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.

Legendary Thread

92acclude wrote:More stuff from the internets.

This is by Brett Ewins. It's from the GW boardgame "Chainsaw Warrior". I had the three pack of minis for him at one stage.
Yes, he did draw Bad Company (Kano and Bad Company II), Judge Dredd (Anderson as well), Rogue Trooper and a few others.
He's not the only 2000AD artist GW have used over the years (they've also used Simon Bisley).
A lot of the 2000AD crew got a lot better known once they started doing work for the yanks, though.

Been a while since I posted anything in this thread, and I know I said I would show some more stuff from the 1st edition Ork books, so here we go!

These are from 'Ere We go', which was the 2nd Ork expansion for 1st edition:



A large part of the book focused on 'Bionic bitz' for Orks, there were charts you could roll on during a campaign to see what parts wounded orks were 'blessed' with.
You had to roll a D100, and it could be anything from the arms and legs below, heads and hands and even a 'Doc's Surprise'! The mk1 'explodin leg' is indeed a bit of an internet tale (there was never ever such thing), although there was an explosive cranium and squig-brain transplant!





Should post some more stuff over the next couple of days!

Some more pics from 'Ere we Go'







And one of Mark Gibbons' earlier efforts:

 Pacific wrote:

Harriticus wrote:I sure as hell dont miss old Ork art. God they looked awful back then. Most art has only improved from edition to edition, how much better the DE look in the 5th vs 3rd Codex is a good example.

I know this thread is too long now, but you don't have to read it, just look at the pictures posted over the last half dozen pages to see that there was some damned fine art earlier in GWs life, a lot of which has never been surpassed.

And a lot of which has, to a substantial degree. Not all, but perhaps most. The following is a general statement not aimed at yourself;

One thing that has annoyed me while reading this thread is the constant assertion that the modern works are all "sterile" or they lack "character", which is a crock. They have a different character, not none, and frankly the sentiment smacks of bitter nostalgia more than anything else. Space Marines are not drug-addled criminal scum anymore, Orks have more to them than just comedy, and 40K has moved beyond being a poor amalgamation of 2000AD, Moorcock, and Lovecraft. Some may not like that, some may prefer they go back to glam-rockers, ripping-off movie scenes, and tiny little bodies with giant heads instead of tiny little heads on giant bodies, but trying to paint the modern works as being soulless and devoid of character just because they don't convey the sense you want them to convey is dishonest and petty.

Those replacement limbs.. fething AWESOME!

Those replacement limbs just gave me a ton of ideas for conversions...

 Yodhrin wrote:


One thing that has annoyed me while reading this thread is the constant assertion that the modern works are all "sterile" or they lack "character", which is a crock. They have a different character, not none, and frankly the sentiment smacks of bitter nostalgia more than anything else. Space Marines are not drug-addled criminal scum anymore, Orks have more to them than just comedy, and 40K has moved beyond being a poor amalgamation of 2000AD, Moorcock, and Lovecraft. Some may not like that, some may prefer they go back to glam-rockers, ripping-off movie scenes, and tiny little bodies with giant heads instead of tiny little heads on giant bodies, but trying to paint the modern works as being soulless and devoid of character just because they don't convey the sense you want them to convey is dishonest and petty.

Oh I agree with you completely! I think there is some absolutely fantastic artwork coming out these days, and like you say it is just a case of it being different in style rather than being better or worse (which can generally only be a subjective judgement anyway, based on people's own impression of what that universe should be like) or lacking character. I think a few of the more belligerent posts in the thread, specifically defending some of the older artwork, was a reaction to some of the 'old artwork was crap lol' posts that were made earlier in the thread - obviously an assertion made by someone with only limited knowledge of some of those older works.

I will say though that in the older days there was a lot more variety. Take the old Realms of Chaos/Slaves to Darkness books for instance, and compare it to the newer chaos or daemons codecies. It really has become so much more refined over the years as the boundaries of the 40k/WFB universe have been staked out and remarked upon. On the one hand that's a great thing as it has helped the universe to be fleshed out, and grow it's own identity, the negative side is that there is that much less room for imagination and random stuff on behalf of both the artist and reader.

The benefit of course is that threads such as these can let people see some great artwork, which perhaps they might otherwise have never been aware of!

I remember coming to 40k sideways from Space Crusade and Heroquest. The artwork in the books had a certain amateurish and accessible charm that actually was pretty cool.





Deathwing probably had some of the best Black & White drawings.



It all then went really professional and WD 100+ Covers were always pretty amazing.





In the modern era the last Blood Angel Codex with the Stretch neck, pin-headed and off centre head was an abomination that even in the 2nd Ed days wouldn't have been tolerated.



Seriously that Head is ridiculous.

Edit: Just realised this is already on page 9 - I was responding to page 1.Never mind, here is pmy post in all its glory anyway!

Ironically, that colour pic of Horus and the Emperor that you post is based on a far superior, much older (early nineties, IIRC) piece of art...



I own a second, very battered copy of Slaves to Darkness that I bought specifically to be able to cut out The Bastion Stair, The Tree of Souls, etc, etc... Still haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet.

Now, I have to admit that the quality of the art may not be as good, but the appeal of it is far greater, even in those "bad" bits you post, as it has more vitality. I actually genuinely love that pic of the mutants you post.

 mwnciboo wrote:
In the modern era the last Blood Angel Codex with the Stretch neck, pin-headed and off centre head was an abomination that even in the 2nd Ed days wouldn't have been tolerated.

