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.

 Azazelx wrote:

 kodos wrote:
if the varnish reactivates it, this would be bad
the others are not an issue straight away as:
need to varnish for advanced techniques is already a thing with certain colours and if you are going to buy them to use them that way you know this in advanced (like no one is complaining that he needs to varnish before using an oil-wash)

Complete agreement with you on that.

in the other case, this colour is meant to be the only layer or the top layer, not a base for something else

Well, they're not advertising it as such. That's not a detail they're mentioning - it's something you're coming up with in your post. I see nothing from AP saying "Out new range of amazing Speedpaints are meant to be the only layer or the top layer, not a base for something else." - or any different verbiage with the same or a similar meaning. So then it's an issue, I hope we can agree.

The description on the website literally says that:
"The all-in-one Warpaint Speedpaint is truly a one-coat painting solution. In the Speedpaint Starter Set you’ll find all the basic colours you need to begin painting beautiful tabletop-quality miniatures in no time. Simply apply one rich coat of Speedpaint directly over a primed miniature and you are done! "
https://shop.thearmypainter.com/us/wp8054p
All their own PR has stressed the "one coat" thing too. I know Contrast was marketed in the same way, but in reality even GW's own painting tutorials had it be used as just part of a combined approach much of time, but that doesn't mean this will go the same way.

Also do people not realize that GW contrast also reactivates if you apply contrast medium to it? Same way as shown in goobertown's video for speed paints. I just realized while using it today.

It's fine with regular acrylic hobby paint going over it, which is how I've been using the stuff since it came out and the main point of contention.

That would suck if a varnish spray on top would somehow screw it up.

Has anyone done demos of metallic undercoats with speedpaints over it? I remember seeing those when contrast paints came up and I'm curious how metallic bits would look tinted with it.

 Azazelx wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

A local online discounter is selling Army Painter for $8AUD a pot or $75 for the pack of 10, and contrasts at the same discounter are $9.20AUD a pot. Cheaper, yeah, but it's not blowing my socks off and making me want to replace any contrasts I already use.

Which one is that if you don't mind me asking? PM is fine if you don't want to post it.

I pre-ordered through the Combat Company, who have it for that price. Still waiting on their stock, though, by the look of it.

 warboss wrote:
That would suck if a varnish spray on top would somehow screw it up.

Has anyone done demos of metallic undercoats with speedpaints over it? I remember seeing those when contrast paints came up and I'm curious how metallic bits would look tinted with it.

In the first Goobertown video he shows multiple paint overs of a silver metallic.

Even with the reactivation issue, looking forward to several of these colors. Unlike Contrast though, this one doesn't look to be able to be used as much beyond what it says on the tin. Still, it does what is said it was supposed to do. Contrast help get a friend who hadn't painted in over 25 years pump out an army. So anything that helps people who hate to paint put out a well painted army has be to applauded.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Im really curious about what happened in the AP studio that a product could get so far into development with such a glaring issue. I guess they sunk the cash into the chemical formula and then realized once it was too late to turn back?

That, or they felt that the need to varnish over layers if you were applying anything on top, on a paint range that wasn't actually intended to have anything on top, was an acceptable compromise for smoother coverage on flat areas.

Yeah, I think calling it "an issue" is pretty dubious, let alone a glaring one.

It's tough to argue it as a feature either, in fairness, as the messaging isn't coming from AP directly, but it would be very easy to spin this as "easily correct any errors with a wet brush, then give a coat of Army Painter Anti Shine Varnish once you're happy to lock the paint in place."

This has placed these on the hold and wait pile for me as I do lots of layering with contrast/instant paints, regular paints and washes to get the look I want.

I also use brush on matte varnish as spray matte varnish messes with blends as has been mentioned.

Once they've been widely available for a few weeks to see how common it is (could just be not giving them enough of a dry time) with the varnish for example. But at the end of the day I'm happy with my current options and while I'm always interested in new tools but if the AP speed paints aren't for my needs that's fine.

 Azreal13 wrote:

It's tough to argue it as a feature either, in fairness, as the messaging isn't coming from AP directly, but it would be very easy to spin this as "easily correct any errors with a wet brush, then give a coat of Army Painter Anti Shine Varnish once you're happy to lock the paint in place."

