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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 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?

You should find your answers HERE on Army Painter's twitter.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Oh, I was more interested in restocking Contrast at that price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

...and not telling anyone about the reactivation issue in their media blitz with an army of clearly-compromised YouTubers reviewing them...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
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."

Well, you're objectively wrong there. if they'd mentioned that it was a thing then it'd be simple, straightforward, no nasty surprises. Since they're not doing so and it's not sold with a caveat of "don't paint over it" then it's an issue, and anyone arguing otherwise are the ones making dubious statements.

 Azazelx wrote:

Oh, I was more interested in restocking Contrast at that price.

Yup, still the Combat Company, then

...and not telling anyone about the reactivation issue in their media blitz with an army of clearly-compromised YouTubers reviewing them...

Meh, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just something that hadn't come up during their own testing, since it seems to be something of a condition-dependent issue. Particularly if their own testing was focused specifically on using them as a one-coat solution, or the painting conditions in their office meant it hadn't shown up.

Well, you're objectively wrong there. if they'd mentioned that it was a thing then it'd be simple, straightforward, no nasty surprises. Since they're not doing so and it's not sold with a caveat of "don't paint over it" then it's an issue, and anyone arguing otherwise are the ones making dubious statements.

It is, however, marketed specifically as a one coat solution. They don't say 'Don't paint over it' for the same reason Nike don't print 'Not to be worn on your ears' on their shoeboxes. It's simply not what the product is intended for.

Don't get me wrong, it certainly would have been nice for the reactivation thing to have been mentioned up front, I just don't think we have enough information to know whether it was a deliberate omission, not considered relevant, or just not something they had encountered until the paint started appearing in the wild.

All I have to ask about a glaring issue of the paint reactivating is one thing:

Who paints minis without touching an already painted area by mistake or accident?

All it takes is a single mistake or paint on an already painted area to notice this.
If they went through a whole product trial run without seeing this major flaw, their honesty seems dubious at best.

From what's being said, the reactivation is down to how well cured the paint is, which is going to vary depending on temperature, humidity, and the amount of paint applied. Also potentially on the basecoat, as different base surfaces can affect how paint dries.

So it doesn't seem that unlikely that they tested these in house and never encountered the reactivation issue because their office didn't have the particular conditions that trigger it.

I'd be curious to see how much difference there is using AP basecoats as opposed to other brands of spray - AP did mention on twitter that they tested these with their own sprays. Some sprays take a long time to cure properly, and it's possible that painting these over an improperly cured basecoat could cause problems. I've had that problem with terrain basecoated with regular spray paints, where model acrylics drybrushed on didn't dry properly because the basecoat wasn't fully cured.

 Ghaz wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 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?

You should find your answers HERE on Army Painter's twitter.

So he painted it on Monday (21st) and posted that 3 days later? So we assume probably somewhere between 2 and 3 days cure time?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
It is, however, marketed specifically as a one coat solution. They don't say 'Don't paint over it' for the same reason Nike don't print 'Not to be worn on your ears' on their shoeboxes. It's simply not what the product is intended for.

That's just BS to me, unless you're painting single colour models there's always going to be times when you want to paint over it. I gave an example in my last post specific to the concept of speed painting, if you have an detailed emblem that's a different colour you don't pissfart around trying to stay within the lines, you just paint over it then repaint it, otherwise you create a bigger mess over working the paint while trying to stay within the lines.

Stahly's review gave a similar situation, where painting a Space Marine's main colour you'll inevitably get some on the rubber-looking joins between the armour plates that needs to be touched up before moving on.

These are not some edge cases or using the paints in an unintended way, that's how people have been using contrast paints from day 1 and to assume people wouldn't use speed paints in the same way would imply they did zero product testing to realise that's how people paint.

Still going to get these but use them like I originally thinking of more through and airbrush.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Still going to get these but use them like I originally thinking of more through and airbrush.

A lot of people like contrasts through an airbrush and I think these will be similar.

That said, I'm more interested in trying artists acrylic inks through my airbrush than speed paints.

