 'grandfathered in' but now they've gone, I doubt you'll see GW making any other painting personalities. This is the company that doesn't even credit individuals for it's codexes anymore.

It's not really surprising this happens, GW do not pay well, they don't pay their games designers well, let alone painters. So inevitably people come along for a few years because it sounds cool to work for GW, then they start getting disillusioned with the pay and for those that had their personalities involved in the videos and became known to the wargaming community, breaking away and using that as a springboard for a Patreon etc is a no brainer. Also even with the ones that were allowed to show some personality and became community figures, they still had to tow the company line and not have free reign to show their full personlity. It's not just a thing amongst the painters, James Hewitt left GW because of the pay and used his experience in Blood Bowl/Necromunda/Adeptus Titanicus to set up his own 'for hire' rules writing company and regularly uses his GW experience for publicity. It's a tale as old as time in the wargaming industry, it's just that amongst the painting personalities it's a relatively recent thing - before recent times, most wargamers wouldn't even know who was on the 'Eavy Metal team in it's heyday.

Even if they paid better, this would still occur,

As you said, their channel created personalities. Likeable personalities at that. People fairly natural in front of a camera, with an open, friendly presenting style. And crucially? Able to demonstrate even advanced techniques in pretty plain English, helped massively by decent camera angles, so you’re not just being told, but being shown.

Setting up on their own is…pretty cheap, especially if you yourself know how to edit video already. Just need two, possibly three decent quality cameras, functioning mic and suitable lighting - and away you go. Literally anyone can do that. Duncan, Peachy and Louise have the advantage of a fairly ready-made audience.

Not only do we know they’re competent painters, able to demonstrate and explain pretty much any technique, but some level of parasocial (in the positive way!) fan base ready to tune in straight away. Hit the ground running, let the algorithm give the push and you’re pretty much there.

Here’s an example of my mate Paul’s attempt. This was his first and so far only attempt. He’s got a super basic setup, but found it all a bit much, hence the one and only video. But this should go to demonstrate even an amateur can get the gear together fairly easily.

Note that when Duncan Rhodes left GW, he didn't leave alone. He took Roger Yates with him. He was a media director and producer at GW for over 8 years according to his Linkedin page and is now a co-owner of Duncan Rhodes Painting Academy Limited.

I suspected this would happen; She didn't seem to be sincerely enjoying her job at GW, well, not all of it anyway. Just based on my inuition and feels, could be wrong though..

I wish her the best of luck with the path she's taken

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 legionaires wrote:
Since GW has gone to only table ready painting on YT, I hope she adds more of the old Table + that GW used to do. I pulled a lot of inspiration from those older videos.

The tabletop isn't even good and asks for some really....interesting asks.
Like repainting black when already painting black. Spraying it gold, then.....painting it gold. Just paint it grey. It makes basecating easier.

I think the issue is that GW's sprays don't match their paint pot colours. So if you use the spray basecoat as the colour, you can't touch it up later, hence the need for the ridiculous repainting.

I watched quite a few of the masterclass videos by Louise on W+ and quite enjoyed them. I hope she is replaced soon, as other than the 'free' mini, W+ doesn't have a lot going for it imo.

Aidan hasn't done a W+ video for a while either, but the last two were done by one of the guys from Warhammer TV painting videos that I no longer know the name of since - which I guess is the point.

Louise is probably one of my favourite GW painters because she just seemed so atypical. On one end of the scale you have Darren Latham, who epitomises the current GW painting and sculpting styles, and then Louise is on the other end, with some absolutely "out there" colour schemes, that saturated, neon, almost flourescent style is just wild to look at when you're so used to seeing the usual 'Eavy Metal style. She also loves the history and lore of GW. Bolt Thrower t-shirts, Goff Rockers, long OOP pink horrors, and so on.

I don't know what the situation between her and GW was/is, but I'm glad we'll be getting more Sugden-style paintjobs FOR FREE, and I'm really looking forward to seeing her cut loose a little bit and go wild.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but she was involved on some level with development of The Old World, I know she drew some of the maps at least. How integral was she to the team? Also, she came into GW through Forge World, didn't she? Was she originally just a Forge World painter or did she do formatting and design work too? Just wondering what kind of gap she's left at GW. All this talk of "personalities", it does kind of make you wonder what a Louise Sugden/Duncan Rhodes/Peachy-shaped hole looks like in a company that is, in relative terms, pretty small to begin with. You can restrict what the fans and the public see of those personalities, sure, but you can't deny what they bring to the office and working environment every day, and, in my experience, losing someone like that from a small office can be a real downer for everyone.

There has definitely been a trend by GW towards the decoupling of artists and creatives from their work. You can see it with the signatures being air-brushed out of art, faces replaced by hands in videos, even with the rules writing of names disappearing from rules and army books.
All hidden behind the 'GW' logo.

