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.

Why does GW have so few reds in its repertoire of paints? For blues, greens, browns, greys you’re spoiled for choice in the range of combinations you can use but for reds it’s essentially Mephistopheles base cut, shade with Carroburg crimson and layer up with Evil Suns Scarlet and Wildrider. Yes there’s Khorne red and World Bearers but they are rather browny. And ok Wazdakka, quite nice but only as a final layer. It means you’re very limited in the effects you can achieve and if you stick to their minis all your reds end up looking like Blood Angel. What’s the deal? (Same with orange for that matter).

Red is a bit of a weird one, because of how it interacts with light. Rather than just layering different shades of red, which can look flat, you would usually highlight up to a pink or an orange. If you want a deeper red, you shade with purple.

Jandgalf wrote:
Why does GW have so few reds in its repertoire of paints? For blues, greens, browns, greys you’re spoiled for choice in the range of combinations you can use but for reds it’s essentially Mephistopheles base cut, shade with Carroburg crimson and layer up with Evil Suns Scarlet and Wildrider. Yes there’s Khorne red and World Bearers but they are rather browny. And ok Wazdakka, quite nice but only as a final layer. It means you’re very limited in the effects you can achieve and if you stick to their minis all your reds end up looking like Blood Angel. What’s the deal? (Same with orange for that matter).

according to GW's website they have 22 reds...how many different shades of red do you need?

also i'm not sure where you're getting that khorne red is brownish...it really is no where near brown. it's just a dark red.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Jandgalf wrote:
Why does GW have so few reds in its repertoire of paints? For blues, greens, browns, greys you’re spoiled for choice in the range of combinations you can use but for reds it’s essentially Mephistopheles base cut, shade with Carroburg crimson and layer up with Evil Suns Scarlet and Wildrider. Yes there’s Khorne red and World Bearers but they are rather browny. And ok Wazdakka, quite nice but only as a final layer. It means you’re very limited in the effects you can achieve and if you stick to their minis all your reds end up looking like Blood Angel. What’s the deal? (Same with orange for that matter).

according to GW's website they have 22 reds...how many different shades of red do you need?.

and that doesn't include Barak-Nar Burgundy.
You can literally get dozens of shades depending on what you mix in as your highlight. Doing red cloth, Mephiston red blend in Jokaro orange. doing red leather Mephiston red blend in Bugmans Glow. Darker armour 50:50 Barak-Nar and Khorne, brushed red metal add a bit of Runefang Steel to Wazdakka red. Lots of choices if you don't limit yourself.

They definitely do not have 22 shades of red! They’ve got the ones I listed, possibly one or two I’ve missed and that is it. Far less than the blues, greens, browns and greys. I suspect that number includes air paints and spray cans which are the same colours and also contrast paints - which are great - but don’t compensate for a lack of reds in the acrylic range. I’d love it if they really did have 22 completely separate shades of red.

But the other comments - about how red behaves differently to other colours and the tips for achieving different shades of red are very interesting. Thanks for the tips

But I should add - I’m not talking about mixing - sure you can get any colour you want by mixing. But the Citadel method - base coat, shading, layering - is supposed to be designed to work without mixing. And it does a pretty good job of that with blues, greens, browns, greys - less so for yellow and orange and pretty poorly for red

There are 7 shades of red on the GW website, but saying there's multiples of blue and green is disingenuous.

You have to realise that with most colours you have degrees of saturation from dark through to light most of which can be made by adding either a tone or tint (black or white commonly).

The issue with red is that adding black to it muddies the colour and adding white makes it pink. The darker reds you've listed (Word Bearers Red and Gal Vorbak Red) but pinks have their own heading and as Insaniak mentioned red is a very funny colour when mixing. The tone you add can range from purple to brown whilst the tints are yellow and orange. All those colours have their own heading as unlike blue or green we don't categorise a bright red as light red but dark orange.

Take another look at the blues, there are 16 to choose from combined in the base and layer sections, but aside from saturations (Kantor Blue->Baharroth Blue) you also have colours that tend towards a blue/green and others that lean heavily towards grey. This is the same in the green.

It does help to understand how the pigments used to make colours work and to have at hand a colour wheel; videos about Colour Theory are also massively helpful.

TL : DR Painting red requires 3 different paint colours (red, orange, yellow) painting blue only requires blue.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
according to GW's website they have 22 reds...how many different shades of red do you need?

Of those 22 reds, 3 are Contrast paints, 3 are base paints, 2 are shades, 4 are layer paints, 5 are air paints, 2 are Texture paints, 2 are Technical paints and 1 is a rattle can.

