PDA

View Full Version : Should Classic Covers be kept?



Dr Death
14-11-2009, 16:22
Just today the new Beastman armybook cover has been revealed and while it's not a bad piece of artwork, the general opinion (which includes my own) is that it is not quite as good as the previous editions. In the past i have heard similar things said about the Space Marine codex cover (from 4th-5th edition) and it got me wondering that if a piece of artwork is good enough should it survive a change of edition, or is the rotation a necessary process in order to mark a new edition of the rules and continue to develop the imagery. Are there any bits of artwork that you consider 'too good' to waste in the obscure depths of army books or artbooks? If so- which would you reinstate in their proper position?

Dr Death

Baggers
14-11-2009, 16:45
I would say no. Mainly I like new covers on my books as it makes them, for me at least, easily identifiable which edition its from.

the-skylord
14-11-2009, 16:45
I'd agree with you on the beastman codex, the new art work doesnt cut it like the older version. However, the eldar codex looked alot better than its previous edition. The current CSM codex art work isn't as good as its previous one.

I think GW should have a vote over it, some art work needs to change but some are good enough to stand the test of time.

Master Jeridian
14-11-2009, 16:52
I think front covers should be the chance for a new picture, but particularly good previous covers (like the 3rd Ed Marine last stand) should be found somewhere in the army book.

the-skylord
14-11-2009, 17:22
I think front covers should be the chance for a new picture, but particularly good previous covers (like the 3rd Ed Marine last stand) should be found somewhere in the army book.


That would be good, they did that with the Dark Angels codex.

Dai-Mongar
14-11-2009, 18:19
Good artwork is a good reason to hang on to older army books if you already have them, but from a practical standpoint keeping the same artwork would make it difficult to tell the difference between old and new editions. Particularly with independent retailers who have old stock and don't follow the game enough to understand that older books need to be pulled from the shelf. I can also imagine unscrupulous ebay sellers flogging off older books to people who think that it's the latest.

Lost_Heretic
14-11-2009, 22:35
7th edition army books have chosen a more vibrant portrait style that isn't for everyone.

I liked the 6th edition style as well. It seemed more realistic.

Plaguebeast
15-11-2009, 00:42
I still believe the 4th Ed. Empire cover should have been kept through to 7th. Certainly, it's quite bright, has a Kislevite in the background and lacks skulls (:rolleyes:), yet it trumps the generic knights from the 6th Ed cover, and the googly-eyed clones of the 7th Ed cover.

Plaguebeast

The Hoff
15-11-2009, 01:36
I would have to agree that the 4th to 5th Edition cover for the Marine codex was a huge downgrade, the picture of Calgar surrounded by his Honour Guard is one of my favorite pieces of art.

A friend of mine who owns an Independent said he was been told that the newer (5th Ed) covers would generally feature a standard trooper for the army as the foreground figure. Hence a single marine for the new C:SM, and a single terminator for the C:CSM etc etc...

I dont like it, but I am told that is the logic behind it.

CaliforniaGamer
15-11-2009, 01:44
Im not a professional art critic but the quality of this cover art isnt bad to me by any stretch. :confused:

Covers should definitely not be kept from edition to edition, as someone said that typically is the only quick way we have to differentiate the books.

Gimp
15-11-2009, 02:20
I really do prefer a lot of the older front covers in both Fantasy and 40K however retaining the old covers would lead to confusion.

But I would still like the old cover to be within the new book as said above.

Big changes

SM 4 > SM 5

CSM 3.5 > CSM 4

Nids 4 > Nids 5

Orks 3 < Orks 4

Eldar 3 < Eldar 4

HE 6 < HE 7

DE 6 < DE 7

Whitehorn
15-11-2009, 02:40
I really can't see the issue. I know right now all we really have of the book is the cover, so it's all you get to moan about, but once it's released, I can't imagine many people will sit staring at the art on the front of the book. It's a tome of information and used for reference. It's not a poster to stick on your wall.

I find unique art helps us identify versions.

catbarf
15-11-2009, 04:21
A friend of mine who owns an Independent said he was been told that the newer (5th Ed) covers would generally feature a standard trooper for the army as the foreground figure. Hence a single marine for the new C:SM, and a single terminator for the C:CSM etc etc...

I dont like it, but I am told that is the logic behind it.

I see a lot more than a basic trooper on the new 'Nid codex...