The problem is that when you start to treat your creatives and artistic core as a disposable in this way, not crediting what is a very personal and human endeavour, this is what happens. As has been said it's probably not the money (I don't think anyone ever becomes an artist to make themselves rich) but more of a recognition of what they create and bring to the world.

And I think the evidence and impact of this (which I think is an over-encroachment of sales/production and corporate overreach into the studio) reduces the overall quality of the games that are being made. Because the people that have the talent, the creative flair, feel stifled once they have experience they and move on. When was the last time that GW produced a game that was genuinely brilliantly designed? Something that wasn't a rehashed version of an earlier game that is brought back and dissected into chunks so it could be sold as five separate rulebooks? It has made the name 'Games Workshop' something of an ironic reminder of what the company used to be.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 legionaires wrote:
Since GW has gone to only table ready painting on YT, I hope she adds more of the old Table + that GW used to do. I pulled a lot of inspiration from those older videos.

The tabletop isn't even good and asks for some really....interesting asks.
Like repainting black when already painting black. Spraying it gold, then.....painting it gold. Just paint it grey. It makes basecating easier.

I think the issue is that GW's sprays don't match their paint pot colours. So if you use the spray basecoat as the colour, you can't touch it up later, hence the need for the ridiculous repainting.

I watched quite a few of the masterclass videos by Louise on W+ and quite enjoyed them. I hope she is replaced soon, as other than the 'free' mini, W+ doesn't have a lot going for it imo.

Then tgere is an easy way to solve that prime grey

 Pacific wrote:
There has definitely been a trend by GW towards the decoupling of artists and creatives from their work. You can see it with the signatures being air-brushed out of art, faces replaced by hands in videos, even with the rules writing of names disappearing from rules and army books.
All hidden behind the 'GW' logo.

The problem is that when you start to treat your creatives and artistic core as a disposable in this way, not crediting what is a very personal and human endeavour, this is what happens. As has been said it's probably not the money (I don't think anyone ever becomes an artist to make themselves rich) but more of a recognition of what they create and bring to the world.

And I think the evidence and impact of this (which I think is an over-encroachment of sales/production and corporate overreach into the studio) reduces the overall quality of the games that are being made. Because the people that have the talent, the creative flair, feel stifled once they have experience they and move on. When was the last time that GW produced a game that was genuinely brilliantly designed? Something that wasn't a rehashed version of an earlier game that is brought back and dissected into chunks so it could be sold as five separate rulebooks? It has made the name 'Games Workshop' something of an ironic reminder of what the company used to be.

As a creative professional, I think you're being too dramatic here. Or maybe too naive? When you for work someone else (especially a larger organization), it's not about your personal creative expression or brand-building. You're loaning your creative talents to the organization in support of *their* business, and in exchange you receive compensation. Constraints come with the job. In some ways the job *IS* the constraints...you can't really pull them apart. You're working in a certain industry on a certain product or for a certain client as directed by a certain creative brief. All these things provide the shape of the creative space in which you work.

It's certainly legit to feel like you want a 'larger space' or more personal recognition. And usually what creatives do in that case is strike out on their own, which is what the subject of this thread did. It's just how things work.

GW may have been driven more by the creative studio decades ago, but that's no way to become or run a multinational corporation. When the business gets that big and complicated, you really do need all those other folks in other fields of expertise. And you build the business together. Sure, it's a different kind of gratification than doing whatever the hell you want to do in support of no one but yourself. But the paychecks are usually a lot steadier.

drbored wrote:

TreeStewges wrote:
How do we know they downplayed personalities?

Having watched her tutorials on WH+ and then her own tutorial on Rogue Hobbies, yeah, they stuck her to a script and little else. It's VERY obvious that her personality was suppressed in favor of a clean corporate script.

Her greater benefit is that she was able to showcase more of her personality on Twitter and Instagram.

GW lost a good one, but here's the thing: she's still making GW content. Talking GW lore and painting GW miniatures, just like Duncan is, and Peachy... They're all still supporting GW despite leaving the company, they're just getting paid more and get to do more of their own thing. Sure they'll do non-GW models and be able to say whatever they want now, but even if they truly hated GW (which isn't really the case, it's just a few issues with management), they're still feeding into the same hobby, because they have to, to remain relevant on Youtube

But, I wish her the best of luck, she has a really bright and colorful style and great personality.

Honestly working for GW at most positions is likely more passion than "I want the money". So I'd expect they'd have to seriously misstreat someone to have them totally turn their back on everything.
But yeah this looks like managers who were just not budging causing issues and then the realisation and reality that she can step away from GW formally and still paint GW models and engage wtih the GW community way more and make more than GW could pay her in income.