 Ghaz wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
according to GW's website they have 22 reds...how many different shades of red do you need?

Of those 22 reds, 3 are Contrast paints, 3 are base paints, 2 are shades, 4 are layer paints, 5 are air paints, 2 are Texture paints, 2 are Technical paints and 1 is a rattle can.

and?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Foxfyre wrote:
There are 7 shades of red on the GW website, but saying there's multiples of blue and green is disingenuous.

You have to realise that with most colours you have degrees of saturation from dark through to light most of which can be made by adding either a tone or tint (black or white commonly).

The issue with red is that adding black to it muddies the colour and adding white makes it pink. The darker reds you've listed (Word Bearers Red and Gal Vorbak Red) but pinks have their own heading and as Insaniak mentioned red is a very funny colour when mixing. The tone you add can range from purple to brown whilst the tints are yellow and orange. All those colours have their own heading as unlike blue or green we don't categorise a bright red as light red but dark orange.

Take another look at the blues, there are 16 to choose from combined in the base and layer sections, but aside from saturations (Kantor Blue->Baharroth Blue) you also have colours that tend towards a blue/green and others that lean heavily towards grey. This is the same in the green.

It does help to understand how the pigments used to make colours work and to have at hand a colour wheel; videos about Colour Theory are also massively helpful.

TL : DR Painting red requires 3 different paint colours (red, orange, yellow) painting blue only requires blue.

not to mention some of those blues and greens also seem a little miscategorized imho.

Citadel paints are hit and miss. A lot of painters prefer other brands like Vallejo, AK, Scale75, Tamiya etc.

If you only stick with Citadel paints, you'll be bound to hit a wall sooner or later

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
according to GW's website they have 22 reds...how many different shades of red do you need?

Of those 22 reds, 3 are Contrast paints, 3 are base paints, 2 are shades, 4 are layer paints, 5 are air paints, 2 are Texture paints, 2 are Technical paints and 1 is a rattle can.

and?

And a partridge in a pear tree!

Maybe a better question would be what effects are you trying to achieve with your reds? I have 4 reds in my paint rack, and I hardly find myself using more than 2. Granted I don't follow the gw paint system, I'm a paint mixer, but still, what aren't you getting from their paints that you want?

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
according to GW's website they have 22 reds...how many different shades of red do you need?

Of those 22 reds, 3 are Contrast paints, 3 are base paints, 2 are shades, 4 are layer paints, 5 are air paints, 2 are Texture paints, 2 are Technical paints and 1 is a rattle can.

and?

And are you going to paint your model with texture paint made for basing? Or what about the three red Air paints that that are the same as the like named base and layer paints (Khorne Red Air, Mephiston Red Air and Evil Suns Scarlet Air)? What about the Dry paint (Astorath Red) which is almost the same as Evil Suns Scarlet? Just because they have 22 reds listed doesn't mean that they're all paints or that they're all different shades of red.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Jandgalf wrote:
Why does GW have so few reds in its repertoire of paints? For blues, greens, browns, greys you’re spoiled for choice in the range of combinations you can use but for reds it’s essentially Mephistopheles base cut, shade with Carroburg crimson and layer up with Evil Suns Scarlet and Wildrider. Yes there’s Khorne red and World Bearers but they are rather browny. And ok Wazdakka, quite nice but only as a final layer. It means you’re very limited in the effects you can achieve and if you stick to their minis all your reds end up looking like Blood Angel. What’s the deal? (Same with orange for that matter).

according to GW's website they have 22 reds...how many different shades of red do you need?

also i'm not sure where you're getting that khorne red is brownish...it really is no where near brown. it's just a dark red.

If he wants classic paints and not contrast that cuts down.

Also airbrush versions of paint doesn't exactly add for shades...

3 base, 4 layer. Maybe next time bother to check before opening mouth? Oh and 21.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
according to GW's website they have 22 reds...how many different shades of red do you need?

Of those 22 reds, 3 are Contrast paints, 3 are base paints, 2 are shades, 4 are layer paints, 5 are air paints, 2 are Texture paints, 2 are Technical paints and 1 is a rattle can.

and?

Are you layering with basing texture?


Shade obviouslv works for highlight etc?

And such an awesome shade difference between mephiston red and mephiston red(air)! Woo! That's going to open options!

You can't prove any better that you have zero clue about gw's paint range good job!

