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.

 Desubot wrote:

 Deunstephe wrote:
If they took down the painting guides because of legal reasons, taking down some of the modelling articles was really silly IMO. I really liked the tutorial of converting one of the Eldar wraithlords into a "sniper" look, and at the time many of their Tyranids articles were very cool. Why were those taken down?

Obviously to sell more books.

Coming soon "Citidels how to convert models" only 50$

Actually, that would be a subscription to the white dwarf. March had some kit bash articles about flyers... and they even showed *gasp* plasticard being used.

winterdyne wrote:
In particular Devlan Mud was superb.

And it's still available. Just from The Army Painter, and it's called Strongtone Ink. They also have Darktone Ink, which basically is Badab Black. Softtone Ink is a very light version of Devlan mud, though not quite as yellow as Gryphonne Sepia.

Don't confuse these with their dips, they're totally different. Their dips are floor wax. Their inks are basically old GW washes with a bit of flow improver in them.

In otherwords it's pretty much exactly what Agrax Earthshade is?

Somehow I doubt that using the conversion chart to switch the paint names from the old painting guides to the new colors would actually be a real update. I doubt it's laziness, it's more likely it's not worth the $$$ to go through all the old paint articles and switch colors like charadon granite to skavenblight dinge or boltgun metal to leadbelcher because even after paying someone to go to all the effort to do so it STILL doesn't fix the fundemental problem that all those paints are vastly different from each other.

Some paints that used to be layers are now base paints and paints that used to be foundations are now layers meaning the articles would not only still be out of date but would also result in even more people being pissed off that it was updated wrong....a lose lose situation for them. Also it's been almost a damn year or more since those articles got taken down, obviously the OP didn't need them to badly to only be discovering this now. In regards to the conversion articles who knows why they went to, GW still encourages and supports kit bashes and conversions what with them showing them off monthly in white dwarf and on white dwarf daily all the time.

Frankly you people will lose your heads over anything, no wonder GW had to pull down their main facebook page, it was getting as stupid as their old forums and since deleting idiotic posts on facebooks ends up banning the poster why would a company want to stir that pot and wind up with legions of "OMG GW IS BANNING ME FROM FACEBOOK WTF GAIZ!" posts all over the place.

PS. Ulthan grey is awesome, maybe your using it wrong.

? Plenty of websites have information that becomes invalidated.
A very simple way of dealing with it is to put a notice up that says "This article refers to paint colors which we no longer produce. Have a look at this conversion chart to see which of our new colors can help you produce the same great effect!"

I mean, GW has hosted articles referring to out of date rules or models for ages. I remember a White Dwarf article where one of the team something like "And I'm feeling very lucky that I bought 50 pots of Hawk Turquoise before it went out of production; here's how I use it to paint my army!" or "This really cool conversion is based on a 4th edition XX".

They could have spun this in many ways. It should be a 10 minute job to do 'replace all' for all colours: s/"Charadon Granite"/"Skavenblight Dinge". Heck, they could have developed a browser plugin that looks for any old paints in the text and creates an on-hover window that shows which new paint is closest/how to mix an equivalent.

It just strikes me as a huge amount of GW not 'getting' how internet communities really work.

Yay! another one of these threads!

winterdyne wrote:
I disagree here. I'm a pro painter, and some citadel products really are very good and can be upsold not just as a minor convenience, but a great help. Also if selling the actual paints used on the example, those following the guide are likely to use them. Older guides can and should be updated with the appropriate conversions to the new range.

In particular Devlan Mud was superb. In the current range there are a lot of places where I find only Mephiston Red will do. Foundation yellows were awesome, thank goodness VGC Opaques copied them very closely. Really GW should rely on their painters to find and employ techniques which show their range of products in a good light comparatively. Every range of paints has advantages in certain situations, and highlighting those is where I think 'good' sales practices lie.

GW paints are good - not my favorites, but good.

I consider Vallejo and Reaper paints to be about tied for first, with GW bringing up respectable third. Fourth... Army Painter primers, then Army Painter paints as a fairly distant fifth. Army Painter brushes are really quite good though. And the Highland Tufts for basing? Superb.

Taking down the painting guides... not too smart. But that's GW for you.

