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.

I know in 20years you're likely to grow physically (certainly not mentally) but what have i missed? Why are the paints so teeny tiny? Was there an uproar...and then an explanation from GW?

.. also the names? Ive just started 40k again, walked into the shop, looked at the teeny tiny paint rack and was lost for 20mins. I actually just panicked and picked up ceramite white and Ulthuan grey, hoping one was skull white and the other codex grey. The ceramite white is winding me up as it seems really lumpywumpy. But what gives?

cuz... reasons. Iunno. <shrugs>

but there's a very nice chart here I reference a lot for showing old cit and new cit as well as others:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Paint_Range_Compatibility_Chart

Yeppy wrote:
Why are the paints so teeny tiny?

Because reducing the size of the pot is less noticable than raising the price.

Was there an uproar...and then an explanation from GW?

There was a round of complaint, although to be fair the current bottles (while smaller) are better than the previous hard-plastic 'bolter shell' hexagonal bottles.

.. also the names? Ive just started 40k again, walked into the shop, looked at the teeny tiny paint rack and was lost for 20mins. I actually just panicked and picked up ceramite white and Ulthuan grey, hoping one was skull white and the other codex grey. The ceramite white is winding me up as it seems really lumpywumpy. But what gives?

You're not the only one. I gave up on GW paints completely with the name changes, and went back to the Coat D'Arms range (GW's original paints, still manufactured by the company that made them for GW.

GW never made any official statement as to what the name change was about, but internet scuttlebutt pegged it on either the recent-ish change of paint manufacturers (supposedly the previous paint manufacturer wound up with ownership of the names) or GW trying to make everything more easily Trademarkeable in the wake of the Chapterhouse lawsuit.

Whatever the reason, it was downright irritating, and many of the names are much less intuitive now.

Keep an eye on whether your pot says "base" or "layer".
Layers are thin and variable quality. Layer metallics are dreadfully variable in particular.

 insaniak wrote:

Yeppy wrote:
Why are the paints so teeny tiny?

Because reducing the size of the pot is less noticable than raising the price.

Although they still hold as much as the old bolter shells.

Name changes are irritating, but then a lot of the old names were hardly intuitively descriptive, either. What shade is an elf's flesh compared to a dwarf's? How green was my goblin? Are liches officially purple?

New ones just take a bit of getting used to. And maybe more of a focus on the shade than the name.

I love the older pots, the generation before the hexagonal ones, I still have a couple that have paint in them and 24 years later it's still good! If you want to get the paints that are the ORIGINAL Citadel paints, look up a company called Coat d' Arms, good stuff there, as well as tentacle pink!

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Keep an eye on whether your pot says "base" or "layer".
Layers are thin and variable quality. Layer metallics are dreadfully variable in particular.

Ahh! My first mistake of many to come. I did not even read the "base" part on the white, I was layering it on very thinnly about 4-5times ( after base coating grey which is actually layer.. But worked really well!) onto black templars shoulder pads, was not impressed with the texture.. Now makes more sense.

I'll look through the colour charts and find my skull white layer paint equivalent.

Also I did not believe they were the same size, had to check.. You're right! Both 12ml, just appears smaller.. Especially next to the old 17ml bottle.

Cheers guys

The white paints do have issues. Mine are like curdled milk, I just try and eke out some life from my old Skull white, and pray silently I die before it runs out and I have to use Ceramite.

Just think of this as an opportunity to expand your horizons. Shirk off the ball and chain that is the GW paint range. Seriously GW? Paint by numbers line of paints? Really?

Vallejo, P3, Reaper, Coat d' Arms, etc, all make fantastic paint lines for less money.

Also the Vallejo Game Color line is the match for the old GW paints.

xraytango wrote:
I love the older pots, the generation before the hexagonal ones, I still have a couple that have paint in them and 24 years later it's still good! If you want to get the paints that are the ORIGINAL Citadel paints, look up a company called Coat d' Arms, good stuff there, as well as tentacle pink!

Still going strong on some of the older ones myself. The new pots aren’t bad. The screw-top hex ones were abysmal. Worst pots ever.

