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'm pretty sure my hands invert when I try anything artistic, and I'm super-super-excited by this range.

Best bit is, if you don't want use it, you don't haveta use it.

JWBS wrote:
Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.

But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.

But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.

Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).

JWBS wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.

But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.

Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).

Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.

JSG wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.

But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.

Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).

Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.

We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.

JSG wrote:

Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.

But if people would do that, then they couldn't constantly complain how difficult the yellow is to paint on the black undercoat!

At the end of the day, painting is always a compromise between how much time you want to invest in a given mini, and how good you want it to look.
This seem to provide a new option at one end of the spectrum for people who don't know/want/care for creating their own pigment-rich washes.

I'm still not sure it has much use for people who want to paint more details. The minis painted with contrast, then highlighted normally don't looks a good as base + shade + highlight in my opinion. The shadow provided by the contrast paint doesn't look quite right to me.
But I suppose there are some colors/textures combinations for which it can be a faster and maybe better way to obtain results similar to what you get using standard techniques (small pieces of fabric come to mind).

fresus wrote:

I'm still not sure it has much use for people who want to paint more details. The minis painted with contrast, then highlighted normally don't looks a good as base + shade + highlight in my opinion. The shadow provided by the contrast paint doesn't look quite right to me..

Slopping it on and hoping for the best isn't the only way to paint with inks. The other approach is to use multiple really thin layers to gradually build up colour, which is a technique used by a lot of high end painters to get smooth shading and gradients from one colour to another. The colour range available in these opens up all sorts of possibilities there.

JWBS wrote:

JSG wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.

But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.

Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).

Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.

We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.

Soooooo you adapted your base coat to get the top coat effect you wanted. Looks like you adapted, why are you reluctant to adapt again if this might speed up the process or even give a better outcome?

In the end these paints are to help people get their armies done, not necessarily for them to win competitions. If painting for competition purposes is what your after then I can understand why you’d be willing to spend hours on a single model. I just want a squad/ army/ gang at a tabletop quality to play the game.

This product line is meant for a particular segment of the customer base. Some people are acting like they're going to be forced to use it. That obviously isn't the case, unless GW starts discontinuing its paints, but what's important is that is gives people an opportunity to get models painted and on the table top that much more quickly... fewer unpainted models on the tabletop is only a good thing.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Y'all who laugh about the noob friendly method for beginners only and not worthy of a seasoned veteran, have you ever had to paint 200+ gaunts or boyz? This thing is a godsent.

How many models from your 200 will one bottle last though, and what would the price be?

If you want to paint X number of bodies, you might as well invest into airbrush and/or acrylic soft body craft paint, buy a giant tube of paint, 3 liters of acrylic medium, dishwash soap and make yourself a cistern of paint/wash/whatever for your gigantic mass of models. And if you don't want to do it yourself - you can always probably find someone with airbrush who would do it for you.

Painting hundreds of models with a brush and using GW white primer, oh, sorry, special Citadel Contrast Spray Primer TM and washes I mean Citadel Contrast Paints TM would probably be the most expensive and time consuming way of doing it.

 Theophony wrote:

JWBS wrote:

JSG wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.

But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.

Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).

Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.

We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.

Soooooo you adapted your base coat to get the top coat effect you wanted. Looks like you adapted, why are you reluctant to adapt again if this might speed up the process or even give a better outcome?

In the end these paints are to help people get their armies done, not necessarily for them to win competitions. If painting for competition purposes is what your after then I can understand why you’d be willing to spend hours on a single model. I just want a squad/ army/ gang at a tabletop quality to play the game.

I'd say the main reason that I'm reluctant to adapt is because I'm well past my adaption phase. In fact some might say I'm old as balls (I've been alive for over three decades!). My days of experimenting, in fact my days of painting full stop, were mainly in my second decade. I tried quite a few different things (including white undercoats) and eventually found what I liked best.

(in all seriousness I am generally averse to trying new stuff when it comes to painting because I tried and failed at a lot of stuff and it lead to a lot of time wasted, half painted minis, and bad paint jobs. I've found what works for me and I'm content with it).

