Undercoating

[snowblizz]

The two versions was something new for me, I remember the one with a Grey Knight on the cover, the current one seems to have Cardryan (as it is shown on GW's site). There are other 2hot to paint" books by GW but they have different names. How to Paint Space Marines, How to paint Citadel tanks etc etc.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the older one is the cheaper one. I would ask them to be sure though. Without pictures or any other identification I can't be sure. The two versions should be largely the same, the newer one would contain some newer material (mainly the newest models!) and I think eg that the Foundation paints would be mentioned in the newer one.

FWIW IBBoard, GW was actually the first out with the Foundation paints (someone else has a similar range now I think) and it has been widely acclaimed as very good by many good painters. I've also found them to be rather good actually, I would recommend them. Since I always use black as a base they are rather nifty. They work well with the washes as well, so painting in the larger areas with the foundation paint and then washing them will produce a very good effect for rather little effort. At least I've seen people use them to good effect.
Also note that there is no "inks" anymore, they have been replaced by GW's "washes". Which have also gotten very good reviews by picky painters. Some effects aren't possible to do but GW's washes are rather innovative actually, they aren't as shiny as inks used to be. I'm not refuting though that GW are charging very hefty prices for their paints. Incidentally there are not really any reds and yellows that cover well, it has something to do with the pigments used. So you can't blame GW for that.

[Briggsy]

OK, I've undercoated some models with Chaos Black and missing some small areas and underneath, I have a pot of paint called "undercoat black" from the starter citadel range, is it OK to brush in those missed areas with this paint?

Thanks

[IBBoard]

Washing is an age-old topic, as are most of them. I've got a "how to paint" book from the mid-90s that tells you all of that! Some really advanced techniques (like non-metallic metal) are fairly recent, but basecoating, highlighting, shading, washing, dry-brushing and everything else that a new starter needs hasn't really changed in years as far as technique goes. The newer books will recommend Foundation paints, which didn't exist for the older books, but that's just a personal choice anyway and some people use non-GW Paints (I use Coat d'Arms or Rackham or whatever I've found that is good).

As for the books, they both seem to have the same product code, so they should be the same item. It could be that one is an old version before GW put in an old price hike and Wayland just missed it and didn't update it, but you'd be best off asking them. Here is official GW page for the item (which, unsurprisingly, puts the RRP at the higher of the two prices)

[snowblizz]

OK, I've undercoated some models with Chaos Black and missing some small areas and underneath, I have a pot of paint called "undercoat black" from the starter citadel range, is it OK to brush in those missed areas with this paint?

Thanks

Yes that is perfectly fine. I do think "under coat black" in a jar is the same as the "Chaos Black" paint. I do exactly the same thing because it is almost impossible to get the spray to cover everything.

[IBBoard]

Looks like I missed the second page when I last posted!

The old yellows (manufactured by Coat d'Arms under the Citadel brand) were apparently worse than the newer Citadel pots. Some colours will always coat better than others, but the pot of Bad Moon Yellow that I had was particularly thin.

As for the Foundation paints, they're probably the first to make something special and call it a "foundation" range, but the Rackham that I bought was definitely a thicker paint that was intended to be watered down to various levels. It has a small nozzle in the lid and you squirt a blob onto your palette, then you water it to the consistency you need.

I know the washes probably aren't "inks" anymore, but it is still a useful name for them. I'm still using my old pots up, so I've not seen the new ones. They used to have washes and glazes, though, and now they're just on "washes" that can be used in different ways for the same purpose. I don't know if a WD article ever explained what had changed.

I've found that you always need to touch up somewhere with a pot of matching paint ("undercoat black" will be close enough to Chaos Black, even if it isn't just a renamed pot for some completely obscure reason), but with practice and the right boxes then you can get quite good coverage. Putting models on top of an old Unit box used to be quite good for turning and angles, but you had to be careful that you weren't slowly speckling your wrist with paint as well (or the wall/floor, if you've put it down and aren't holding it)

[Briggsy]

Thanks for the reply guys, yeah the "undercoat black" isn't exactly the same as Chaos Black as the later has a more mat finish were the undercoat black as a slight gloss shine to it, but its only slightly noticeable. But if you guys say its OK then I will go for it.

To do my undercoat spraying I use a plasters hawk, I line 7 on one side and 7 on the other (held underneath with blue tac) and slow turn to catch all areas as I spray, works nice and I do it in the back garden on the grass.

Thanks

[IBBoard]

It seems odd that the undercoat would be the slightly glossy one (I'd have expected matt to give a better base to paint over) but it is meant for undercoating so it'll be fine. The only thing will be that if you're keeping a surface black for the final model (e.g. black boots or a black cloak or something) then you'll need to ensure a consistent colour and probably paint all of it, but I'd recommend giving an undercoat a thin layer of black even if it covered well, just because undercoat is never quite as smooth as painted paint (and isn't meant to be).

As for the pasterer's hawk, that sounds like a good way to do it. I've also seen GW staff use a length of 1" square wood and stick models to all four sides. I have noticed paint flecks on the frass after spraying before now, but the grass doesn't care and it goes away easier than if you're just left a nice line on flag stones!

[snowblizz]

Looks like I missed the second page when I last posted!

