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.

 Shadenuat wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Funnily enough it IS chore and annoyance for many...Those prefer to play with bare plastic and paint only if they can't play due to say tournament enforcing minimum level of painting.

And you know what? That is just as valid way to enjoy miniature games as yours.

If that was so sports would have been played with grey plastic, and sports people usually care the least for how their army looks, there are many which are into it just for the game. You're in a hobby where people band together to create something beautiful, the armies, the tables, the terrain; and if you think that going with unpainted army around people who put their time and effort to paint theirs is as valid, you're wrong.

How nice of you go holier than thou "I know what's right for everybody"

Or maybe consider that your narrow viewpoint isn't only viewpoint to the game?

We are not rehashing the painted/unpainted argument yet again and we are certainly not going to do so in a N&R thread. Please drop that tangent.
Thanks,
ingtaer.

nevermind

tneva82 wrote:
How nice of you go holier than thou "I know what's right for everybody"

Or maybe consider that your narrow viewpoint isn't only viewpoint to the game?

That's not my argument, and I don't turn down games with unpainted armies or paint job I don't like either, of course.

But hey, the Mod has spoken, and I comply.

drbored wrote:
The first group seem to be saying "Wow this looks great, I'm excited to try this out!" (Fine by me!). The second group seems to be saying "Meh. Not for me, I can't see the value here" (Yay, that's my opinion too!). Then the third group, the group that I don't understand, the group that seems a bit strange to me, is saying stuff like "It's like there's a group of trolls in here trying to convince people not to buy this paint? What does anyone care if someone else buys a paint?". (A quote from you!). Like I say, I'm imagining that I'm in the second group, and I can only think that the people in this third group (the group I don't understand, the group that I'm grouping you into) are talking about the people in my group! They certainly aren't talking about the guys in the first group are they? Then again maybe I'm not following the conversation properly and there aren't any groups at all (That's probably most likely! I'm tired and your talk of a sinister "group" probably has me reading things into the situation that aren't there).

No there's definitely a group arguing that these are just a re-release of GW inks, or they're nothing new, and GW are just trying to rip people off. Like this person:

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
Before contrast paints: Why do these paints have so bad coverage?!?!
After contrast paints: Wow look how transparent these paints are!! Magic!!

Seriously guys, that's all there is to it. Add water, glaze medium what ever, paint over a bright smooth primer you achieve the same effect.

The "water, glaze medium what ever" is the key there. It's a new type of medium used in this paint. It's certainly not magic or revolutionary, but it is formulated specifically for painting this way. Can you approximate something similar with other mediums? Sure. As people have pointed out, people have been painting this way for years using mediums designed for other things. What GW have done, is create a medium designed just for this method of painting.

The other difference is that the new medium is the only medium used in the paint. When you mix a regular paint (Citadel, Vallejo, whoever) with a glazing medium you're getting a paint with part glazing medium, part regular acrylic medium that was in the paint to start with. These pots you get the pigment mixed just with the new medium.

That's what is new. It's not much. It's not much different from what you can do already. But it is different. Literally, chemically, different. Like all GW stuff, it comes at a premium, and if that premium is worthwhile to you when you can mix up something similar for a lot cheaper is certainly a valid question.

 Shadenuat wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
No, it's a fantastic tabletop level.

A 'great' tabletop level is fully painted in basic colours. Any sort of shading and highlighting is an extra.

Not sure if serious.

Oh, he is. I can only assume you've never seen an army uniformly well-painted to basecoat level, on a fully-painted tabletop against a similar army. it's quite common in historical mass-battle games (which is where the "dip" technique originated, precisely because it build on that basecoat level and is a single step to do). No-body cares that the tunics aren't highlighted, that the details aren't picked out and shaded, because the visual appeal of an army of 300 miniatures is in the mass. In the time it might take to "properly" paint one miniature to your standard, I could bash out an entire 30-model unit, and my army will look better on the tabletop than your grey horde interspersed with one or two finished models. :0


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadenuat wrote:
What is then good, average, mediocre or bad?

You're conflating the absolute minimum, "I don't want to paint, but the event rules say I need to" level of "three colours" with properly, carefully painted models. the key is neatness and appropriate use of colours. There's plenty of horrible messy models posted by beginners on the internet because they've been suckered in by the idea that "properly" painted models have to be shaded, highlighted and whatnot. Nonsense. They're all advanced techniques. 80% of the effect is done by painting the base coats carefully, neatly and using appropriate colour choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadenuat wrote:

Danny76 wrote:
I also think of paint wastage, pouring into the airbrush, some will be wasted in the lip etc.

I don't think there is any other champion of paint wastage as the Citadel (TM) pot.