 Shadenuat wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Y'all who laugh about the noob friendly method for beginners only and not worthy of a seasoned veteran, have you ever had to paint 200+ gaunts or boyz? This thing is a godsent.

How many models from your 200 will one bottle last though, and what would the price be?

If you want to paint X number of bodies, you might as well invest into airbrush and/or acrylic soft body craft paint, buy a giant tube of paint, 3 liters of acrylic medium, dishwash soap and make yourself a cistern of paint/wash/whatever for your gigantic mass of models.

Painting hundreds of models with a brush and using GW white primer, oh, sorry, special Citadel Contrast Spray Primer TM and washes I mean Citadel Contrast Paints TM would probably be the most expensive and time consuming way of doing it.

Seriously have you read the thread or looked at the actual product advertisement and descriptions as well as on hand reviews?

You can use ANY primer, the new GW primer is just smoother for a better finish, but any will work.

You don’t need to slather this stuff on, just brush regular, the one thick coat is a nod to the “Two thin coat line” and is there way of saying it will take less time to paint.

Airbrushes aren’t free, decent ones cost money and I e never been able to get good results (although I’ve never spent much time using it).

The speed and. The videos of a plaguebearer being painted to a great tabletop (in my opinion) level would mean horde armies CAN be knocked out fairly quickly. I started GW models over 25years ago now with Skaven, then undead, then orcs and goblins before switching to 40k, this is before death star blocks but still 30 clanrats pushing a bell was bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWBS wrote:

 Theophony wrote:

JWBS wrote:

JSG wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.

But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.

Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).

Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.

We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.

Soooooo you adapted your base coat to get the top coat effect you wanted. Looks like you adapted, why are you reluctant to adapt again if this might speed up the process or even give a better outcome?

In the end these paints are to help people get their armies done, not necessarily for them to win competitions. If painting for competition purposes is what your after then I can understand why you’d be willing to spend hours on a single model. I just want a squad/ army/ gang at a tabletop quality to play the game.

I'd say the main reason that I'm reluctant to adapt is because I'm well past my adaption phase. In fact some might say I'm old as balls (I've been alive for over three decades!). My days of experimenting, in fact my days of painting full stop, were mainly in my second decade. I tried quite a few different things (including white undercoats) and eventually found what I liked best.

(in all seriousness I am generally averse to trying new stuff when it comes to painting because I tried and failed at a lot of stuff and it lead to a lot of time wasted, half painted minis, and bad paint jobs. I've found what works for me and I'm content with it).

Must be hard to find those old paints from back then if your unwilling to adapt. KIDDING

 Theophony wrote:


Must be hard to find those old paints from back then if your unwilling to adapt. KIDDING

This has been helpful https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Paint_Range_Compatibility_Chart !! (doesn't seem to have a Chestnut wash equivalent but I'll try to make do

 aka_mythos wrote:
This product line is meant for a particular segment of the customer base. Some people are acting like they're going to be forced to use it. That obviously isn't the case, unless GW starts discontinuing its paints, but what's important is that is gives people an opportunity to get models painted and on the table top that much more quickly... fewer unpainted models on the tabletop is only a good thing.

Yeah, agreed.

All I see with Contrast is gooey glazes, this isn't going to change how I paint one iota. I'll continue making my own with Matte Medium and inks, there's nothing about this product that you can't already do.

But if Contrast leads to more people painting their armies, that's a good thing.

There are a lot of people who lack the skill / confidence to paint their models. This is just a lower buy in for them, it's going to save them time and spare them the anxiety of learning something they don't really care about.

The indirect benefit to serious painters is that mild sense of irritation you choke back when you see an unpainted army will diminish. Over time, there will be fewer of them.

 Theophony wrote:
The speed and. The videos of a plaguebearer being painted to a great tabletop (in my opinion) level

It is not a great tabletop level. And people have been using washes over light primer for ages to quickly paint for tournaments and stuff.

I e never been able to get good results (although I’ve never spent much time using it).

Makes sense.