Going by their comments on Twitter, the reactivation isn't specifically intended as a feature, but also isn't seen (by them) as a flaw, because they intended Speedpaint as a one-coat solution. It does what it was intended to do, and the reactivation is simply a side-effect of the specific medium they used to reduce pooling on flat surfaces.

The intended use of the product is to basecoat - apply speedpaint - spray on some varnish and you're done.

Isnt reactivation standard with oil painting? I mean calling that a flaw is probably incorrect.

Speed paints seem to do what they were intended to do and its up for painters to find ways to explore new possibilities that the medium brings to the table.

axotl wrote:
Also do people not realize that GW contrast also reactivates if you apply contrast medium to it? Same way as shown in goobertown's video for speed paints. I just realized while using it today.

But does it with water or other paints? Never for me.

It's less of issue if it reactivates with one specific thing you don't have to apply there. Why are you putting contrast medium to it in the first place? Unless you specifically want to reactivate it but then if there's way to specifically reactivate when you want while not reactivating when you don't want THAT'S useful.

When people say it 'reactivates' with varnish what do you mean?
As I put a top coat of matte varnish on all of my models.

Going by the reviews, brush on varnish can reactivate it. Sprays appear to be fine.

 insaniak wrote:
Going by the reviews, brush on varnish can reactivate it. Sprays appear to be fine.

Yes but that's not what the other video linked above says, and the guy explicitly shows it in the video

Jeez this is really difficult, there seems to be so much contradictory information, with one reviewer saying one thing and then one another.

I think really the only way is to get a couple of pots, use them on something that you don't care too much about, and then find out for yourself. At least, that's what I'll be doing.

 Pacific wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Going by the reviews, brush on varnish can reactivate it. Sprays appear to be fine.

Yes but that's not what the other video linked above says, and the guy explicitly shows it in the video

Jeez this is really difficult, there seems to be so much contradictory information, with one reviewer saying one thing and then one another.

I think really the only way is to get a couple of pots, use them on something that you don't care too much about, and then find out for yourself. At least, that's what I'll be doing.

I agree.
Seems the best approach if you ask me. I mean everyone needs to check if it matches their personal painting style by themselves. The fact reviewers report different things does not help!

 silent25 wrote:

In the first Goobertown video he shows multiple paint overs of a silver metallic.

Thanks. I will take a look.

 Pacific wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Going by the reviews, brush on varnish can reactivate it. Sprays appear to be fine.

Yes but that's not what the other video linked above says, and the guy explicitly shows it in the video

Jeez this is really difficult, there seems to be so much contradictory information, with one reviewer saying one thing and then one another.

I think really the only way is to get a couple of pots, use them on something that you don't care too much about, and then find out for yourself. At least, that's what I'll be doing.

Or just watch my video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB4_16Fr7-M

 NAVARRO wrote:
Isnt reactivation standard with oil painting? I mean calling that a flaw is probably incorrect.

I'd say many people would describe that as a flaw in oils *specifically* in the context of painting wargaming models. For most wargamers, they either don't use oils or only use oil washes at least in part because of that "flaw".

Maybe if it's really easily reactivated then some people will start using it like an enamel or oil wash, though I think that'll be an edge case rather than a typical usage.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
The intended use of the product is to basecoat - apply speedpaint - spray on some varnish and you're done.

But anyone who has experience with contrasts will realise that the "speed paint" technique is one where you don't always try and paint within the lines. Say you want to paint the 3D wing emblem on your Space Marine's shoulder pad a different colour to the rest of the pad, you don't spend ages carefully painting around it so as to not get paint on it, you just paint over the emblem and then repaint it because if you spend too much time carefully working your way around it you're more likely to make a mess of the contrast and it's more time consuming.

Then you have usages like wanting to give it a 2nd coat to make it darker / more vibrant, using multiple layers of different colours to create more visual interest, or coming back with washes to darken the crevices more.

The "it's ONLY intended to be a topcoat" thing doesn't fly with me, whether you're painting within the intended "speed" parameter or you're using it for more advanced techniques, you want to be able to paint over it, and if you can't do that without an extra coat of varnish it's a pretty significant drawback.

