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.

Picture it. Joplin, Missouri. "Games and Stuff" game store. 1991.

I had been playing RPGs for years and had lusted after the 40K ads in Dragon magazine ever since. I wanted to get into miniatures gaming, but none of the stores in my area carried any. So, when I was in the aforementioned store for the first time and laid eyes on all the miniatures and rulebooks, I became excited. That's when my eyes gravitated to one particular iconic rulebook. It featured a band of ragtag, beleaguered men in power armor getting blasted from all sides, all the while blasting back at the mostly unseen enemy. It oozed desperation, excitement and drama. Emblazoned across the top was, "Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader". This tome was, as it turned out, the first edition core rulebook.

It was love at first sight. I knew I had to own it and quickly plunged into my purse for the cash. I've been addicted ever since.

Which leads me - finally - to my point. You see, that one single cover kick-started my imagination all by itself. My mind raced a mile a minute and my fancy was tickled instantly. Due to one cover. It was that powerful to me. Second edition had three books in their boxed set, two of which had rehashed cover art. The third book was all new art and while I thought it was overly colorful pap, at least it had something relatively interesting on it. Third edition had an evocative cover that could conceivably draw someone into the game.

When fourth edition rolled around, I was disappointed when I saw the cover. An iron-halo'd skull with a hammer through it? Really?? That's it?? That was going to make people itch to play the game? I had been similarly disappointed with the Warhammer Fantasy covers, but now it was creeping into 40K too. Okay, so we had a boring, static cover. I could live with it. Hey, there would undoubtedly be a fifth edition, right? Perhaps we'd get a great cover again; one that sucked the potential player into the grim, desolate, gothic world of Warhammer 40,000.

What we got was more of the same. A shield with a hammer behind it. Boy, it sure gets my blood pumping. Nothing says "bad-ass game of pulse-pounding, futuristic combat" like a limp illo of a shield with a hammer behind it. Wooptee-damn-doo. Where's the action? Where's the emotion? Where's the danger?

So, what do you think of the various covers from the 40k rulebooks over the years? Does anyone else hate these action-less covers like I do? Or am I just off my rocker... or missing the point?

I started in 4th ed., and have only gotten the books out of the starter kits. But I agree, these aren't the most eye-catching designs. Once you crack them open they always have a really cool, full color photo on the inside cover, but they need stuff like codex covers for their big books.

P.S. President???? Cool! Did you start Spectrum games?

micahaphone wrote:P.S. President???? Cool! Did you start Spectrum games?

Yes, I did. Back in 2001. I'm guessing you've heard of us?

i like the action packed art of the older editions.


i think whoever they got making the Artwork for the newer codexs is making them too cartoony looking.

the BAs cover is the best example. it looks almost stylised and 2D looking.



i do think the SM codex art was better then the previous codex, but others are degenerating.

I've always liked the simpler icons of 40K, I think it may be what the company does best. I like the last couple of covers.

The problem with a cover showing a battle scene is that it has to have one species as the centre piece, or two species duelling. This will mean Space Marines on the cover, and I don't think we really need more instances of SMs being put up front.

Sebster has it.

While no-one doubts that Space Marines are GW's favourite by a long mile they maybe shouldn't actually put them on the front of the core book.

I mean, by my estimating well over 50% of the interior artwork is Marines, they don't need the cover as well.

Maybe if it were a skull, made of skulls and covered in skulls? That would sum things up nicely. Skulls.

Still, things aren't as bad as Fantasy's new book - or 'Rockethammer' as it is rapidly becoming known.

It would only work if the skull was dark. And possibly grim.

I'm in two minds about the covers; while the battles were dynamic and interesting, it would have been nice to have something other than SM's grace the front art.

The 40k "icons" do that well, however, they don't really have much visual interest.

The next gen rule book might be cool having a more "dark mysterious" feel to it - black cover, evil looking runes etc. Make it look threatening and interesting

I'm not necessarily pushing for a Marine-dominated cover... just something that conveys the kind of combat depicted on the tabletop. A generic skull or shield with a hammer doesn't give me anything even remotely approximating that. It comes across to me as lifeless, bland and uncreative. I know GW has a penchant for plastering Marines everywhere and as sick of seeing them as I am, I'd still rather see that than something that does absolutely nothing to set one's imagination in motion. I'd rather see, say, Imperial Guard taking on one of the Xenos races. I just figure that anything would be better than the covers of 4th and 5th editions.