I get the impression that there's something on the formula that is making this behave like an enamel or something similar where it flows amazingly well, high pigment covering flat areas with no ugly "join marks' of pools and extensive curing time.

We will never know the formula though.

Different reviewers experienced different things depending on their conditions and style use of paint. Dropping a chunk of water on top of paint on a horizontal area is also different from vertical small detailed minis that will never have that much water on top due to gravity etc...

What Im saying I dont think reviewers are compromised or that is there anything here more than this is a new hybrid formula.

Theres today oils paints water based this may well be that too.

Ok, another quick color test... I fething love the red, it looks gorgeous:




As I'm trying stuff out, I took the fifth mini of the squad and right after this I repainted the grey areas over with metal. then I added water to the purple and washed over the metal parts with it, plus some chest and legs panel lines and the whole head, to see how it would react. I also painted the chestpiece gold and then used brown speed paint over it:




I had no reactivation issues for this, and it behaved pretty ok. I'm gonna varnish them afterwards.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


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.

This is Army Painter though. As much as Citadel get crap for pushing their own base/shade/layer technique ahead of anything else, AP also do the same thing. For the best part of a decade the Army Painter "method" was "base coat your models, dip them in Quickshade and you are done". The very point of Quickshade was that it was both a shade and a varnish in one, so it'd protect your paint job at the same time as shading it. Could you paint on top of it? Well sure, but at that point you might as well use a wash instead. There were Army Painter booklets that addressed one of the issues mentioned here: "what if I get the colours slightly wrong or go outside the lines" - they literally said "doesn't really matter, after the Quickshade you probably won't notice". Painting delicate symbols? Don't bother. Again, their primary market is still historical wargamers, they're trying to provide quick ways of getting armies with 100s of identical figures painted.

Yeah it'd be nice if it were different but this sort of thing completely fits the Army Painter approach that we've seen in the past. Cheap and gets the job done. I'm very much not surprised that Army Painter weren't able to produce a paint that's superior to Contrast and every other similar paint at a cheaper price. It's not really their thing.

Yep that's very true. I guess different people are going to want different things from this. I was hoping for a quick way to batch paint some rank and file. That these are apparently better with flat surfaces is a great advantage. The re-activation with varnish is a deal-breaker for me though, so I'll get a few pots and just try them. Otherwise will just have to use Contrast.

The other side is people that are using them at a much higher level, mixing them as glazing, using with oils and stuff like that. So it's almost like you need separate reviews for how the product performs in each circumstance, as its quite likely hobbyists just want one approach or the other.

Azazelx - that gets the scurillous comment of the thread award lol!

Well, the spray varnish at least doesn't seem to have had any adverse effect on the yellow/orange drones, so that's good

Those reds look so vivid and good Albertorius.

One coat does that? yikes thats nice I must say.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Those reds look so vivid and good Albertorius.

One coat does that? yikes thats nice I must say.

Yeah, the only one I touched up after is the single with the metals: on that i added a bit of thinned purple in some recesses of the red armor.

 Albertorius wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Those reds look so vivid and good Albertorius.

One coat does that? yikes thats nice I must say.

Yeah, the only one I touched up after is the single with the metals: on that i added a bit of thinned purple in some recesses of the red armor.

I was going to say it looks like your shades are deeper/darker than you'd get out of the pot, that probably helps the vibrancy of the red by increasing the separation from the crevices to the main surfaces.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Those reds look so vivid and good Albertorius.

One coat does that? yikes thats nice I must say.

Yeah, the only one I touched up after is the single with the metals: on that i added a bit of thinned purple in some recesses of the red armor.

I was going to say it looks like your shades are deeper/darker than you'd get out of the pot, that probably helps the vibrancy of the red by increasing the separation from the crevices to the main surfaces.

Oh yeah, in person it's pretty evident.

They look good. Cost difference between this and contrast is negligible to me. Some of the colours are definitely nicer, with the usual variations you'd expect in coverage and viscosity when compared to other paint ranges.