I would say for all the money spent on Citadel products over years, one could definitely afford themselves an airbrush. If you had to paint hundreds of models, you would probably already found out all the better ways of doing that. Which is why I pointed out that this new product is not really "a godsend" for people who need to paint lots of models.

 Shadenuat wrote:
I would say for all the money spent on Citadel products over years, one could definitely afford themselves an airbrush. If you had to paint hundreds of models, you would probably already found out all the better ways of doing that. Which is why I pointed out that this new product is not really "a godsend" for people who need to paint lots of models.

Airbrushes are not an option for some people for simple space reasons.

Although it is being marketed to target GW customers, it is a scam. ^_^ The real target market is miniature board gamers, so now you can fairly quickly batch out all the CMoN miniatures. ;-) Although joking but that is what I'll be using it first on, at least at first, to get rid of all my board game grays. ^_^

 The Phazer wrote:
Airbrushes are not an option for some people for simple space reasons.

If you can find space for multiple armies of hundreds of models, you can find space for anything else.

Remember, the point I was answering was about painting horde armies and many models.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Although it is being marketed to target GW customers, it is a scam. ^_^ The real target market is miniature board gamers, so now you can fairly quickly batch out all the CMoN miniatures. ;-) Although joking but that is what I'll be using it first on, at least at first, to get rid of all my board game grays. ^_^

I think it's most effective for completely new people who just want to paint 30 marines, 2 tanks and play their 1000 points, or have a few small (1000 points) armies and don't plan on increasing their armies, as they just want a small set of miniatures painted and ready for casual play. If you don't plan on expanding your army, then there is no reason to buy large paint sets, because they would just waste space. So even though you overpay for Citadel products, since you only need a minimum, it's not a big deal.

 aka_mythos wrote:
This product line is meant for a particular segment of the customer base. Some people are acting like they're going to be forced to use it. That obviously isn't the case, unless GW starts discontinuing its paints, but what's important is that is gives people an opportunity to get models painted and on the table top that much more quickly... fewer unpainted models on the tabletop is only a good thing.

Well for some folks here GW peed in their cheerios this morning.. and every day.

 The Phazer wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:
I would say for all the money spent on Citadel products over years, one could definitely afford themselves an airbrush. If you had to paint hundreds of models, you would probably already found out all the better ways of doing that. Which is why I pointed out that this new product is not really "a godsend" for people who need to paint lots of models.

Airbrushes are not an option for some people for simple space reasons.

Or for noise reasons, I'm not sure my neighbours would appreciate hearing a compressor running at 2am("But but but" I can already here someone rushing to post - there are quiet ones, yes, and ones with big tanks, and they're both a lot more expensive than the basic cheapie import jobs that most people will buy and which airbrush advocates can use to say "it's cheaper than buying citadel"). Or for simple preference reasons. Something airbrush evangelists tend to forget is that's it's actually perfectly OK to simply prefer painting with a normal brush.

meatybtz wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
This product line is meant for a particular segment of the customer base. Some people are acting like they're going to be forced to use it. That obviously isn't the case, unless GW starts discontinuing its paints, but what's important is that is gives people an opportunity to get models painted and on the table top that much more quickly... fewer unpainted models on the tabletop is only a good thing.

Well for some folks here GW peed in their cheerios this morning.. and every day.

Pretty much. I mean, when both HBMC and me are excited by a GW product, that should probably be a warning to even the most dedicated GW Disliker that they're probably being unreasonable, but hey ho.

I get why people might not need or want a product like this, but I don't get the need to convince other people not to want it. Other people using it isn't going to hurt you.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I get why people might not need or want a product like this, but I don't get the need to convince other people not to want it. Other people using it isn't going to hurt you.

It will hurt he people that paint armies for a fee. Even basic paint jobs for people so they can play in tournaments which require three color minimums.

JWBS wrote:

JSG wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.

But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.

Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).

Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.

We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.