Oops seem to have opened a can of worms here. Didn’t mean to get a fight started. Still here’s a shot from GW’s website showing some of their layer paints - all the reds, greens and blues are on here. I see two, maybe three that I’d class as red and over two whole rows in the blue/green range. I don’t see how anyone can see they don’t have less reds…


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Maybe a better question would be what effects are you trying to achieve with your reds? I have 4 reds in my paint rack, and I hardly find myself using more than 2. Granted I don't follow the gw paint system, I'm a paint mixer, but still, what aren't you getting from their paints that you want?

What I want is that when all my miniatures are there in the display case every bit of bright red doesn’t look exactly the same….

https://www.canva.com/colors/color-wheel/

Go to the above link and look at the different colours. Red has the smallest visible area on there because there's only so much you can do with pure red because of how it interacts with light.

The blue and green areas appear much bigger because their range is modified by both tone and tint (black and white) as well as mixing in neighbouring colours such as blue and yellow for green and purple and green for blue. Red can't be used the same way.

The bigger issue is nomenclature, when you mix red with the neighbouring colours (orange and yellow) you get specifically named colours. When you do the same with blue and green most people will simply classify them as blue and green. IE; Ignore the classification of orange and pink and instead use sunset red and pale red which isn't too far removed for what we do with blues and greens.

Your problem of not wanting all your models to look like the same shade of red is not an issue of lack of range but an issue of red being red. The fact that you can't just add white to it to get a paler red is problematic as you don't want your reds to look pink. Unfortunately this is just something you have to accept, GW aren't being stingy with their options but instead have their hands tied by red having low variance before it becomes another colour.

If you have Warhammer+ there's a fantastic Citadel Colour Masterclass on there for painting red without using any orange/yellow.

Jandgalf wrote:
…


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Maybe a better question would be what effects are you trying to achieve with your reds? I have 4 reds in my paint rack, and I hardly find myself using more than 2. Granted I don't follow the gw paint system, I'm a paint mixer, but still, what aren't you getting from their paints that you want?

What I want is that when all my miniatures are there in the display case every bit of bright red doesn’t look exactly the same….

So mix paints, or glaze different hues into the shadowed areas, or apply filters. There are many options to give variation. I'm just not sure what it is you want gw to do. I don't think many other red options exist.

This is all really interesting. I'd never realised that red behaved so differently to other colours. I'll never look at red in the same way again. It seems like out there in the real world there are lots of shades of red but I can see now that it doesn't take much before they start looking more orangy, pinky or browny. Hmmm the challenge is as I see it to use very subtle shading variations to make my reds look different.

And that colour wheel is fantastic - what a resource. Thanks for posting it. (Seen other colour wheels but this one is really nice the way you can click on the colours and get info)

IMHO there are a bunch of red shades, but it's kind of subjective what reads as "red", a lot of it is also about the surrounding colours. Stuff edging into pink/orange/brown can look more or less red depending on the adjacent colours, on the "white/black point" of your pallette, and so on.

AK paint line has a bunch of reds, and most of them look different to each other.

I steered away from using Citadel colours myself, because most of their colours are "dirty", they are not based on simple colour mixes but often have dabs of white, blue or whatnot in them, making guesstimating things a PITA. As an example, I dare you to find a neutral grey (a mix of pure B&W) colour from the Citadel lineup, AFAIK it doesn't exist

Citadel would do well to introduce a set of "pure" colours to complement their range. Far easier and more satisfying mixing pure colours than their esoteric blends..

Just checked out the AK reds boxed set and actually it's pretty similar to Citadel's range - there's three reds, two oranges and a brown. So I think it must just be right that red doesn't actually come in many shades. I'll never look at anything red in the same way again.

Jandgalf wrote:
Just checked out the AK reds boxed set and actually it's pretty similar to Citadel's range - there's three reds, two oranges and a brown. So I think it must just be right that red doesn't actually come in many shades. I'll never look at anything red in the same way again.

Are you referring to the "Inferno and Red Models" paint set? Sure enough, that set has only 6 colours, and I suppose the idea with it is that by mixing those 6 shades of red with each other, you can create any red colour you can imagine. However, there are a total of 235 colours in the 3rd gen acrylics range, and within that range, at least 20 of them read as red to me eye.. But like I said earlier, redness is also defined by the other sureounding colours.

"At least 20" seems to me to be stretching it quite a lot. There are paints marked on that chart that are named 'red' but which I would very much struggle to call red. If you're saying twenty or more of that range are red, then you'd have to include a great many similar browns, oranges, pinks and purples in the citadel range as being 'red'.

just my opinions, YMMV

The real answer to the original question is that GW’s paint range isn’t a very good paint range. And it wasn’t designed to be: GW’s paints are meant to paint GW’s models. Most of which exist in a similar visual world. Their line of paints has never been conceptualised as a full, complete range. It’s grown and shifted and been iterated on over time. Lots of their paints are callbacks to classic hues they used to sell, or designed to fit the colours of a certain model release or range. It’s not designed to be a holistic and flexible paint range, it has no fixed size, no fixed aim. Like with everything they produce, it’s a supplement to their miniatures, not the other way around.