The Auld Grump

Trasvi wrote:
? Plenty of websites have information that becomes invalidated.
A very simple way of dealing with it is to put a notice up that says "This article refers to paint colors which we no longer produce. Have a look at this conversion chart to see which of our new colors can help you produce the same great effect!"

I mean, GW has hosted articles referring to out of date rules or models for ages. I remember a White Dwarf article where one of the team something like "And I'm feeling very lucky that I bought 50 pots of Hawk Turquoise before it went out of production; here's how I use it to paint my army!" or "This really cool conversion is based on a 4th edition XX".

They could have spun this in many ways. It should be a 10 minute job to do 'replace all' for all colours: s/"Charadon Granite"/"Skavenblight Dinge". Heck, they could have developed a browser plugin that looks for any old paints in the text and creates an on-hover window that shows which new paint is closest/how to mix an equivalent.

It just strikes me as a huge amount of GW not 'getting' how internet communities really work.

Right cause all of that costs absolutely nothing and can be done in like 10 minutes right? While there at it there should be an app so that GW heavy metal painters will teach you step by step how to paint your color scheme at the click of a button as well cause that's easy to make to right?

Yeah, I just went to a ridiculous place.....just figure I gotta keep up with the level of the thread.

 BryllCream wrote:

 progreen10 wrote:
They got rid of their main facebook page too. Kinda sucks

They got rid of their facebook page because the community wouldn't stop whinging and spamming it with complaints.

Don't know why they removed the painting articles though. I guess it was too much effort to keep them up.

Believe me, it takes way more effort to remove them than it does to leave them in the directory on the server.

Orktavius wrote:
In otherwords it's pretty much exactly what Agrax Earthshade is?

Somehow I doubt that using the conversion chart to switch the paint names from the old painting guides to the new colors would actually be a real update. I doubt it's laziness, it's more likely it's not worth the $$$ to go through all the old paint articles and switch colors like charadon granite to skavenblight dinge or boltgun metal to leadbelcher because even after paying someone to go to all the effort to do so it STILL doesn't fix the fundemental problem that all those paints are vastly different from each other.

Some paints that used to be layers are now base paints and paints that used to be foundations are now layers meaning the articles would not only still be out of date but would also result in even more people being pissed off that it was updated wrong....a lose lose situation for them. Also it's been almost a damn year or more since those articles got taken down, obviously the OP didn't need them to badly to only be discovering this now. In regards to the conversion articles who knows why they went to, GW still encourages and supports kit bashes and conversions what with them showing them off monthly in white dwarf and on white dwarf daily all the time.

Frankly you people will lose your heads over anything, no wonder GW had to pull down their main facebook page, it was getting as stupid as their old forums and since deleting idiotic posts on facebooks ends up banning the poster why would a company want to stir that pot and wind up with legions of "OMG GW IS BANNING ME FROM FACEBOOK WTF GAIZ!" posts all over the place.

PS. Ulthan grey is awesome, maybe your using it wrong.

Different paints now entirely. New manufacturer, new colours, new behaviours. Some good, some bad. A search / replace doesn't take long in most DTP packages, but expressly changing one paint name for the newest new one wouldn't work that well. Some have disappeared entirely. That articles are written to sell as opposed to describe the colour and provide a convenient link to the product is a bugbear of mine. There are people that don't know what a glaze is, or that you could make your own wash, or layer with a foundation paint...

I honestly find Ulthuan grey is appalling compared the the Vallejo pale grey I use in preference, which has a much better consistency. Maybe I have a bad pot. As for 'using it wrong', I could take offence, but instead I'll just say I've got a silver demon in my cabinet with a clutch of finalist pins. I kinda know how to use paints of many different sorts. I don't state opinions lightly.

Orktavius wrote:
In otherwords it's pretty much exactly what Agrax Earthshade is?

No? If you'd used both agrax earthshade and Devlan mud extensively, you'd know they'd nothing alike except being thin brown paints. Both have totally different flow and strength, and agrax stains a lot darker.

Strong tone ink is almost identical to Devlan mud, but flows a little better.

 BryllCream wrote:

 progreen10 wrote:
They got rid of their main facebook page too. Kinda sucks

They got rid of their facebook page because the community wouldn't stop whinging and spamming it with complaints.

It's really amazing that people whine and complain, GW got rid of all those nasty old articles, we should be thanking them .