My "favourite" bit of the BA codex cover is that if you look closely at his cloak, Sanguinius is spelt as "Sangiunius"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fifty wrote:
Edit: Just realised this is already on page 9 - I was responding to page 1.Never mind, here is pmy post in all its glory anyway!

Ironically, that colour pic of Horus and the Emperor that you post is based on a far superior, much older (early nineties, IIRC) piece of art...

LOVE that pic, and the short story that accompanied it in WD

 Slinky wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:
In the modern era the last Blood Angel Codex with the Stretch neck, pin-headed and off centre head was an abomination that even in the 2nd Ed days wouldn't have been tolerated.

My "favourite" bit of the BA codex cover is that if you look closely at his cloak, Sanguinius is spelt as "Sangiunius"

Never saw that!!

Both from issue 182.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

ph34r wrote:The old art was for the most part totally awful.

So that's what William Blake was talking about when he mentioned "Satanic Mills".

'reads thread'

That was like....ULTRA!


I do miss the old style of GW artwork, then again I miss old GW. Just about anything from the realm of chaos books is gold. Steven Tapping was an amazing artist

i thought it was about this

jim burns

but you mean this

I like the old style fantasy art as well! The cover of the Fantasy Warlord game is, in my opinion, awesome!

Some of the older stuff is a bit to cartoonie for my taste, but some people like that. I enjoy the push towards realism and detail instead of the characteristic detail of the older stuff. All in all its just art for a game thats about YOU building your miniture's.

Lack of realism and detail in the old artwork you say?











Yes there was an awful lot of 'filler' in the old stuff, which I think is understandable considering they were in the process of trying to forge a fantasy universe. But, they hired some bloody successful and talented artists, and most of their stuff dumps on anything thats been done in house for at least the last decade or so.

So many fantastic memories of the old GW art, I still can't believe that this hasn't been posted yet

I liked the picture of the Commisar standing by the Ork Warlord's throne with the accompanying explanation that the Imperium sends Commisars out to link up with Warlords and influence their campaigns.

 Fifty wrote:
Edit: Just realised this is already on page 9 - I was responding to page 1.Never mind, here is pmy post in all its glory anyway!

Ironically, that colour pic of Horus and the Emperor that you post is based on a far superior, much older (early nineties, IIRC) piece of art...

You know both pieces were done by the same artist, Adrian Smith? The black and white allowed for a more sinister Horus. Plus the less confident pose of the Emperor created a better narrative.

This thread got me to dig up some of my old White Dwarfs (early 100s) and all I can say, gah there was some horrible art back then. Yes there was some lovely art back then, but there was stuff that was truly amateurish. Still the far more characterful look of the late 80's and early 90's is missed. Though not of that period, my favorite artist that worked for GW remains Mark Gibbons. Ironically he is now the lead concept artist at Blizzard for World of Warcraft.

There is a lot of horrible art out now. While the technical standards have been set high, a lot of them artists don't know about proportions properly. I don't talk about those bald angry marines with shrink heads. I talk about arms and especially legs here. The pain to endure when looking e.g. at the legs of that captain in the DA codex pg. 13! (German language, I don't know if the pages are the same in all variants, but sadly I don't have the utilities to post pics; it's the captain facing three harlequins...) Where has the artist located his hip joint? Also too much marines and also, IG suffer from elephantiasis it seems. Those monstrous lower limbs! Seriously, folks, get you one of these fancy articulated puppets. NO, I DON'T MEAN GI JOE!!!
Not everything is garbage, mind you, it is now as it has been then, some folks have it, some folks don't.

But a difference I really feel: the old art work was a lot more sci-fi, The "grimdark" was there, but it had a lot more feeling of grimdark in SPAAAAAACE! Also marines depicted were a bunch of shellshocked combattants, they were heroes, not heroic, if you understand what I mean. You saw they were not just part of the horror like the title figure of DA codex, but the horror around them had impact.
That was the Warhammer 40k I went into, and that is the reason I have so much difficulties with that narrowing to "hellish heroic posers in gothic ruins".

I much prefer the older B&W artwork. Some of the new stuff is good (Wolves codex cover), but some of it is just as bad as the worst of the old stuff (Blood Angels codex cover).

Modern stuff seems to always have "someone shouting" & "large thing visible in the background"

 Hruotland wrote:
But a difference I really feel: the old art work was a lot more sci-fi, The "grimdark" was there, but it had a lot more feeling of grimdark in SPAAAAAACE! Also marines depicted were a bunch of shellshocked combattants, they were heroes, not heroic, if you understand what I mean. You saw they were not just part of the horror like the title figure of DA codex, but the horror around them had impact.

I think you hit on something here.

Absolutely, its been mentioned a few times already in the thread, but the aspect of 40k has changed somewhat over the years. Most notably, when was the last time you saw a marine getting killed or even grievously wounded in a piece of art? The cover of 1st edition has the marines fighting on in desperation, the rockets flying in towards them that will result in every one of them dying. But they are heroes, and they are still fighting on regardless in a galaxy that doesn't acknowledge their existence. Around 3rd edition onwards that aspect started to change, to the point where now very little of that remains.

You could make arguments for it being a good or a bad thing (its very subjective), but its undeniable that it has evolved substantially over the years.

As we do say in Germany: "Back then there was more tinsel..."

 Hruotland wrote:
As we do say in Germany: "Back then there was more tinsel..."

I think the British Equivalent is "Looking through Rose tinted Glasses".

I would change it to 'looking through awesome-tinted glasses'

 Pacific wrote:
I would change it to 'looking through awesome-tinted glasses'

This post wins.