The constantly shifting colors are a bit irritating. If they weren’t convenient to pick up at my FLGS, I’d probably have switched a while ago. (And yes, I know I can mail order alternate brands)

My GW is two doors down from a store selling Vallejo and Humbrol. I still pick up GW paints. Stockholm syndrome in 28mm...

Coat de arms used to make the paint for the citadel range. They also own the trademark on the names. When gw decided to make their own paints inhouse, they weren't allowed to use those names, and cda continued to sell the range under their house name.

 JamesY wrote:
Coat de arms used to make the paint for the citadel range. They also own the trademark on the names. When gw decided to make their own paints inhouse, they weren't allowed to use those names, and cda continued to sell the range under their house name.

Only the first two pots in this pic were the Coat D'Arms paints.



What took GW so long to change the names and why doesn't Coat D'Arms use the names they own the trademark to?

I am actually starting to like the newer Gdub stuff. It drive me nuts that colors don't match the older stuff, I didn't realize a company was still making the old Gdub stuff, thats good! I thought I was in a race against time every time I bought a model to add to one of my older armies and wanted to try to match it.

Some of the newer textured paints are really fun to mess around with and gbud does a great job with the washes in my opinion... Just don't get me started about the lids not staying open on the "new" pots.

 Ghaz wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Coat de arms used to make the paint for the citadel range. They also own the trademark on the names. When gw decided to make their own paints inhouse, they weren't allowed to use those names, and cda continued to sell the range under their house name.

Only the first two pots in this pic were the Coat D'Arms paints.



What took GW so long to change the names and why doesn't Coat D'Arms use the names they own the trademark to?

I think it's just the macragge blue that wasn't made by cda. I may be wrong on the point of change, but that was 100% the reason (or at least it was what I was told when I worked for gw). Cda did carry on with the names for a while, but have changed now. I don't know their reasons, they probably just wanted to break the connection, or maybe they have changed the colours so decided to rename. Really don't know.

They needed more money for less outlay basically! The best black they have produced was the hexagonal pot. The worst was the larger hexagon pot with the red demon on the label,it couldn't cover anything. I went into Edinburgh's GW store to ask what I was doing wrong because it couldn't cover and the the assistant told me that It wasn't meant to cover! At which point I burst out laughing.

 JamesY wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Coat de arms used to make the paint for the citadel range. They also own the trademark on the names. When gw decided to make their own paints inhouse, they weren't allowed to use those names, and cda continued to sell the range under their house name.

Only the first two pots in this pic were the Coat D'Arms paints.



What took GW so long to change the names and why doesn't Coat D'Arms use the names they own the trademark to?

I think it's just the macragge blue that wasn't made by cda. I may be wrong on the point of change, but that was 100% the reason (or at least it was what I was told when I worked for gw). Cda did carry on with the names for a while, but have changed now. I don't know their reasons, they probably just wanted to break the connection, or maybe they have changed the colours so decided to rename. Really don't know.

Okay. I checked a few of my paint pots that I had easy access to. From left to right, my black ink in pot #4 was made in France. My pot of Mechrite Red in pot #5 was made in China. Coat D'Arms and the current Citadel paints are made in the UK. That says they've had their paint produced in at least four different factories with up to four different manufacturers.

Yeah, The company that made Coat D'arms was only involved for the first two iterations. The change to the 'bolter shell' pots was also a change of producer, because the original mob couldn't produce their paints in sufficient quantities to keep up with GW's expansion. So GW kept their names, with a range that was almost the same (but had since pretty significant differences, like Shining Gold and Burnished Gold swapping around), and the ordinal manufacturer kept producing under the Coat D.Arms name with slightly altered names.

The recent name change came with a second change of manufacturer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:
. Seriously GW? Paint by numbers line of paints? Really?

Actually, I think that was one of the smartest ideas that GW has come up with in recent years.

Unfortunately, the constant changes to the colour range (GW seems to have a knack for discontinuing colours just as I'm using them as a core part of an army pant job) made them just to frustrating to continue with.

 insaniak wrote:

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:
. Seriously GW? Paint by numbers line of paints? Really?

