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.

Back when the original set of GW paints existed, I remember the original Blood Red being really bright, and thinking to myself wow, this looks almost orange and yet they call it red.
I didnt collect Blood Angels back then, but I remember how a lot of those who did, had painted them in Blood Red.
Then around 2010 the new range of Citadel paints dropped and all old ones were lost to the warp.
It was around this time that the Blood Angels themselves received a redo and became a much more medium shade of red and lost their brightness.
However, this IMO makes them too similar to Blood Ravens for my taste, and I would like to go back to the original BA scheme and was wondering which of the new Citadel paints come closest.

I have Mephiston Red, which I use for my Blood Ravens (planning on switching to an even darker shade of red for them like either Word Bearers Red or Khorne Red, while Gal Vorbak red is way too dark and purplish for my taste), so Mephiston red as a basecoat may be right for the current GW BA scheme, but not for what I have in mind.

Evil Sunz Scarlet is a bright "tomato red", but also not the original BA scheme, is it?



I took a look at Wild Rider Red and it seems to come closest to the original Blood Red, but it seems a bit pale.



Is Fire Dragon even paler and worse?

Should I mix Wild Rider with Evil Sunz Scarlet?

The original blood red is still available from the original paint manufacturer from those days - coat d'arms 104 red - https://www.essexminiatures.co.uk/collections/coat-darms-paints/products/paint104

So I'd recommend getting a pot or two of that. They used aggressive highlighting, not just edge highlights, up to yellow with the original paint scheme if I remember correctly, and that's where you are seeing the difference.

I think the original Blood Angels Red was a terracotta colour. This one, in fact.

https://www.essexminiatures.co.uk/collections/coat-darms-paints/products/paint104


Ninja'd!

Hah kudos to the SEO skills of essex miniatures to get the same recommendation from us both!

There's also the Nostalgia 94 line from War Colors.

One thing that really helped make bright colors back then was GW was promoting the use of bright white primer/basecoat.

Edit: "longer" to "line"

The original Blood Angels Red is more of an orange. I've taken a picture of an original pot next to Ruby Red and Terracota.



Its in between Evil Sunz and Wild Rider Red.

I believe you are referring to the Blood Angel Orange phase? It was indeed brownish red mixed with orange, not red in the strictest sense..

I use AK Primer Red as a pseudo approximation of this shade. I believe exact color matched substitutes exist, if one craves for better matches, but the AK Primer is sold in large pots and airbrushes well. IIRC the Space Marine Paint Set sold by Citadel back in the day had the colours Terracotta and Blood Angel Orange, which were used in the included painting guide for the base color.

 bantha_beast wrote:
Its in between Evil Sunz and Wild Rider Red.

thanks, this really helped me out. I agree just Wild Rider Red would be too bright. I'm a strictly GW paints guy, so I guess I will have to mix the two to achieve the original shade.

If it helps, I've been doing mine with Vallejo Hot Orange over a white primer, then washed with Vallejo Red Ink:



https://skinflintgames.wordpress.com/2020/09/25/crossing-the-rubicon-nostalgius-pt-2-first-squad-done/