To each their own, of course. It's cool that some people like the newer covers. It's just that I feel it's a matter of GW being lazy or unimaginative.

Simple is oftentimes better. GW's artists are not always capable of putting together a coherent battle.

Not saying that the current image does a very good job, but I don't think it necessarily has to be "action packed" like some GW art is (I would sooner call certain pieces confusing, incoherent messes).

Melissia wrote:Simple is oftentimes better. GW's artists are not always capable of putting together a coherent battle.

Not saying that the current image does a very good job, but I don't think it necessarily has to be "action packed" like some GW art is (I would sooner call certain pieces confusing, incoherent messes).

Like I said, to each their own. But I don't mind confusing, complicated messes. After all, that's what mass combat is supposed to be like. Of course, I'd be cool with something less busy. A small squad of soldiers being pinned down inside some ruins or something along those lines would suit me just fine. As long as the cover doesn't bore me to look at.

Melissia wrote:Simple is oftentimes better. GW's artists are not always capable of putting together a coherent battle.

Not saying that the current image does a very good job, but I don't think it necessarily has to be "action packed" like some GW art is (I would sooner call certain pieces confusing, incoherent messes).

I think the phrase you were looking for is that John Blanche is never capable of putting together a coherent battle.
Open up the Apocalypse book and see what GW artists can do.

I do agree that not every book needs a hardcore battle.

However the 8th ed WHFB rulebook 'rockethammer' is particularly lame.

It hadn't crossed my mind before to be honest. I always thought it was a nice touch having a futuristic 'warhammer' on the cover and being a bit plain. but now you make the point that this is the core book which should really suck people in... maybe something betetr could be done?

I'm not actually saying a battle scene per se, but something to hint at what's inside. Treat it like a movie trailer, a a bit of mystery, the hint of plenty of killy action. maybe a (insert here, marine etc) sillouetted against a burning battle zone, holding his warhammer with dead things aorund his feet. Something striking, plain and bold with the action in the background. Just an idea. I do like the whole hamemr theme though.

as fro rocket hamer - meh, I was very disapoint with that. It doesn't tempt me back to playing it. (originally started with warhammer, not 40K. now pretty much soley 40K player)

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I think the phrase you were looking for is that John Blanche is never capable of putting together a coherent battle.
Open up the Apocalypse book and see what GW artists can do.

I do agree that not every book needs a hardcore battle.

However the 8th ed WHFB rulebook 'rockethammer' is particularly lame.

That's why I said "some" GW art, but certainly Blanche is one of the least capable artists in GW's employ.

I like it, but I like all of my fantasy/sci-fi books like that; plain, uniform, distinguished only by their title or icon rather than lame art (as most fantasy book covers tend to be).

More to the point - GW is at the stage where they don't need to sell the core rules by the cover art. GW attracts customers through its miniatures, not its rules (both in art and in general quality). If a kid is looking at 40k, they'll be directed to AoBR - then to the codices - where they can choose based on the cool cover art.


I wonder if any new customers choose blood angels?....

I guess that depends on what you consider art.

I think Blanche is one of the best artists in GWs employ, because I can recognize his stuff anywhere, signed or not.

Anyone can do "generic fantasy" stuff. It's the artists who have a style and do their own thing. One reason I stopped playing MtG was that they went away from hiring artists and started hiring people who could produce pictures in the MtG style.

Okay, well, not anyone. Whoever drew the cover of the new Blood Angel codex has absolutely no concept of human proportions, even when adjusted for power armour.

Just get MG to do the next cover. I was always really impressed with their artwork in the various rule books etc that featured them. Very distinctive and very cool

Redbeard wrote:I think Blanche is one of the best artists in GWs employ, because I can recognize his stuff anywhere, signed or not.

It's quite easy to recognize really bad stuff I suppose . Personally, I prefer Karl Kopinski, whom can actually draw a picture that's nice to look at.

CynthiaCM wrote:

micahaphone wrote:P.S. President???? Cool! Did you start Spectrum games?

Yes, I did. Back in 2001. I'm guessing you've heard of us?

Vaguely. I looked you up, and it's a good idea for a company. I'm assuming it's a near-niche environment.