So in a sense it is indeed a win win for everyone involved really save that she's no longer on Warhammer + and it seems that GW is reeling a bit in working out how to manage Warhammer+ in that regard and with focus on art and painting tutorials.

ekwatts wrote:Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but she was involved on some level with development of The Old World, I know she drew some of the maps at least. How integral was she to the team? Also, she came into GW through Forge World, didn't she? Was she originally just a Forge World painter or did she do formatting and design work too?

I think she started out on the graphic design side of FW and dabbled in presenting some stuff. Then some of her painting work (that she already showed off on social media) got showcased by GW those two things combined and she kinda drifted into doing painting tutorials for GW.

gorgon wrote:You're loaning your creative talents to the organization in support of *their* business, and in exchange you receive compensation.

That might be the issue. With how GW is supposedly not paying too well these corporate dictated boundaries might simply end up too constraining rather quickly for that level of compenation. If you can get more money (at little extra risk) and more freedom to do what you want then that makes the choice to leave the comfy corporate safety net much easier. It's as close to having the cake and eating it too as one can get. The only "loser" is the company but that's not really something one needs to lose sleep over.

And GW doesn't even really lose too much because she and Peachy and Duncan are still advertising GW stuff.

It might mean in the future GW might adjust how they do painting tutorials at the pro end. Perhaps they'll do away with the idea of an inhouse person and instead get a rotating group of independent pros, like them and others, who are setup to do video work and who can do a series of videos for Warhammer to use on contract but without having to pay them full time and such.

It could be a way for GW to resolve the issue of painters "escaping" them whlist also being able to have talented painters and presenters

 Overread wrote:
And GW doesn't even really lose too much because she and Peachy and Duncan are still advertising GW stuff.

One can like the product but not the corporate machine behind it. Dakka is proof of that...

GW is weird, because usually for creative people you understand the interplay between creative freedom and financial security. <that's what the money is for.gif> Given GW's legendary miserliness when it comes to salary, it doesn't take much to push a person out for more money AND more creative control.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Overread wrote:
And GW doesn't even really lose too much because she and Peachy and Duncan are still advertising GW stuff.

One can like the product but not the corporate machine behind it. Dakka is proof of that...

Honestly I try to live by the rule of never really learning all too much about the creators of things I enjoy. I like enjoying their creations, be they art, music, stories, games or whatever. I don't really see the need to worry if they are a "good" person who is in keeping with my outlook on life, morals, life choices and whatever. It's like the whole thing over Harry Potter and JK and her stance on genders and such. I can watch and enjoy the films and not care one bit that she doesn't like certain groups or not.

I think being able to separate creator from creation is important in life.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 legionaires wrote:
Since GW has gone to only table ready painting on YT, I hope she adds more of the old Table + that GW used to do. I pulled a lot of inspiration from those older videos.

The tabletop isn't even good and asks for some really....interesting asks.
Like repainting black when already painting black. Spraying it gold, then.....painting it gold. Just paint it grey. It makes basecating easier.

I think the issue is that GW's sprays don't match their paint pot colours. So if you use the spray basecoat as the colour, you can't touch it up later, hence the need for the ridiculous repainting.

I watched quite a few of the masterclass videos by Louise on W+ and quite enjoyed them. I hope she is replaced soon, as other than the 'free' mini, W+ doesn't have a lot going for it imo.

Then tgere is an easy way to solve that prime grey

Which would leave lighter shadows at non-black areas

Or is painting overall black undercoat over grey better than paint black parts of model over black undercoat? Dunno. Feels you are painting more black that way

 Londinium wrote:
It's a tale as old as time in the wargaming industry, it's just that amongst the painting personalities it's a relatively recent thing - before recent times, most wargamers wouldn't even know who was on the 'Eavy Metal team in it's heyday.

Depends when you think the heyday was. I certainly remember the one page spreads showing the painter and some of their work in WD, along with the attributing of paint jobs to different people.

Well, good luck to her !

It's very common for people to use big companies like GW in their debuts then go freelance on their own. It's a great way to gain experience quickly and it always looks good on your CV. It's not really a matter of "GW not being able to retain stars", it's just the way big companies work that makes it enticing to use it that way.

 tauist wrote:
I suspected this would happen; She didn't seem to be sincerely enjoying her job at GW, well, not all of it anyway.

I honestly can't see how anyone would!

There's this classic MBA line where the CEO wants to increase training spend for the employees. The CTO replies, "What if we invest in training them and they leave?" The CEO responds, "What if we don't and they stay?"

It seems penny-wise and pound foolish to try an eliminate all creative outlets for their talent (e.g. forcing Darren Latham to shut his YouTube channel) and eliminating the personality of the presenters. Sure, some of them may take the fame and parlay that into a Patreon. So hire a new person and let them believe they're going to be the next Duncan/Louise/etc. You'll get better talent who have ambition.