Perhaps it's me, but I waste more paint from dropper bottles than I ever have from Citadel paint pots (even including the occasions where I've spilled a tall pot of Shade). Is it because I store the Vallejo paints horizontally? I shake the pots to mix the medium and pigment up before each time I open them, and half the time trapped air or something pushes half the paint out of the pot when all I wanted was to paint one gemstone. the variable consistency of the Game Color paints means getting a single drop can be difficult (compounded by the occasions when the paint has clumped in the bottle, resulting in nothing coming out until the blockage clears, then a huge splodge on the palette.). The nozzles split, too, making it more likely for excess paint to clog the threads of the caps. they're better than the infamous "bolter shell" screw-top pots, but that's not saying much.

deano2099 wrote:

That's what is new. It's not much. It's not much different from what you can do already. But it is different. Literally, chemically, different. Like all GW stuff, it comes at a premium, and if that premium is worthwhile to you when you can mix up something similar for a lot cheaper is certainly a valid question.

I'm willing to pay premium for consistency. If they do same as with mixing then ready bottled is superior product in itself because I don't have to remember exact ratio possibly years later.

Mixing might be cheaper but will also result in non-uniform look. For some things(ork skin) it's no big deal. Skin can vary in tone. Uniform armour colour though...well let's just say would suck if my parts of my blood angels look different to others. As it is I have total blockage with my IG vehicles as I can't figure way to replicate the original shade. Starting to be at point thinking repainting every vehicle I have(some 12 or so) to get back into look I can replicate...

Best of all, the Contrast Range isn't replacing anything. It's an addition.

So if you don't wanna use it, don't.

Last three comments sum it all up pretty much

While I probably won't get a ton of use out of the stuff for my guard and Deathwatch, I've got a ton of smaller projects that I've been putting off that I'm actually excited to try this for. While I'll need normal paint for details, highlights, and metallics, this stuff should make a very nice base coat.

This is slightly off topic, but was there any news on the now OOP forgeworld paints coming back?

Thinking this may finally get me painting (or at least basecoating) all of my Reaper Bones I've had kicking around in boxes for five or so years.

Will be interesting to see if the Contrast paint adheres directly to the older white Bones material, how well the spray primers will hold up over either Bones colors, and what the material itself will do one the paint dries and there's some flexibility to the model.

~iPaint

 CodeKantorBlue wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Anybody else mentally queuing up potential projects and uses for these paints? I'm up to four with just the blacks and greys already

Space Marines (assorted chapters)
Orks (40k)
Orks (Generic fantasy)
Death Guard
Sisters of Battle (when available)
plus any and all scenery and just about all basing.

I suspect a lot of my paints will now be relegated to fine edges and spot details.

I just bought the demons of khorne start collecting and was dreading painting them. This should work out pretty well. My troll army as well.

Good lord, why are people still arguing about these things?

If you're going to buy it, buy it. If you're not, don't.

Isn't it really that simple? What am I missing here?

 Desubot wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:


I got an airbrush for mass under coats, and I much prefer a rattle can. Spent much more time cleaning the airbrush than anything else.

Honestly read that as mass murder coats.

I have an compressor and 3 different airbrushes. one for lacquer, one for acrylic, and one for base coating. and man cleaning them sucks.

i do whatever in my power to get a rattle can that gets more as close as possible to what im looking for. except varnish.

nothing iv used protects and coats like the alcald II varnishes.

You guys really prefer rattle cans to priming with an airbrush? I'll never go back to rattle cans. But then where I live the weather changes and humidity makes spray cans problematic. I've never really had a problem with cleaning my airbrushes. But I'm really paranoid about not letting paint setup in them. If the bottled Contrast primers are too expensive we can always just decant them into a plastic cup and airbrush them.

drbored wrote:
Good lord, why are people still arguing about these things?

If you're going to buy it, buy it. If you're not, don't.

Isn't it really that simple? What am I missing here?

Pick a team, take a side, become a 'we,' (or even better 'everyone'*) and neutrality is the most grievous of modern sins.

Or something like that.



(*everyone naturally doesn't include people who disagree, as they aren't really people )

drbored wrote:
Good lord, why are people still arguing about these things?

If you're going to buy it, buy it. If you're not, don't.

Isn't it really that simple? What am I missing here?

It's a mortal insult to 'real' hobbyists if you paint the wrong way, apparently.



Unfortunately, it's always been that we. We saw the same sorts of arguments years ago about dipping. Before that it was about drybrushing. I'm sure if the internet had been a thing back when acrylic paints were invented, there would have been the same arguments from the Enamel crowd that you're not painting properly if you can just clean your brush in water...


It's not entirely illogical. If you've spent a lot of time and effort learning how to do something a certain way, and then something comes along that appears to devalue that effort by making it easier and quicker to get similar results, it's easy to feel a little miffed about it. The thing people need to make more of an effort to remember is that it doesn't actually change the effort you put into your own work. At the end of the day, when so many people put a higher value on games featuring fully painted armies, anything that makes it easier for those people who struggle to get stuff painted to actually do so is a good thing.

drbored wrote:
Good lord, why are people still arguing about these things?

If you're going to buy it, buy it. If you're not, don't.

Isn't it really that simple? What am I missing here?