If the reactivation thing means you can fix tide marks and patches afterwards, maybe that'll be a pro that outweighs the con, but I think that's being a bit hopeful because *usually* it's more of a challenge to manipulate reactivated paint without just making more of a mess.

Great news!

Army Painter Twitter account has responded and shown that reactivating is a cause of very slow cure time. Both AP and Juan Hidalgo have reported that given enough time to dry, the paint does eventually cure and seal as a basecoat.

 stahly wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Going by the reviews, brush on varnish can reactivate it. Sprays appear to be fine.

Yes but that's not what the other video linked above says, and the guy explicitly shows it in the video

Jeez this is really difficult, there seems to be so much contradictory information, with one reviewer saying one thing and then one another.

I think really the only way is to get a couple of pots, use them on something that you don't care too much about, and then find out for yourself. At least, that's what I'll be doing.

Or just watch my video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB4_16Fr7-M

Thanks that was a really interesting video to watch, very informative and I liked the examples of the colours.

I had one more question to ask about varnishing, if you would be so kind! Can I ask which varnish you used when it re-activated, was it a spray or brush-on? I was hoping to use these for a very simple job - zenithal shading, then one coat of speed paint, then varnish. So the varnishing not ruining it (as I will be using these as playing pieces) is a real deal breaker for me.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Great news!

Army Painter Twitter account has responded and shown that reactivating is a cause of very slow cure time. Both AP and Juan Hidalgo have reported that given enough time to dry, the paint does eventually cure and seal as a basecoat.

That is great news, although it does reduce the utility of the product as an, uh, speed paint. So as long as they don't want us to use this for, ya know, painting speedily, it is fine.

That's good news... I guess. But how long are we talking? If its three days then ok, I can work around that. If it is three weeks then this is still very flawed...
Maybe AP already has a special Speedpaint varnish in the pipeline

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Great news!

Army Painter Twitter account has responded and shown that reactivating is a cause of very slow cure time. Both AP and Juan Hidalgo have reported that given enough time to dry, the paint does eventually cure and seal as a basecoat.

How long are we talking? Hidalgo said in his original review they were reactivating after a hairdryer and 2 days... so are we talking a week or something for them to fully cure?

Yeah, didn't Stahly wait 24 hours for his testing, too?
i know environmental factors are always a, well, factor (humidity, temperature, etc.), but how long is long enough and when does it become too long to wait?

Yes Stahly commented that he waited 24hrs in his video.

This feels like we are going back to the days of the ol' Humbrol enamels, that you had to wait for several days to dry and then you had a thin layer of dust on top when they finally did

 NAVARRO wrote:
Isnt reactivation standard with oil painting?

Not really. If you let the oils "dry" completely (8-12 hours), you can go back on top of them with more oils without reactivating. Now, sure, if you soak the thing in mineral spirits, it may reactivate some, but that isn't really how you typically use them.

I've been doing 100% oil painting lately, following James Wappel's method, and even pinline washes later on don't reactivate the way these seem to with just more wet paint.

Though, I have no first hand experience with the Speedpaints; just going off what those videos and various reddit, etc. posts say. I don't plan on picking them up because I'm pretty much switching to exclusively oil paints.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Isnt reactivation standard with oil painting? I mean calling that a flaw is probably incorrect.

Oil paints don't truly dry, not in a way that water based paints do so it's not a real comparison.

The linseed oil and pigments oxidize (react with oxygen) and harden, but the oil has a low enough vapor pressure that it doesn't appreciably evaporate. Cross-linking occurs between the relatively small oil molecules, essentially forming a plastic. This isn't really 'drying' since you don't have water evaporating off. Most of the hardening takes place in the first few hours/days/months after the paint has been deposited, but the process never really stops.

Water based paints, when the reactivate, rarely do so cleanly meaning you'll have parts that just done and some that only partially do. It's also uncommon for reactivated water based pants to be workable after reactivation and it's generally only good for removing paint.

Ok, used for a full (small) squad "as intended", without anything except speed paints and a bit of cenital priming:



So far I'm happy enough, for what it is. I'd probably seal them now and add highlights and stuff.

That said, they mostly feel like a bit denser inks that stain heavier the recesses, I don't see nearly as much "edge highlights" as contrast paints leave, but they seem to dry much cleaner on flat surfaces.

Dude, those look really good. Much better result on flat surfaces.