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.

The thing is, if they put out a sheet of "X is now Y" then it only emphasises the confusion of why they changed in the first place. If they come right out and say that Calgar Blue is Ultramarine and Mephiston Red is Blood Red, then why not just leave them as Ultramarine and Blood Red?

hmmmm.

Im pretty happy with my Reaper Master Series, but we'll see.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The thing is, if they put out a sheet of "X is now Y" then it only emphasises the confusion of why they changed in the first place. If they come right out and say that Calgar Blue is Ultramarine and Mephiston Red is Blood Red, then why not just leave them as Ultramarine and Blood Red?

Most likely because names like Calgar and Mephiston are copyrightable and/or definitively 40k related. You clearly aren't going to get away with copyrighting Blood Red (too general). It doesn't have to make complete sense to us, but large overhauls like this which focus branding are very attractive to marketing/corporate people. Tbh I'm not going to complain too much, I'm pretty happy with GW paints and in the long term doubling the range in size is good for me. It does have some significant risks to it though, since you have to be more careful with the amount of stock you produce.

I don't see why they need to trade mark the names of the paints in the first place.

It's not that crazy (sort of...), for example Cadbury holds a trademark on the shade of purple they use. It's a step along that path.

I mean paint changes so be it we adapt and keep going now if they jack up the prices then it will be a problem

list of new paints wrote:Screaming skull

.. of course

it's good to know there are things you can rely upon still.

For what it is worth a GW staffer today told me he'd "bet on July" for paints.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't see why they need to trade mark the names of the paints in the first place.

Because if they don't, there is nothing to stop Vallejo or Reaper on A.N.Other company producing their own line of GW analogues. At the moment, they don't (although with some of the Vallejo/Reaper names it's fairly obvious what the GW counterpart is meant to be) but the possibility exists that a company could start producing Blood Red, Blazing Orange, Chaos Black, Skull White etc etc and there is bugger all that GW can do about it.

Of course, having said all that, one would have thought that if a company were going to do that, they would have done it by now given the length of time that GW have been using the names. I agree without a solid reason for changing the name, it seems a bizarre decision but I don't think they would have invested the money in doing so unless there were a good reason for it - I just don't think we will ever find out what that reason is.

Maybe GW are feeling threatened or pressured by other companies? Army Painter are releasing their own line of paints and I guess there are others too - perhaps they got wind that someone was going to enter the market?

Big expansion of greens.

I hope that means a return for the Jade Green tone, I love it. Not like I need it, I have two Coat D'Arms pots, but I would be curious about a different flow, more dense like a Foundation or those new Layers and Glazes or whatever they are called.

-Loki- wrote:I noticed there's no turqoise on the list, at least that I could see. Does anyone know if the Vallejo Game Colour turqoise is a good match to Hawk Turqoise? And, on that note, if they have a good match to Shadow Grey?

Might as well completely swap to Vallejo now outside of washes. And maybe grab a 6 pack of Devlan Mud.

Both of the Vallejo Game Colour paints are 1:1 matches for the GW ones as I have both of them in my collection.

I think people forget that Vallejo also has the extensive Model Colour range with normal names.

Hmm... strikes me there's one or two names in there that you couldn't trademark (e.g. Incubi Darkness and Balthasar Gold), so still don't get the point of the exercise.

Oh well, I await their release with muted curiosity. Hopefully, this will see the return of painting articles to the website.

The names are ridiculous, i already felt a bit silly saying snot green and such, now i have to ask for calgar blue or mephiston red.
Even less likely to talk about my hobby around the lunch table at work now lol.

Flashman wrote:Hmm... strikes me there's one or two names in there that you couldn't trademark (e.g. Incubi Darkness and Balthasar Gold).

Why couldn't you trademark those?

There's going to be an old to new paint equivalent chart but it is only going to be available in White Dwarf. So they're also renaming the old ones to sell more White Dwarfs, enjoy your new paint tax.

Plus selling the master class books knowing they are going to be obsolete in four months is staggeringly douchey behaviour.

Flashman wrote:Hmm... strikes me there's one or two names in there that you couldn't trademark (e.g. Incubi Darkness and Balthasar Gold), so still don't get the point of the exercise.

Why cant you trademark "Incubi Darkness" or "Balthasar Gold"? You can trademark more than just single words, and the trademark context is important too.