The old yellows (manufactured by Coat d'Arms under the Citadel brand) were apparently worse than the newer Citadel pots. Some colours will always coat better than others, but the pot of Bad Moon Yellow that I had was particularly thin.

Yellow that doesn't cover is not a manufacturer specific problem, it has been a problem for everyone. Has to do with the pigments I'm given to understand. Now of course there has been somewhat of a revolution in miniatures painting really these last few years where manufacturers have looked at improving the paints. But yellows and reds especially are still less pigment intense than other shades. I know other ranges have problems with specific colours as well, I see it mentioned now and then, I can't recall whose but eg a silver metallic was very bad in an otherwise good range.
The Citadel Foundation and Wash ranges are a result of this evolution though, as are the comparable products others have made. I'm a harsh critic of GW mostly so now that they've managed to do something right I wanted to point that out. Happens seldom enough these days...

As for the Foundation paints, they're probably the first to make something special and call it a "foundation" range, but the Rackham that I bought was definitely a thicker paint that was intended to be watered down to various levels. It has a small nozzle in the lid and you squirt a blob onto your palette, then you water it to the consistency you need.

Well, almost all (all I've ever seen) miniatures' paint can and should be watered down before use. To some degree. That's one of the more important defining criteria between "brand new painter" and "has done it before". Citadel paints aren't very good at the thinning and mixing as the ones with nozzles eg, but you still can and probably should thin them slightly.

I know the washes probably aren't "inks" anymore, but it is still a useful name for them. I'm still using my old pots up, so I've not seen the new ones. They used to have washes and glazes, though, and now they're just on "washes" that can be used in different ways for the same purpose. I don't know if a WD article ever explained what had changed.

I'm just making a point of calling the spade a spade, because it is no longer a fork. There really is a world of difference between the old inks and the new washes. The new washes are "matte" to a very high degree so won't have the same problem of making the miniature shiny after a wash. This is why so many like the "Devlan Mud" wash. You can wash the entire model with it and get a workable shading without using to many other paints. There's some where impressive stuff being made easily with GW's new paints ranges. I'm not sure if other manufactures have "copied" these yet, but like I said GW's washes and Foundations are highly regarded. I even see painters who have nothing to do with GW using these.

[IBBoard]

Fair enough I would say that I've been painting for years and I don't knowingly water paint down all that often. In part I think it is because I use the older paints, which were a bit thinner, and keep a bit of water in the bristles anyway. It probably gets the same effect, and I do water it down if it is obviously too thick, but I think I've painted straight out of the pot with a lot of older paints.

[Briggsy]

Hi Guys,

So you would recommend watering down foundations & colors from the citadel range before use?

If so, how much and how?

Sorry for the knob questions but you guys seem to have all the answers!

Thanks

[snowblizz]

In principle yes I tend to "water down" the paint. It's a bit harder to explain in theory than practice. Because it's all about getting it "right" which really means trying it out.

What I do is wet the brush in water and put it into the cork of the GW pots and swish it around a bit. There's usually some paint there, so it works out. I might use 30-40% water, but I really can't say, it's a lot of "feeling" to it. Always start with less, then add a little more and a little goes a long way.

Something important, is that you should never "dip" the brush in paint. I think the rule is never more than half the brush covered in paint.

[IBBoard]

I tend to work on how it hangs on the paint. If there is a covering on the bristles that is a similar shape then the consistency is about right, but if it blobs up in a circle then the consistency is a bit wrong. You can also tell once you get it onto the model - if it flows smoothly onto the model as you make your brush strokes then it is okay, but if it clags and sticks in lumps then you probably need to water it down a bit.

Also, I'm guessing that Snowblizz means the bit in the underside of the lid that fits in the hole in the neck when he says "cork". I guess it does the same thing as a cork (it is the bit that bungs the hole) but it seems like an odd name for it, even if I can't think of anything better at the moment I'd agree that you get easier control of how deep you dip your brush, as well as a smaller amount to put water in so that you're not watering the entire pot, if you take paint from the lid where possible (always a good reason to shake it).

[Briggsy]

Thanks guys.

[snowblizz]

Also, I'm guessing that Snowblizz means the bit in the underside of the lid that fits in the hole in the neck when he says "cork". I guess it does the same thing as a cork (it is the bit that bungs the hole) but it seems like an odd name for it, even if I can't think of anything better at the moment I'd agree that you get easier control of how deep you dip your brush, as well as a smaller amount to put water in so that you're not watering the entire pot, if you take paint from the lid where possible (always a good reason to shake it).

Indeed. Good call. You call it "lid" I say "kork" in Swedish, so this is where my mind went when I typed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork_%28material%29

Not helped by watching the old Disney classic with the bull Ferdinand sitting under a Cork Oak 3 days ago. Where the, well to me, "corks" hang from it ready to be put into winebottles. Which of course is not quite how it works, funny though!

So yeah, I really meant lid. Oops.

[IBBoard]

OT: Cool - interesting to learn the language there I thought you were just going for the closest match you could think of to "thing that plugs the hole" and getting to "wine bottle corks". I'm sure there must be some name for that middle bit of the lid that sticks down, though.

As for the "cork tree", it sounds like the money tree and the [ur;=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_tree_hoax]spaghetti tree[/url] - a great idea, but unfortunately never created by nature