The discussion around the ‘narrowness’ of red’s visual range is interesting, but doesn’t really explain GW’s lack of variety. Just off the top of my head, there’s loads of common paints from traditional artist-aimed brands that are different variations on red: cadmium red, pyrrol red, napthol red are all very much primary RED tones, but are nonetheless very different paints. Again, that’s just 3 off the top of the head and only in the Primary red range, to say nothing of more crimson-leaning shades or darker and lighter hues. GW aren’t interested in providing flexibility for artists with their paint, which is why they don’t even list their pigments; it’s just not what the paint range was designed for. The same goes for most other miniature paint brands really, but GW especially.

A secondary point is about cost. The primary driver of paint cost is the pigment, and GW - again, aiming to be an accessible put their prices mostly even across the board. Using blends of pigments allows them to keep their costs even, reducing the need for tier pricing based on the colour - a common practice for artist brands. The unintended side effect of not using pure pigments is that you lose the distinction between pure, primary tones. Again referring to the earlier 3 examples of pure pigment reds; they are all primary reds but subtly and inherently different. Something that wouldn’t make sense to engineer specifically, because if they were pigment blends, it would be 3 different paints that are subtly diff, but when used in mixing they would be identical. That’s a level of nuance that allows pure pigments to be much more flexible. But that’s a digression; again, GW’s intention is about accessibility and brand cohesiveness, not about producing a flexible and well-rounded toolbox for artists.

That’s incredibly interesting and makes me realize how little I know about how paints are made and work. I’m not sure I really understand it all but I get the point about how they keep the costs down. Does their way of working also make it more difficult for them to produce more reds?

And which paint range would you recommend as the best?

I've got no idea if there's something inherent about reds that makes them specifically hard to make varied with mixed pigments, but my suspicion is that it's
more IP related: For blue there's a lot of common stuff like Ultramarines, Space Wolves, Tzeech Demons/ Astartes, Seraphon etc. that all want to be recognisably different. When it comes to red though it's mostly all BLOOD themed, so I guess that's why there's not much variety.

Having a look at GW's full range though, I think the same issue exists even with their more common colours like blue, as an example. There's only really 2 different bright, primary blues. All of the other blues are either lighter/darker versions of the same tones, or desaturated versions mixed with grey or brown. This is definitely a side-effect of not using pure pigments: more pigments in the mix = a 'muddier' colours. the more pigments you add, the futher away you get from clean, distinct, bright colours.

Personally I don't think any 1 paint range is best, I just pick and choose for the colours and effects I like. Miniature painting brands like obviously Citadel and Vallejo have good variety of browns and drab greens and other dirty tones, but for strong primaries my go-to will always be traidtional artist paints.

Golden SoFlat is a range that has a bit of popularity among mini painters at the moment, especially good if you want that hyper-matte look that you get with stuff like Scalecolour. Liquitex Soft Body is a range I really like and would recommend for something more satin and general-purpose. The artist brands tend to be more expensive up-front, but usually because they come in much bigger bottles. Again though, they are also priced based on the pigments, and certain colours can be a lot more expensive; Cobalt Blue for example can be nearly double the cost of a cheaper pigment. With just 2 good bottles of strong primary tones for each blue, red and yellow, you can mix your way into pretty much any tone you want.

Jandgalf wrote:
I’m not sure I really understand it all but I get the point about how they keep the costs down. Does their way of working also make it more difficult for them to produce more reds?

Most red pigments are relatively expensive, sometimes by a little, sometimes a lot. Check out the differences in the price of a 60ml tube of Golden acrylic, between naphthol red medium, pyrrole red, cadmium red medium, and quinacridone red:

https://www.jacksonsart.com/golden-heavy-body-acrylic-paint

To keep prices consistent across a line of mini paints, I'd guess GW limits how many red pigments they use. Probably not the whole reason for their small number of reds, but a factor?

There are really only so many ways to bend a color. You can mix it with other colors to change the hue, you can make it pure and bright, you can muddy it up, you can tint it with white or shade with black. The problem with red is that red tints immediately read as pink, not red (compare with “sky blue” or “lemon yellow”) while adding too much black makes it read as brown (see tuskgor fur or doom bull brown, compared to say cantor blue or caliban green). Further, GW classifies burgundy as a purple when I’d say it’s a red.