Ultimately, it just seems to be an attempt to provide some longer term IP-based revenue. I'm sure they know that a lot of people are more than happy to buy their paints, even if only to make following painting guides easier.

Tbh, that makes sense though, seems like a GW attempt to ensure an all encompassing hobby environment, and that probably sounds good to shareholders.

I thought an earlier poster suggested that the name change is partially to hide any changes in color, shade, tone, or hue?

They're redoing the pigments with a new manufacturer. I think they re-named "goblin green" at least partially because goblin green as we know it won't exactly exist.

Breotan wrote:

Flashman wrote:Hmm... strikes me there's one or two names in there that you couldn't trademark (e.g. Incubi Darkness and Balthasar Gold).

Why couldn't you trademark those?

Incubi and Balthasar are not names created by GW. There are in general use. Thus, Incubi Darkness is no different to Blood Red.

Cameron Baum wrote:The fact you have lots of greens and browns and stuff, but only two purples is a joke in itself... Why do they go overboard with some colours, and hardly any in others? Frakking ridiculous....

Because in wargames, you usually need more different brown and green tones than purple/pink tones. Vallejo knows that as well. That said, I am not certain about which colours are behind which names, so there might be more than just 2 purples/violets/pinks.

Cameron Baum wrote:

spacewolf407 wrote:Damn, need an equivalence chart to the old names asap!

It has been posted quite a few times already, but...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Paint_Range_Compatibility_Chart

We are talking about a list comparing the new with the old names, not the old names with non-GW old names. But there certainly will be a list in WD and maybe even downloadable.

Avatar 720 wrote:Some of the names didn't need changing at all. Asurmen Blue, for example, still fits this pointless new naming scheme, but it had to be changed for reasons unknown.

As said, my guess is that they were forced to change them as the colours may not be exact matches due to a change of the manufacturer. Esp. consistency may have changed when moved to layer/base etc.

-Loki- wrote:I noticed there's no turqoise on the list, at least that I could see. Does anyone know if the Vallejo Game Colour turqoise is a good match to Hawk Turqoise? And, on that note, if they have a good match to Shadow Grey?

Vallejo Game Colour is intended as a copy of the GW paint range. The names are obvious, Sombre Grey for Shadow Grey. See the list above.

buttersxxx wrote:For what it is worth a GW staffer today told me he'd "bet on July" for paints.

Stores are officially told to be prepared for a major investment in paints in soon after being officially informed end of March. So I expect them third week April, after the Empire release. Also keep in mind that GW HQs are briefed right now. And Nottingham wouldn't do this if changes are due in July. But there is a slight chance that paints are released in two waves, as stores can stock the small range ("Module 2") or the complete range ("Module 5"). But I expect it to be released in one wave.

BTW Reaper and Vallejo all have more than 140 different paints and paint names. Now GW follows. Nothing to worry about, just embrace the new possibilities.

More paints can only be a good thing. I'm holding off on picking up any new paints I need or replacing one's that are almost empty. In my eyes this is a good step by GW.

Thanks Kroothawk for keeping this thread well informed.

I just finished reading the list and uh...lol...these names are absolutely ridiculous. Not really in a good way, either.

I don't really care, I stopped using GW paint anyway and I don't really intend to go back. Unless some of these new paints are just so amazing I can't live without them, but I doubt it.

Polonius wrote:I thought an earlier poster suggested that the name change is partially to hide any changes in color, shade, tone, or hue?

They're redoing the pigments with a new manufacturer. I think they re-named "goblin green" at least partially because goblin green as we know it won't exactly exist.

This makes the most sense - good call!

Sidstyler wrote:I just finished reading the list and uh...lol...these names are absolutely ridiculous. Not really in a good way, either.

I don't really care, I stopped using GW paint anyway and I don't really intend to go back. Unless some of these new paints are just so amazing I can't live without them, but I doubt it.

So, no new Devlan Mud and/or Badab Black for you?

Or their new counterparts?

For shame!

If they're different to the current formula, meaning the new Devlin Mud isn't really Devlin Mud... then it might as well be New Coke.

Ghaz wrote:So its okay for Vallejo to have so many greens and browns but only two purples but its not for Games Workshop? It doesn't matter if we're talking about GW in this thread, your comments apply to all manufacturers.

Wow... you're an over-emotional bunny...