Actually, I think that was one of the smartest ideas that GW has come up with in recent years.

Remember both Foundry and Reaper had their paint triads first, so its basically GW 'borrowing' a good idea

I've been doing some experiments with the paints I have. Soon I'll be painting a LAarrge army and i will need to stock up on paints, so these results will help me determine which products to bulk buy.

First we have the Orginal CW paints against the new ones in a pyramid construction test;


Then a good ol highest colour wins test.



The clear winners with the sweet honeycomb formation;



I may be wasting time whilst I wait for paint to dry ^^

Serious note:
After doing some research I'm torn between ordering vallejo game paints or vallejo model paints (non air paints, i've yet to give airbrushing a whirl ). I've read the vallejo model paints leave a matte finish and aren't as robust as vallejo game paints though.
.
Currently I'm just priming the models (Chaos black spray can) fine highlighting with 3 GW grey colours.. which actually are nice! BUT I need the perfect white and boltgun metal, which at the moment is the original bolt gun metal and skull white, this new GW leadbelcher is dire slumpy poop.

I'm going to crack on with experimenting, i may order some vallejo game and model colours to test them in preparation for my mass army painting. If for some reason i can't choose between those colours then its going to be the coat d'arms!

Please if you fellas/gals have any comments/feedback chuck them at me!

This is day 3 of painting


Gosh that skull white is just ace.

 Ghaz wrote:

Remember both Foundry and Reaper had their paint triads first, so its basically GW 'borrowing' a good idea

Sure. Calling it an 'improvement' rather than an innovation probably would have been more accurate.

Likewise with the 'base' colours with the thicker pigment... Vallejo had those years earlier (and they're pretty darn good), and the 'technical' paints just mimic stuff that's been around in craft paint ranges for decades. They do still add something of value to the range, though.

If it weren't for the constant colour changes, and the fact that other brands make paint as good or better and sell it in larger volume at better prices, the current GW range would really be quite awesome.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yeppy wrote:

I'm going to crack on with experimenting, i may order some vallejo game and model colours to test them in preparation for my mass army painting. If for some reason i can't choose between those colours then its going to be the coat d'arms! .

P3 is worth a look as well. They're produced in the same plant as the Coat D'arms paints, and have some good colour analogues for GW colours. Their version of Boltgun (called 'Gunmetal' IIRC) is pretty spot on.

 Ghaz wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:
. Seriously GW? Paint by numbers line of paints? Really?

Actually, I think that was one of the smartest ideas that GW has come up with in recent years.

Remember both Foundry and Reaper had their paint triads first, so its basically GW 'borrowing' a good idea

Kind of yes. Reaper just had the triads. So you could have a base, shade, and highlight. They were all the same viscosity though. GW took it a big step farther with theirs.

(not that I use the triads, and for my tastes Reaper dries a bit too matte)

 Phydox wrote:
I am actually starting to like the newer Gdub stuff. It drive me nuts that colors don't match the older stuff, I didn't realize a company was still making the old Gdub stuff, thats good! I thought I was in a race against time every time I bought a model to add to one of my older armies and wanted to try to match it.

Some of the newer textured paints are really fun to mess around with and gbud does a great job with the washes in my opinion... Just don't get me started about the lids not staying open on the "new" pots.

I use toothpicks to keepem open, just stick it along the side into the 'hinge' and it'll stay nice and open.

Yeppy wrote:
Serious note:
After doing some research I'm torn between ordering vallejo game paints or vallejo model paints (non air paints, i've yet to give airbrushing a whirl ). I've read the vallejo model paints leave a matte finish and aren't as robust as vallejo game paints though.

Currently I'm just priming the models (Chaos black spray can) fine highlighting with 3 GW grey colours.. which actually are nice! BUT I need the perfect white and boltgun metal, which at the moment is the original bolt gun metal and skull white, this new GW leadbelcher is dire slumpy poop.

I'm going to crack on with experimenting, i may order some vallejo game and model colours to test them in preparation for my mass army painting. If for some reason i can't choose between those colours then its going to be the coat d'arms!