Why don't they have the generic hammer/skull on top of a big battle scene? Do people think that It'd be too confusing?

Melissia wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I think Blanche is one of the best artists in GWs employ, because I can recognize his stuff anywhere, signed or not.

It's quite easy to recognize really bad stuff I suppose . Personally, I prefer Karl Kopinski, whom can actually draw a picture that's nice to look at.

How snarky. You really don't understand the iconic look that Blanche gave GW do you?
I would lay money down that every artist GW hires is given a book of Blanche's work as a template to work from. I wouldn't say Blanche is a great technician, then again neither was Hieronymus Bosch. It's the imagery that really matters.

Personally, I'm far less interested in the cover than in what's inside it.

I don't think I have ever bought a book based on what the cover looked like.

I sense a secondary artist fight coming.

I can say that while I never really noticed it I can look at my 3rd edition rulebook and say "That is an awesome cover." and I look at my 5th edition cover and say "It's a cover." There is some value to be had in the cover, but I more agree with insaniak, as well as the old statement don't judge a book by its cover, read the synopsis then judge it harshly.

micahaphone wrote:

CynthiaCM wrote:

micahaphone wrote:P.S. President???? Cool! Did you start Spectrum games?

Yes, I did. Back in 2001. I'm guessing you've heard of us?

Vaguely. I looked you up, and it's a good idea for a company. I'm assuming it's a near-niche environment.

Why don't they have the generic hammer/skull on top of a big battle scene? Do people think that It'd be too confusing?

Thanks. We try to emulate specific genres with equally specific rules. Slasher Flick has a game system designed only to recreate the psycho-killer films, Cartoon Action Hour has a game system designed only to capture the flair of the 1980s action cartoons and so on.

As for the skull/hammer over a battle scene, well, they kind of did something like that on the 5th edition book, but the battle scene can barely be seen at a glance. It seemed more an afterthought than anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zip Napalm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I think Blanche is one of the best artists in GWs employ, because I can recognize his stuff anywhere, signed or not.

It's quite easy to recognize really bad stuff I suppose . Personally, I prefer Karl Kopinski, whom can actually draw a picture that's nice to look at.

How snarky. You really don't understand the iconic look that Blanche gave GW do you?
I would lay money down that every artist GW hires is given a book of Blanche's work as a template to work from. I wouldn't say Blanche is a great technician, then again neither was Hieronymus Bosch. It's the imagery that really matters.

And I feel that as long as he stays away from color art, his work is really evocative. For some reason, though, his color art just really turns me off. His art for the 2nd edition box set was abysmal in my opinion. Everything was so bright and gaudy.

Do not you think that I too dream of a day without that damned dirty business we call Blanche? Lousy illustrator, no concept of composition or proportion, and a bad colourist to boot. His cover for Epic 40,000 and the rest of his lousy art in its books contributed to that game's downfall.

On the bright side, Paul Bonner has recently done some stuff for Forgeworld.

In defense of the cover of 5th edition, it does looks like what it says on the cover. It's a Warhammer. I should mention that no cover of the Warhammer 40,000 rules have caught my interest like the cover of Rogue Trader, but that was another time. I'll add that the 3rd edition Codex: Space Marine cover was a cheap knock-off of the Rogue Trader cover, and it shows.

CynthiaCM wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zip Napalm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I think Blanche is one of the best artists in GWs employ, because I can recognize his stuff anywhere, signed or not.

It's quite easy to recognize really bad stuff I suppose . Personally, I prefer Karl Kopinski, whom can actually draw a picture that's nice to look at.

How snarky. You really don't understand the iconic look that Blanche gave GW do you?
I would lay money down that every artist GW hires is given a book of Blanche's work as a template to work from. I wouldn't say Blanche is a great technician, then again neither was Hieronymus Bosch. It's the imagery that really matters.

And I feel that as long as he stays away from color art, his work is really evocative. For some reason, though, his color art just really turns me off. His art for the 2nd edition box set was abysmal in my opinion. Everything was so bright and gaudy.

Well, 2nd edition was just a bright and shiney time for all the artists. Although not all of it. The Black(and white) Codex cover had that weird dream cathedral. I always liked it. I will agree that sometimes Blanche's color work is,...well,...it looks like his uses a monochromatic #9 mop.

They need to bring back Ian Miller, Tony Ackland, Carl Critchlow, and John Sibbick.