Seriously though they removed them because they had to either get rid of the painting ones or pay the guys who now own the old paints names. While they were at it they probably decided to scrap the lot of them to try and get people to buy WD. And it is moves like that that make people dislike them.

You're telling me 'Tausept Ochre' and 'Iyanden Darksun' are owned by a non GW entity? Doubtful.

More likely they've renamed simply to allow stronger trademarking; 'Blood Red' / 'Scab Red' / 'Ultramarine Blue' etc are descriptive, thus not strong trademarks. In fact natural Ultramarine as a pigment is really very much like 'Ultramarine Blue'. Competitors could quite happily release (and do) ultramarine paints. 'Macragge Blue' is stronger.

The objective is always money. If GW produce painting guides using specific mixes and trademarked names, they can sell those paints to those that can't mix to match at a premium. Expect the pot cost to go up significantly as this takes effect over the next couple of years.

Maybe GW are listening to the fans on Dakka and matching their rivals that also have no painting tutorials on them

But if you're online anyway you can just as easily find better articles here, YouTube or on miniwargaming.

Taking down Black gobbo, now articles, dumbed down white dwarf... rumors of no GD's will not help them sell more paints... But hey it's their call.

I find vallejos, P3's quite nice and I avoid GW pots as much as I can since they dry fast... but then again some athlete with a sanity tracking record of nil will pop in and say I'm doing it wrong

winterdyne wrote:
Conversely, some citadel products are the worst pile of crap I've ever had the misfortune to try to use. Ulthuan grey is particularly bad in my opinion.

Oh, good. I thought that color would be perfect for my Retribution models so I bought a bottle but haven't tried it out yet. What's wrong with it?

 BryllCream wrote:
They got rid of their facebook page because the community wouldn't stop whinging and spamming it with complaints.

Complaints related to them strong-arming a self-published writer for using the words "space" and "marine" in the title of one of her children's books.

If you're going to make excuses for GW at every turn, at least tell the whole story and avoid being so disingenuous.

Like these?
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2570007_PaintingFacesMasterclass.pdf

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m820035a_Painting_Faces_Redux.pdf

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m400064a_Jan_08_Painting_Orks_40k.pdf

etc?

Quick Search:
https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=paint+site%3Agames-workshop.com+filetype%3Apdf

 Sidstyler wrote:

winterdyne wrote:
Conversely, some citadel products are the worst pile of crap I've ever had the misfortune to try to use. Ulthuan grey is particularly bad in my opinion.

Oh, good. I thought that color would be perfect for my Retribution models so I bought a bottle but haven't tried it out yet. What's wrong with it?

It's not smoothly mixed. Terribly lumpy - like lumps of cement powder in snot. The pot I have is incredibly difficult to get an even coat with, even with adding all sort of mediums. VMC Light Grey is my go-to base for whites and light greys (Unless I'm using Codex Grey). Like I said, could be a bad pot, but I don't think so. It's reminiscent of what happens with old pots of Humbrol acrylic.

Mephiston Red is BRILLIANT stuff though. Caledor Blue is also very nice. With any paint range, there'll be some winners, and some things to avoid. It's just a case of working out which are which.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
They got rid of their facebook page because the community wouldn't stop whinging and spamming it with complaints.

Complaints related to them strong-arming a self-published writer for using the words "space" and "marine" in the title of one of her children's books.

If you're going to make excuses for GW at every turn, at least tell the whole story and avoid being so disingenuous.

I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.

10 years ago my country went to war with Iraq and killed thousands of innocent people, but I didn't sent vitriolic bs to my MP (who supported it). Now I know that the deaths of millions of people aren't as important as corporate dickery but still

I always chalked the removal of useful articles -and the ceasing of posting certain kinds of things that they used to- to GW simply wanting you to buy one of their expanding range of painting books or the latest issue of White Dwarf.

Want to paint a space marine - We have a book for that!

 ascended_mike wrote:
Actually it's down to a legal reason.
They no longer own the names to the old paints, the old company that made the paints held the rights to the names.

Therefore the only article you'll find the name of the old paints is the conversation chart, which they will have had to pay the old company rights for to publish.

Meaning they have little choice but to pull the rest, they don't own the paints they are suggesting you use and I imagine somewhere in the background a legal battle was fought and lost.