I've heard the Vallejo Air metallics are pretty sweet as brush-on paints, as the finer pigment (or flakes, I guess) provide a nice, smooth metallic finish.

On a more general note, I think it's worth approaching the hobby not with a "which range shall I buy/use?", but more of a "oh, look at all these ranges I can pick and choose and mix up!". In other words, don't discount grabbing stuff from Coat d'Arms, P3, Vallejo (model, game, air) and yes, even GW ranges.

Yeppy wrote:I've read the vallejo model paints leave a matte finish and aren't as robust as vallejo game paints though.

The Model Color paints are more heavily pigmented than the Game Color line (they use the Model Color formulation for the Game Color Extra Opaques). The Game Color line uses a more resistant resin. You can find all of the differences in their FAQ.

1.1. What is the difference between Model Color, Game Color, Model Air and Premium?
Vallejo offers four different water-based chemical formulas in these colors lines, each one created for a particular segment of the hobby market, but all compatible with one another.
Model Color and Panzer Aces are creamy, highly opaque acrylics formulated principally for brush application: the two ranges total some 246 matte colors and mediums, and 8 brilliant alcohol based metallic colors.
Game Color has been developed for tabletop games. The range consists of 119 acrylic colors, washes and inks; designed for painting small figures, the formula has a lower viscosity than Model Color and a resin more resistant to frequent handling. The colors provide opaque coverage without loss of minute detail.
Model Air is a line of 129 colors which have been formulated especially for airbrushing, although they are also frequently used for painting small details with a brush.
These product lines are further augmented with a line of Washes, and a complete assortment of Medium, Varnishes and auxiliary products. Premium Color, a new range of 51 colors and 8 auxiliary products, developed with a new hybrid acrylic-polyurethane resin of extreme strength, has been designed principally for use in an Airbrush and for surfaces exposed to handling and exterior conditions.

insaniak wrote:Sure. Calling it an 'improvement' rather than an innovation probably would have been more accurate.

Likewise with the 'base' colours with the thicker pigment... Vallejo had those years earlier (and they're pretty darn good), and the 'technical' paints just mimic stuff that's been around in craft paint ranges for decades. They do still add something of value to the range, though.

Its all good. After GW went and released their 'Technical' paints (Blood for the Blood God, Nihilakh Oxide, etc.) Vallejo decided to 'borrow' the idea and release their own 'Technical' paints for the Game Color line. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

 Anfauglir wrote:

I've heard the Vallejo Air metallics are pretty sweet as brush-on paints, as the finer pigment (or flakes, I guess) provide a nice, smooth metallic finish.

On a more general note, I think it's worth approaching the hobby not with a "which range shall I buy/use?", but more of a "oh, look at all these ranges I can pick and choose and mix up!". In other words, don't discount grabbing stuff from Coat d'Arms, P3, Vallejo (model, game, air) and yes, even GW ranges.

I caveat about brushing on the Vallejo Air- they dry VERY quickly and your best bet is to use a wee bit of drying retarder when brushing them and to put the coats on as thinly as possible to not show brush strokes.
I'm not entirely happy with the colours (as a personal preference) but they're leagues more consistent than GW's.

@joseph: i brush on the Vallejo Air Gold and Aluminium...
i've never noticed any quick drying with them, but it could depend on where you live...

they are very powerful colors, that take a bit of getting used to...
i find the Aluminium perfect as a midtone/bright mix with P3 Pig Iron or Cold Steel, and by itself as a final highlight color...
the VA Gold, is a bit strong, and a bit too green...
i like to mix some P3 Rhulic Gold in, and wash over it with Sanguine Base...
i only use the Gold by itself for the edge highlights, and then hit it with a final layer of Aluminium...

the pigment density is really nice, and the flow is great...
they make a nice strong finish over my P3 metal base paints....

@darefsky: i agree, Reaper dry way too matte for my taste, too...

@insaniak: the old GW Boltgun Metal match in P3 is Pig Iron...
one of my favorite paints in the range...

cheers
jah