I've been painting for years, so reactivation isn't a new thing to me, and I can deal with it.

I imagine for younger or less experienced painters, this is an issue, so I understand how this can be seen as a pretty major issue but for more experienced painters like myself, and, I imagine, many others here, it's surmountable. And not entirely worthy of debate much beyond that.

That's about it, I guess.

 Albertorius wrote:
Well, the spray varnish at least doesn't seem to have had any adverse effect on the yellow/orange drones, so that's good

Excellent that's what I was hoping to hear - thanks mate!

Sooo...
I painted some WF Cannon Fodder with their orange jumpsuits on monday. Painted the backpanel white with Vallejo the same evening - reactivated in an orange mess.
Today (friday), painted over the area again in white - reactivated almost instantly.
So I don't really believe their excuses. This is either flawed or deliberately swept under the (marketing) rug.
Don't get me wrong - the colour feels good to paint and the results are nice. But only being able to paint over it with very dark colours severely limits the usefullness for me.
Without the reactivating issue, I would rate these as amazing colours in their own right.

The '5 Best Practices for Speedpaint' was just posted and (briefly) mentions the reactivation issues:

 insaniak wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

Oh, I was more interested in restocking Contrast at that price.

Yup, still the Combat Company, then

Cheers for that!

 Ghaz wrote:
The '5 Best Practices for Speedpaint' was just posted and (briefly) mentions the reactivation issues:

I came to post this. They mention spray varnishing (can or airbrush) before adding more layers.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Still going to get these but use them like I originally thinking of more through and airbrush.

A lot of people like contrasts through an airbrush and I think these will be similar.

That said, I'm more interested in trying artists acrylic inks through my airbrush than speed paints.

My problem is inks tend to be less available to me.

I have a feeling the specifics of why the Speed Paints don't always behave themselves will be sussed out before too long. People do some many different things when painting models, they use primers they get from hardware stores, they use gloss undercoats, all kinds of different stuff than Army Painter might have done during testing.

Not to mention men's incredible capability for not reading the instructions and then blaming everyone else when they get a bad result. This is why every varnish, no matter how good, has bad reviews all over the internet. Every day, somewhere on the Earth, somebody walks outside in 90 degree heat and 102% relative humidity, holds his model 2" from the can nozzle, and sprays for a count of 27 elephants, then gets mad at the company for making a bad product.

I doubt anybody got lied to here, it's a new product, they haven't had the chance to test all the possibilities (or thought of them all).

I stoped watching the video when he started ' Im possible the most qualified person" remark Dont know the guy and dont want to

I REALLY wanted to believe in this product and had actually pre-ordered (and cancelled) the mega set. The results look as good as Contrast in many cases. However, I make mistakes. If I can't apply a small amount of basecoat over the Speed Paint (after a similar drying period as Contrast) without reactivation then it will simply not work for me. It's not a "speed" solution if I must apply varnish before touch-ups. I hope it gets fixed.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I stoped watching the video when he started ' Im possible the most qualified person" remark Dont know the guy and dont want to

It's a joke. In the very next sentence he talks about how he's colorblind and hates painting.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

My problem is inks tend to be less available to me.

I got my inks through the post. From the US. To Australia. This was before Amazon was available to me.

They're available, if you want them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frankelee wrote:

(mega snip)
I doubt anybody got lied to here, it's a new product, they haven't had the chance to test all the possibilities (or thought of them all).

Most of the stuff you wrote reads like a strawman argument. I think the AP Speedpaints do look good - the coverage looks smooth and great. I'd gladly buy the mega set without a second thought - and was going to - but the reactivaton makes them a no-use-to-me product.

Suggesting that nobody, not the YTers nor AP themselves had any awareness of it before stahly came along is ...disingenious at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I stoped watching the video when he started ' Im possible the most qualified person" remark Dont know the guy and dont want to

I stopped right after that when he said "I use them how most people do". Anyone who presumes that they speak for "most people" doesn't work for me.
"Many", fine.
"Most". Nope, you lost me, mate.