Of if you're going to keep everyone behind the scenes, make sure they're superbly trained. I watched the painting video for the Lion model and the new presenter has fairly poor painting skills and a "unique" voice and delivery. One detail I remember from a Warhammer Podcast interview with Duncan is that the producer he left with had him practice reading BBC news stories, in time with the TV presenter and trying to match their pronunciation. Being on camera is a real craft! If you aren't going to recruit people who will practice it on their own, make sure you train them up!

Good points @flaherty

In a world of skewed corporative interpretations of reality based just on profits... I think warhammer+ and painting tutorials may well be seen as something not that profitable and altogether cut and not invested in.

The real WHY's it got to that low level of quality and why people are leaving is not looked at since it may compromise the management performance, as such its easier to blame the "Duncans" and clients for not supporting dubious quality content.

Support your staff and help them to grow and you will grow with them. I feel GW internal philosophy is at the total opposite, as such they potentially grow only a fraction of what they could have.

I haven't watched a GW tuts in a while and dont sub to W+ the modelling content there is not worth it.

I'm actually waiting for GW to embrace AI artwork as a way to create art content without needing the artist at all.

Although, if I was going to be a sarcastic gakker, at least then (unlike the new HH rulebook) we might actually see some new artwork!

 Pacific wrote:
I'm actually waiting for GW to embrace AI artwork as a way to create art content without needing the artist at all.

Although, if I was going to be a sarcastic gakker, at least then (unlike the new HH rulebook) we might actually see some new artwork!

Not gonna happen as long as some very fundamental questions about AI art are not resolved legally. At the moment it is unsure if, and under what conditions if at all, AI-output art can be copyrighted and protected, while it's also unclear what excatly the status of the needed art input is, i.e. if they need to secure the rights to the art they train the models with. These are actually pressing legal questions because there are already systems in the wild that use AI when shooting normal photos, without exactly asking or even informing the user

I am very happy for Louise that she has made the decision to go her own way and wish her all the best.

It's interesting that in her very first video I ended up knowing so much more about her and her interest in the hobby than I ever gleaned from all of her Warhammer+ content.

For example, she was very open about her autism which is a very positive thing and should be celebrated but I would probably never have known if she had still been working for GW - which is a shame as it would be great for them from a ED&I pov.

But also a deep-dive (ish) into the socio-political origins of the Rainbow Warriors and why she loves them is also not something you would ever have seen on Warhammer+.

 Pacific wrote:
I'm actually waiting for GW to embrace AI artwork as a way to create art content without needing the artist at all.

Although, if I was going to be a sarcastic gakker, at least then (unlike the new HH rulebook) we might actually see some new artwork!

Joking aside... thats a page that we should try not to look at I mean If GW goes AI then its an official bye bye IP rights. Today anyone can already do AI things with no need for GW, their IP has already been stolen and added to AI libraries.
Soon you will have AI generated YouTube painting tutorials.

But lets not got there its going to be very messy.

 Pacific wrote:
I'm actually waiting for GW to embrace AI artwork as a way to create art content without needing the artist at all.

I don't know if anyone here has seen them, but there are some "AI generated miniatures" floating around that are near-photo realistic depictions of 40k minis (Deathguard are the ones I've seen) that look like fantastic conversions/kitbashes, but are 100% fake.

The AI still can't get the weapons looking right, but the rest of the model looks like something GW could sell tomorrow.

StraightSilver wrote:
I am very happy for Louise that she has made the decision to go her own way and wish her all the best.

It's interesting that in her very first video I ended up knowing so much more about her and her interest in the hobby than I ever gleaned from all of her Warhammer+ content.

For example, she was very open about her autism which is a very positive thing and should be celebrated but I would probably never have known if she had still been working for GW - which is a shame as it would be great for them from a ED&I pov.

But also a deep-dive (ish) into the socio-political origins of the Rainbow Warriors and why she loves them is also not something you would ever have seen on Warhammer+.

watched the video, to be honest shes not someone I'd actually heard of except in passing, certainly not someone I recognised

subscribed though, she has a wonderful and very watchable style, comes over as both very human and very interested in her subject matter, the lore stuff is usually a bit of a switch off to be honest as it tends to be somewhat dry, she made that watchable.

wish her well with this

 Ghaz wrote:

Spoiler:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Their tutorials have suffered alot. For example, the Dantes lacks anything to help a new player learn to paint, but go look at the old nagash one, it was great

I feel that GW has decided that the free YouTube tutorials be strictly for new painters (they even limit them to 10 paints in the tutorial). The more in-depth tutorials are what Louise was doing on Warhammer+. Nick Bayton is still at GW doing battle reports on Warhammer+, so we'll see if they have him pick up the Masterclass tutorials or if they get someone new or drop them altogether.

Yeah I noticed that. So few paints.

Yes, they should all be like this video...

Spoiler:

Agreed. The Underworlds tutorials were the best ones and even those have been stripped down now.