Do you have a source for this info? I'm skeptical.

Alot of the old paints had GW IP in the names which I doubt would be owned by the previous company. Also, IIRC, some of the paint color names were carried over from two companies ago (remember the Cote d Arms produced softer plastic bottles?) to whatever company made the paints last time.

I'm not saying you're explanation isn't possible, but I need a little more evidence than an imagined legal battle.

 BryllCream wrote:

I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.

A company whose target demographic is 12-13 year olds gets immature comments on Facebook. Surprise!

 BryllCream wrote:

I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.

10 years ago my country went to war with Iraq and killed thousands of innocent people, but I didn't sent vitriolic bs to my MP (who supported it). Now I know that the deaths of millions of people aren't as important as corporate dickery but still

Ahhh, the good old "your problems aren't as bad as starving children so you have no right to complain about anything" discussion tactic... Well played good sir, well played!

Painting Guides were removed because GW operates a "Nothing for free" policy these days.

It's dumb because I never visit their site anymore... well except to flick through the still moderately cool Specialist Games section which surely can't be long for this world.

I think the most direct reason makes the most sense:

Why make available free content if you have competing product you are trying to sell? "Nothing for free" as stated earlier does seem to be the main rule they follow now.

From what has been demonstrated by GW as of late is anything that does not make money will be removed.

Can they sell product in Facebook? No? Get rid of it.

They used to have forums on their site, it costs money and they cannot charge for access so get rid of it.

They might have been able to hold "official" tournaments at FNGS and charge for admission (Magic the gathering springs to mind) but that goes against direct sales.

This unwillingness to participate in the community without having their hand out for payment is a poor buisness move. They have made themselves less relevant or attractive for new customers.

GW don't own the copyrights to the names in anything other than gaming/models, the confusion with that is what sparked the whole thing about them owning the term 'space marine'.

It is entirely possible for the manufacture making the paints to copyright them the second their contract is done and then try to squeeze GW for money only to send them to another manufacturer. I have no real source for it but that's what I heard happened at the time the paint lines switched.

I heard that Mars Rover found a kitten and chased it up a tree. I've heard no such rumour locally.

 Kizmet wrote:
since when have they removed ALL of the painting articles off there website?

Last year. Around October. The same time they dumped all of the links to their Apocalypse Data Sheets.

They want you to buy the How to Paint books, I guess.

 BryllCream wrote:

I didn't say it was miss-placed or undeserved. But it was whinging, and immature. You can't spam a company's facebook page because they've done something that you don't like.

10 years ago my country went to war with Iraq and killed thousands of innocent people, but I didn't sent vitriolic bs to my MP (who supported it). Now I know that the deaths of millions of people aren't as important as corporate dickery but still

No, perhaps you didn't. But I guarantee others did. Some people just marched in the streets. What a dreadful comparison, please don't use the death and suffering of others as some way of enhancing your argument.

 kronk wrote:

 Kizmet wrote:
since when have they removed ALL of the painting articles off there website?

Last year. Around October. The same time they dumped all of the links to their Apocalypse Data Sheets.

They want you to buy the How to Paint books, I guess.

To be fair to GW (fairness in an internet thread? madness I say!), it would probably be really confusing to little Timmy if he wen't to GW's site looking for a way to paint his brand new spech murines and all the guides he found all contained paints that aren't really available to purchase any more...

(of course that could be solved with a disclaimer and a link to the paint conversion chart, but that would just make too much sense)

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW don't own the copyrights to the names in anything other than gaming/models, the confusion with that is what sparked the whole thing about them owning the term 'space marine'.

It is entirely possible for the manufacture making the paints to copyright them the second their contract is done and then try to squeeze GW for money only to send them to another manufacturer. I have no real source for it but that's what I heard happened at the time the paint lines switched[u].

Again, this is far to vague to be taken without more evidence.

Also, a correction. GW does own trademarks for many terms outside of games and models, as evidenced by the copyright/trademark notices in black library novels, video games, etc. I've not seen any evidence that GW doesn't also own the names for it's paints. There is no reason to think that a paint name with a GW trademark in it would be owned by a company other than GW. (Blood Angel, Space wolf, etc, etc.)

Space Marine is in contention recently, but try to use Tyranids or Sisters of Battle in a paint and see what happens.