Obviously you do think undercoat is supposed to be dictated by topcoat, since you yourself let your choice of topcoat (yellow/cream) dictate your choice of undercoat (white). In any case, if you already have your painting style and contrast paints don't help you with it, that's fine. But it's not because you couldn't possibly figure out how to use a white undercoat.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Although it is being marketed to target GW customers, it is a scam. ^_^ The real target market is miniature board gamers, so now you can fairly quickly batch out all the CMoN miniatures. ;-) Although joking but that is what I'll be using it first on, at least at first, to get rid of all my board game grays. ^_^

That's my intended use as well. My 40K armies are mostly complete at this point, so I'm not going to switch techniques midway through.

I have a few hundred minis from the Conan Kickstarter, dozens from the Dungeon Saga one, 50 or so from Descent and its various expansions, a couple dozen more from Mansions of Madness. All would benefit from being brought from grey plastic to a rough tabletop standard in a quick manner.

Even something like Twilight Imperium might look better for the hour or so investment of "spray a fleet, slap a coat of the appropriate Contrast colour on top, wait 20 minutes, slap a coat on the bottom, wait 20 minutes, spray some varnish".

 Yodhrin wrote:
Something airbrush evangelists tend to forget is that's it's actually perfectly OK to simply prefer painting with a normal brush.

Suffer not the neighbour to live.

I prefer normal brushes. But only when it's not about 200 termagaunts. The right tool for the right job and so on.

 Shadenuat wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Y'all who laugh about the noob friendly method for beginners only and not worthy of a seasoned veteran, have you ever had to paint 200+ gaunts or boyz? This thing is a godsent.

How many models from your 200 will one bottle last though, and what would the price be?

If you want to paint X number of bodies, you might as well invest into airbrush and/or acrylic soft body craft paint, buy a giant tube of paint, 3 liters of acrylic medium, dishwash soap and make yourself a cistern of paint/wash/whatever for your gigantic mass of models. And if you don't want to do it yourself - you can always probably find someone with airbrush who would do it for you.

Painting hundreds of models with a brush and using GW white primer, oh, sorry, special Citadel Contrast Spray Primer TM and washes I mean Citadel Contrast Paints TM would probably be the most expensive and time consuming way of doing it.

Painting clothes(maybe 2 different colour, skin, weapons all with airbrush is hell of a tough to get cleanly. Especially fast(no masking etc)

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

JWBS wrote:

We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.

Obviously you do think undercoat is supposed to be dictated by topcoat, since you yourself let your choice of topcoat (yellow/cream) dictate your choice of undercoat (white). In any case, if you already have your painting style and contrast paints don't help you with it, that's fine. But it's not because you couldn't possibly figure out how to use a white undercoat.

Yeah mate. It was cos I preferred the overall look of a black undercoat. Well versed in white undercoat, prefer black, for reasons stated.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Pretty much. I mean, when both HBMC and me are excited by a GW product, that should probably be a warning to even the most dedicated GW Disliker that they're probably being unreasonable, but hey ho.

This alone is what sold me


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the comment earlier about if you’re painting X number of models this would cost more because of the number of pots needed.
I can’t see there will be a cost difference here.
For every pot of this used. Let say you only use half a base colour. So you have to buy two contrast pots.
But by the contrast descriptor, you know don’t need to buy a shade or layer in question for that colour.
So that’s already two contrast to three of the other.

I think for some projects they might work. I shall give them a try on my GSC Kill Team, not painted yet, so no worries about trying to match anything anyway (as that may be an issue for me. I know they say they are trying to match colours. But for marines, similar doesn’t cut it. Power armour has to be exact.
If this is good as a method for me. It would be a slow transition, as I’ve got lots of black spray, and base/layer/shades that I’d want to not have wasted.
But on the whole. Excited by the prospects, even if it’s just for when I teach my son to paint with them..

Danny76 wrote:
For every pot of this used. Let say you only use half a base colour. So you have to buy two contrast pots.
But by the contrast descriptor, you know don’t need to buy a shade or layer in question for that colour.

Only if you follow Citadel paint guides. Acrylic Medium, Black and White/some other colors (depends on the color) can be your "Shades" and "Layers".