Are you missing the fact that people can make their decisions and then discuss those decisions on a public forum? Let me know if you need further guidance.

JWBS wrote:
Are you missing the fact that people can make their decisions and then discuss those decisions on a public forum? Let me know if you need further guidance.

Better be careful here, you don't want to become one of them Real Hobbyists who mix paint and stuff.

The only thing that will make minis painted with this stuff look bad is people only using three colours to paint a whole model.

JSG wrote:
The only thing that will make minis painted with this stuff look bad is people only using three colours to paint a whole model.

Which is fine. If that's what people choose to do with their models, that's their business.

JSG wrote:
The only thing that will make minis painted with this stuff look bad is people only using three colours to paint a whole model.

How is that worse than using say ultramarine blue, black and gunmetal to paint their model? I would think these one would make more interesting with at least some shading than 3 flat colours...

 Shadenuat wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Are you missing the fact that people can make their decisions and then discuss those decisions on a public forum? Let me know if you need further guidance.

Better be careful here, you don't want to become one of them Real Hobbyists who mix paint and stuff.

Please, everyone knows "Real Hobbyists" grind their own pigments and use hand made brushes.

 Sersi wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Are you missing the fact that people can make their decisions and then discuss those decisions on a public forum? Let me know if you need further guidance.

Better be careful here, you don't want to become one of them Real Hobbyists who mix paint and stuff.

Please, everyone knows "Real Hobbyists" grind their own pigments and use hand made brushes.

I draw the line at raising my own horses though. Much easier to just sneak into the stables under the cover of night and trim their tails.

 Sersi wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:


I got an airbrush for mass under coats, and I much prefer a rattle can. Spent much more time cleaning the airbrush than anything else.

Honestly read that as mass murder coats.

I have an compressor and 3 different airbrushes. one for lacquer, one for acrylic, and one for base coating. and man cleaning them sucks.

i do whatever in my power to get a rattle can that gets more as close as possible to what im looking for. except varnish.

nothing iv used protects and coats like the alcald II varnishes.

You guys really prefer rattle cans to priming with an airbrush? I'll never go back to rattle cans. But then where I live the weather changes and humidity makes spray cans problematic. I've never really had a problem with cleaning my airbrushes. But I'm really paranoid about not letting paint setup in them. If the bottled Contrast primers are too expensive we can always just decant them into a plastic cup and airbrush them.

Weather changes and humidity aren't as relevant as people insist they are. Is it dry? Spray closer. Damp? Spray a bit further away. Cold? Warm the can in a water bath for ten minutes before you shake it and bring the model inside once you've sprayed it. Really sunny? Work in the shade. I've rattlecan primed in the ostensibly-impossible conditions of very arid -2C and it came out no problem at all. The issue with rattlecans is a lot of people assume they require no effort, when the reality is they require less effort - it still takes a bit of attention and care to use them right.

For me personally, a quick check of the met office website and a minor adjustment to technique is more appealing than having to faff with compressors and paint consistency and cleaning etc - I'd rather pay an extra ~15p per model on an ongoing basis for the convenience of rattlecans than pay the larger one-time expense for an airbrush and exchange that long term spend for effort.

Yeah, I never understood peoples inability to rattlecan prime..Ive primed when its raining and in 105 degree tx heat...

I cant be doing it so perfect that I'm the only one?

I seldom have a problem priming. Now varnishing on the other hand...

 AduroT wrote:

 Sersi wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Are you missing the fact that people can make their decisions and then discuss those decisions on a public forum? Let me know if you need further guidance.

Better be careful here, you don't want to become one of them Real Hobbyists who mix paint and stuff.

Please, everyone knows "Real Hobbyists" grind their own pigments and use hand made brushes.

I draw the line at raising my own horses though. Much easier to just sneak into the stables under the cover of night and trim their tails.

The only reason manufacturers use sable is because it's "Immoral" to harvest human eyelashes.

JWBS wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Sersi wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Are you missing the fact that people can make their decisions and then discuss those decisions on a public forum? Let me know if you need further guidance.

Better be careful here, you don't want to become one of them Real Hobbyists who mix paint and stuff.

Please, everyone knows "Real Hobbyists" grind their own pigments and use hand made brushes.

I draw the line at raising my own horses though. Much easier to just sneak into the stables under the cover of night and trim their tails.

The only reason manufacturers use sable is because it's "Immoral" to harvest human eyelashes.

But...I was planning on growing these bad boy manlashes out to make bank.

Ah well, back to the makeup youtube videos game!

I'm curious as to how many non painters will use these paints as
an opportunity to paint or if we'll just end up with current painters
using them to shore up some mass projects.

This sounds ideal for a painter like myself. I have been applying two *thin* coats of base paint over white, then adding a wash.

Consistency can be tricky for the base costs, so if this is consistent and a “one-coat” for the base, and I can still put a wash on to further define detail, I’d be very happy.

I’m a neat painter by nature, so I plan to buy a few to try on some Kill Teams I’ve got in the works. Should I get to them... I’play post some pics.