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.

Does anyone have any experience with Coat D'arms paint? Are they good or not?

I bought several of the equivalents to Liche Purple from this graph, and only one came anywhere close, Coat D'arms Poison Purple. Problem is, the paint I got is kinda thin and watery, doesn't really stick to what Im painting. Is this a problem with the whole line of paint, or did I just get a bad batch?

I'm finishing painting some of my genestealers from my Tyranid army, even though I don't play anymore, and Liche Purple figured heavily in my old paint scheme. I was quite irritated to find that their replacement for it was only kinda close to the original.

Also, if anyone has any other recommendations for a replacement for Liche Purple, I'm listening.

I've had a few of them - I think the goblin and striking scorpion greens and dwarf flesh, from memory they were exactly the same as the old GW colours of the same name, so if you got on with those you will with the coat d'arms paints of the same name.

I had been told that they are exactly the same formulation of paint, if that is correct then some of the colours (specifically the brighter yellows, purples and pinks etc) will have the same features of the old GW paints in that they were very thin pigments. I used to find them hard to work with, and are probably why you don't used to see many Imperial Fist armies until Foundation paints came along and those sorts of colours got paints that were easier for people that weren't Mike McVey to use.

So I'd say it's quite possible that the paint you had wasn't a bad batch, and is just a feature of the paint. But I haven't tried that one specifically so perhaps someone else will comment to advise.

The 'Old Citadel' referred to on the paint chart is the 'Bolter Shell' range, from 1992 onwards. Poison Purple was a closer (should be identical) to the purple from the pre-'92 range, but the bolter shell range did change most of the colours, some more than others, while keeping a lot of the names the same.

I have quite a few CdA paints, and they definitely are thinner than the new style paints (GW and others). I still use bone, leather, their version of boltgun metal, angel red, their washes, etc., as they work and look exactly the same as the old paints.

I would also make sure they’re well mixed, and you might have to use two thin coats (or more) for certain colors.

Yes, most Coat d'Arms paints are thin. They vary somewhat, but that is typical of the range as the painting style of the day used dozens and dozens of layers to achieve blends. They do settle out and need a very good shaking, preferably with some agitators in there to get things mixed up well. CdA are a match to the old style Citadel hexpot ranges (actually Mark II, so early nineties, before the black "bolter shell" screw tops which were Made in France).

If you are relying on them to colour match, they're best employed by using a more modern paint with high coverage as a foundation, and layering these as a final topcoat.