"Games Workshop: Why do they bother? (145)" Topic

I (as well as many of you, I expect) am on the GW email list.

I have composed a blog post inspired by the latest message I received.

link

Kind regards,

w.

Another paint change, eh?

If the washes are going away, GW just commited a gigantic mistake.

It is also axiomatic that a color they can't make look good on a Space Marine won't last long.

Couldn't have put it better myself…complete FAIL :(

I use GW paints (though not exclusively) and I'm kind of miffed at the name changes. Mostly because it seems like I need to buy a WD to find out the name equivalents.
Change the names, that's fine.
Force me to pay you for the list, that stinks.

I may just go to other brands, entirely.

Seems the wash range is getting larger . A good thing

From what I have heard, none of the paints are being discontinued. The range is actually being greatly expanded (including the washes). The only daft thing is that they are changing the names of all the old paints, but the actual colours will still be the same, plus a bunch of new ones.

I discovered Reaper paints a few weeks ago and fell in love. We will see if i keep buying GW paints.

as for your blog, i got a good laugh. I also got confused when i read the post title and saw (145). I thought how could there be 145 responses already! haha.

I like the Foundry Palettes…ooh, they have 266 colors apparently.

"I thought how could there be 145 responses already! haha."

I thought the same!

The last time GW changed their paint range was more than 12 years ago.

So the paint rumors were that GW was looking for a new manufacturer some time ago, and looks like they found it. As good a time as any to revamp the range. I'm looking forward to it, and so far it doesn't look like the disaster the internet peeps have been lamenting. I'm a paint junkie, and have used just about every major paint range out there. So I look at this revamp as an opportunity, not something to be feared.

Damon.

Why the hate? OK, the "teaser" was a bit strange, but how can the release of a bigger paint range be a bad thing? I'm not surprised that GW is trying to keep up with Vallejo, Reaper, Privateer's P3, etc. If you're going to stop using GW's paints because they renamed "skull white" to "whitescars white" or whatever, you're taking this a bit too personally.

The last time GW changed their paint range was more than 12 years ago.

Skuttlebutt was that the change from the boltershells to the current soft jars (started with the Foundation line) was also a paint manufacturer change. Do you have evidence to refute that?

Well, renaming everything will cause a bit of confusion to users of their stuff, so does seem a bit daft.

Charging people for a list of paints isn't very "customer friendly" either. I would think they could provide one for free, on-line.

Putting the equivalents list in WD is "doing us a favor". Expect that list to show up on the website after a couple months.

I don't see a problem with them expanding their range, they have been cutting it down in size for years now. I would guess that just about every "major" gaming paint line probably has close to 200 if not more colors in their range.

The color guide will appear on the website the day the paints go on sale. It'll be impossible to sell them otherwise.

A new color guide is a given. A list of equivalents with the old names vs new names is not.

"…the change from the boltershells to the current soft jars…"

Oooo… imagine if their paint bottles were boltshell shaped?! That would be kinda neat.

I think the rumors section of "Bell of Lost Souls" has a preview of the names and types of paints, if my memory is correct. It sounded as if the new rangers were going to add a Foundation style to most colors, including white, plus have more washes, some glazes, and return to missing colors such as pink.

From their article, it seemed similar to either the P-3 approach or Triads where you get a base, a shade, and a highlight, plus the washes.

Hope this helps.

Erik

Thanks for the tip, Erik.

I intent not to panic before I have real reasons to do it. When the Foundation range and the matt washes came up, there was also a lot of predictions of imminent apocalypse… but most of us fall in love with the ranges.

What Ming31 said is correct per our local store owner's understanding. Don't understand the hate, frankly. Even if you buy only a few of their paints (as I do) having more to choose from never hurts. And their washes are vary, very useful – having more will not hurt.

I recall the Washes causing a lot of concern because they replaced the inks. It was ultimately a good move for GW and the other paint companies, since inks were and are still available elsewhere and the Washes are, by and large, quite useful.

The Foundations caused more confusion than concern, IIRC.

Oooo… imagine if their paint bottles were boltshell shaped?! That would be kinda neat.

I hope that's sarcasm.

The current jars are GW's fifth for the line. The third jar and lid was specifically intended to look like a bolter shell, and is still refered to that way. Sadly, the actual manufacturer (GW doesn't actually do paints in-house, and never has) made the jars and lids in hard plastic, and the seal was never good enough to keep paint from drying in the pots. The fourth jar was also meant to resemble a bolter shell, though the fliptop detracted from the look.

Skuttlebutt was that the change from the boltershells to the current soft jars (started with the Foundation line) was also a paint manufacturer change. Do you have evidence to refute that?

I use GW paint for wargaming figures almost exclusively. I noticed no change in formula or quality, so if there was a manufacturer change at this time, they managed to use the exact same type of paint, and managed to maintain the same color fidelity too (I decant the soft bottles into the hard plastic fliptop bottles because I like them better).

Damon.

There was some pics of the new bottles leaked a couple of weeks back. They were identical to the current bottles but with new labels (they had a sort of paint splat motif).

The range appears to be doubling in size with a big increase in Foundations and Washes – and apparently even 4 glazes.

A medium is being added to the range. The medium was actually released with their paint brush set around Christmas and it is AMAZING. It's the thing that I am most looking forward to. I got two pots with the brushes in December and I'm nearly out of it and it's killing me. Imagine being able to make your own washes that behave like the GW washes. That's what the medium makes possible.