Havock
15-11-2009, 05:14
The new Warriors of Chaos cover (Essentially this: Khorne! KHORNE RARGH!) is quite inferior to the old HoC cover. Quite.

Dai-Mongar
15-11-2009, 08:57
The new Warriors of Chaos cover (Essentially this: Khorne! KHORNE RARGH!) is quite inferior to the old HoC cover. Quite.

Both done by the fantastic Adrian Smith though, who should do ALL the Chaos artwork. I'm disappointed he didn't do Beastmen, actually.

Plaguebeast
15-11-2009, 10:38
Both done by the fantastic Adrian Smith though, who should do ALL the Chaos artwork. I'm disappointed he didn't do Beastmen, actually.

His attempt at Beastmen in the current BoC book left a lot to desired. He should stick to the Warriors and Daemons :)

Plaguebeast

Chiron
15-11-2009, 11:46
Dishonest Ebay traders would have a field day if the artwork was kept on books...

Naeni
15-11-2009, 12:10
I think the idea of a new picture with each edition is very fitting to the idea that it is new and fresh. And afterall, just one image to represent a whole ethos and style of an army seems...restrictive.

And definately, it's easy to tell at a glance which edition it is.

Lord Malorne
15-11-2009, 12:29
The new BoC cover has the beastmen more fleshy than they used to be, hmmm.

Lord Malorneni ;)

jason_sation
15-11-2009, 15:31
I like the old IG cover from the last codex a LOT better than the current. That being said, a new codex requires a new cover to avoid confusion.

TheBigBadWolf
15-11-2009, 17:12
The old covers were far better, especially the main rule books, the 4th and 5th edition 40k book covers have been rubbish, the 3rd edition cover with the BT on the front was quality art, made even better by the 3rd Ed box set of the full picture. Same goes for the later WHF rule books.

The indvidual aspect of the classic covers was better aswell, i.e. the imperial codexes has the name in the imperial aquilla but the xenos ones all had their own style, like the Eldar, Tyranids, Chaos and Orks.

Arjuna
15-11-2009, 20:55
No. Keeping the same cover from edition to edition is a terrible idea. This would cause a huge and completely unneeded headache for retailers and customers.

The Orange
16-11-2009, 19:35
I have to agree that changes in edition should come with changes in the cover. But I completely agree that the new Beast of Chaos cover pales in comparison to the old one. Where the previous one spurred my interest this one turns me completely off of the army.

Havock
16-11-2009, 22:24
Both done by the fantastic Adrian Smith though, who should do ALL the Chaos artwork. I'm disappointed he didn't do Beastmen, actually.

It's more my gripe with everything chaos being so Khorne-centric.

Lady Melisandre
20-11-2009, 18:58
No. Keeping the same cover from edition to edition is a terrible idea. This would cause a huge and completely unneeded headache for retailers and customers.

I have played WFB for several editions now. For each edition I have bought every armybook. Distinguishing them DOES give me a headache, especially when I'm running late for a game and can't find the right book.

And that's with the different covers. (I forget which cover goes with which edition. :o)

Would it be too much to ask for GW to put the EDITION NUMBER on the front of the book as well?

Sorry, that's probably too logical. Forget I mentioned it. :rolleyes:

Rick Blaine
21-11-2009, 00:50
I don't buy books for the cover art. It could be stick figures for all I care.

Grimbad
21-11-2009, 01:24
It's all about the logo design. Variations in fonts, styling of the background eagle, etc.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex
Looking at the covers, you can tell right off which Codex: Assassins is 2nd and which is 3rd.

I'd much rather have the old ork cover than the new one, or any of the old guard covers than the new one (maybe not the 2nd edition with the catachans...).

scarletsquig
25-11-2009, 13:49
Anything that means GW's great artists get paid more is a good thing, IMO.

In fact, I wish they still made custom paintings for the front of plastic boxsets, those looked way better than the photoshopped "lets add some lasers PEW PEW" garbage on the front of the new ones.

As for the quality of the artwork, 4th/5th edition 40k ones have been hit-or-miss. There's been some great ones like Tau, Space Wolves and Eldar, and others that aren't so good.

Some of the others are too busy with their composition, there's little focal point or contrast to them.

If I had to pick a "Top 3" I'd have to say:

1. Codex Sisters of Battle, 2nd edition
2. Codex Armageddon, 3rd edition
3. Codex Necrons, 3rd edition

Really, really like those three.