You seem to want leading statements, and are coming across as if your are out to cause an argument.

I've looked at the range, and see four colours in one of their ranges I class as purple. There are other purples in other ranges they do.

To make you happy, I'll extend my earlier statement to ALL companies. So, if your intent was to call Vellejo ridiculous, I now declare them utterly moronic, if only to make you happy.

I am not saying that there should be rows and rows of purple, but only having two purples to play with is deeply restrictive. Thus moronic. Four or five is much more acceptable, because you get more to play with.

I also suggest toning things down, or if you really want to have a scream-fest at me, PM me. Keep it off the thread. There has already been one Moderator telling folks to calm it down. If you really want to rant at me, PM me.

Last time I checked, there was nothing stopping people from making their own purple with shades of reds and blues....


As to the changes in the paint range, I'll probably look at their conversion guide if they do one, or go see it in stores. Like I said earlier, only the "new things" interest me like the glazes, shades, texture and technical... specifically the texture...

In my line of business, product line updates are a seasonal thing and one practice my employer follows is to use copyrighted or trademarked verbiage that is in danger of lapsing due to lack of use. Given the extreme nature of the name changes, I wonder if this has anything to do with it?

I've got almost a full line of Citadel at the moment, mostly transferred to dropper bottles. Any idea if they are going to be introducing droppers? It's pretty much the standard used by their competition, but I imagine the lack of profit from paints that last longer would be an obstacle they'd [GW] rather avoid.

Alfndrate wrote:Last time I checked, there was nothing stopping people from making their own purple with shades of reds and blues....

Absolutely. GW should just cut the range back to half a dozen primary colours. People can mix their own paints.

Then again, that seems strangely appropriate when you're using those paints on a 'fine' range of miniatures that you also have to resculpt before they're presentable...

Kroothawk wrote:

Cameron Baum wrote:The fact you have lots of greens and browns and stuff, but only two purples is a joke in itself... Why do they go overboard with some colours, and hardly any in others? Frakking ridiculous....

Because in wargames, you usually need more different brown and green tones than purple/pink tones. Vallejo knows that as well. That said, I am not certain about which colours are behind which names, so there might be more than just 2 purples/violets/pinks.

Cameron Baum wrote:

spacewolf407 wrote:Damn, need an equivalence chart to the old names asap!

It has been posted quite a few times already, but...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Paint_Range_Compatibility_Chart

We are talking about a list comparing the new with the old names, not the old names with non-GW old names. But there certainly will be a list in WD and maybe even downloadable.

Thanks for that, I see the logic behind it. As I've already clarified, though, a couple more paints wouldn't hurt. Vallejo paints do that, which is good. As it stands, with the Revell experiment now a success (the base looks nice, and has not melted away in the night,) I'll be looking at getting my paints from other sources, and not just GW. So I'll be looking at getting a rainbow of purples, to make sure my Elite units that field the colour feel spoiled. ;@)

The big problem with the proposed GW range is that it will be very off-putting to new customers, as they will feel very swamped by all the different paints, and the significance of the different types of paint. I know I am, and it is a month and a half of painting experience I have. Hence me looking at paints from other sources, because I don't want the confusion.

I, for one, can't wait to see a new chart from GW, to show us which paints match up with the old. Because I need to work out where my future Ice Blue and Hawk Turquoise needs are going to be coming from...

I think it makes sense that there are more browns and greens than purples and pinks.

First of all, in my experience, it's harder to mix browns and greens. Purples are easy to mix, red, blue, black and white all work with them. Greens and Browns look like crap when you get them a little off. Mixing black in with either to get a darker shade frequently doesn't give the result you want, same with white.

But, also, consider the subject matter being painted. Soldiers wear more browns and greens than purples.

I am reserving all judgement on the line until I see them in person, but I won't hesitate to abandon Citadel paints if I'm not happy with them.

insaniak wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:Last time I checked, there was nothing stopping people from making their own purple with shades of reds and blues....

Absolutely. GW should just cut the range back to half a dozen primary colours. People can mix their own paints.

Then again, that seems strangely appropriate when you're using those paints on a 'fine' range of miniatures that you also have to resculpt before they're presentable...

Doing that would drive me away. Like a frightened rabbit. I'll no doubt get into mixing paints, but I'm too new to be getting into all of that. I'm still learning what uses washes have, let alone mixing paints....