The only thing that bugs me is the name change, but I don't see it as anything like a deal-breaker… just something that didn't need to happen.

Why did they have to change the names? What is the earthly advantage of confusing your customers with a pointless change? They could have kept the old names and simply added more.

Even when Games Workshop do something right they feel the need to do something wrong to even things out.

^^LOL

Why did they have to change the names? What is the earthly advantage of confusing your customers with a pointless change?

To get people on various forums and sites talking about their products.
Seems to be working too.

New paints are greatly welcome….although I will clearly need a bigger box to transport them around now.

I am not hating the change (as long as I can still get the right colours…even if they are called different things) it was the ridiculous 'teaser' video that I hated.

It said nothing about anything and was a complete waste of effort on their part and time on mine.

It was like a car firm making a thirty second video and putting up 1.3L …what was the point?

To get people on various forums and sites talking about their products.
Seems to be working too.

Is it really true that there's no such thing as bad publicity?

No, just mostly true.

I will buy these only if Kim Kardashian says to.

Nice that GW's adding more colors, but for me it's too little, too late. I switched to Reaper Master Series 4 years ago and I don't miss Citadel paints one bit. Reaper's MSP line are much better quality paints, more versatile than anything GW has ever produced.

Great, now I need to figure out the new foundation equivalents and/or the wash equivalents.

Or I just say the hell with it and buy Reaper HD. Then I just need to figure out my own washes.

Just say "the hell with it" and go with Reaper MSP Core & High Density paints.

Sounds like a storm in a teacup.

Here's a list of the new washes, but they are calling them "Shades" now.

SHADES
Casandora Yellow
Fuegan Orange
Carroburg Crimson
Druchii Violet
Drakenhof Nightshade
Coelia greenshade
Biel-tan green
Athonian camoshade
Seraphim Sepia
Reikland fleshshade
Agrax earthshade (Devlan Mud)
Nuln Oil

I really don't understand what the problem is here. They are increasing the range of paints available.

Ok, so there are name changes. So when you go to buy 'Ultramarines blue' or whatever, just ask the assistant what the new version is, and you're sorted. Nothing difficult in that.

But hey, you want to throw your toys out of the pram and switch to someone else's paints over this, feel free.

But then that'll mean learning a new set of names too, won't it?

@Lovejoy

You're right, should be no problem if they have kept the old colours under new names.

Whether they're going to do so isn't clear… that is to say, there may not be a new equivalent to "Ultramerines Blue". If that's the case, then there is a problem…

w.

That's a fair point – I'd been told that no paints were being discontinued, but I've also heard that the paints are coming from a new supplier; if that's the case, there's bound to be some differences.

*sounding paranoid*

Is it possible that they are trademarking the names of their paint in an effort to eliminate ebay and other secondary markets??

Erm… how would that eliminate selling GW paint on ebay?

I do thinking they are picking odd names so that they can trademark/copyright them as they have failed to convince the rest of us that they own the copyright on Gun Metal and Blood Red :-)

Mike

Coat D'arms

@Endless Grubs – trademarking the names of paint colours is nothing new. You can bet that GW considers the current paint names as being their trademarks (even if unregistered) and would consider anyone using those names to be infringing. For example, selling your own paint colour and calling it "Skull White" would be infringing. Although as Black Hat points out, the increasingly proprietary sounding names might be a move to protect that IP further.

This would not prevent someone actually selling GW paint on ebay, though.

w.

i guess i'm sadly out of step(nothing new there). my stupid amount of mismatched paint is fine with me. no pointin buying this. tho i am in need of many new inks/washes…

@wehrmacht

Actually creating a selling a paint called Skull Whire is not an infringement of copyright as you cannot copyright names or colours. You can trademark the names but provided no attempt is being made to "pass off" your own Skull White as a GW product then there is no infringement.

I looked into this after a C&D letter to Coat D'arms from GW a few years ago.

Mike

Correct that you can't "copyright" a name or title – as they are generally not of sufficient complexity to be considered a "literary work". I was referring to trademark rights, not copyright. I never suggested that copyright inhered in the name of a paint.

Trademark is a different issue. A trademark can consist of a single word! And trademark rights exist even if unregistered.

I note that Coat d'Arms may be living dangerously if it markets a range of paints called "Space Marine"! (GW owns a registered UK trademark for the term when used in connection with, inter alia, "Paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood; colorants; mordants; raw natural resins; metals in foil and powder form for painters, decorators, printers and artists.")

Although I suspect that you're already well aware of this and this was the subject of the C&D letter you mentioned above :-)

Cheers

w.

That is interesting – so any other user of the term "space marine" is infringing their trademark. Yet I have a vague feeling that a lot of sci-fi over the years has used the term "space marine", so how does that work? Or is it only applied if used for troops whose legs cannot actually touch near the groin?

Actually the C&D letter was to tell me to stop using paint names such as Gun Metal and Blood Red :-)

I do wonder if the interns they have in their legal department ever used Humbrol paints in the 1970s…

Mike

Er. "Gunmetal" is a generic term. So is "Blood Red". "Boltgun Metal" would be protectable.

Agree with Farstar.

Likely that you'd be able to prove other prior use of "Gun Metal", doesn't Tamiya do a "gunmetal"? "Boltgun Metal", yes.

Surprised that they haven't been all up in your slacks about Coat d'Arms' "Space Marine" paints.

(Oh, and the interns in their law dept probably weren't born in the '70s, and in any case have no interest in tabletop wargaming whatsoever)