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.

Yeah, the previous Guard cover was far better. I hate the current one.

I believe that the art is generally getting better, but that as with all the art it tends to be variable. At the moment, I think that the whfb cover art is superior to that for 40k, but there's good and bad stuff in both. Taking the new blood angels book as an example, I really like the background, it's just that the focal point (the central character) is horrible. If someone with more talent than me could do a photoshop job on him, it would be quite a good cover.

grrr

Declining. I really loved the 4th Ed Guard and SM codex covers, and am disappointed with their current representations.

I don't like the 'cartoon' styling the guard and BA have; I much prefer the SW and and WH cover aesthetic.
Bad:



Good:

I think the SW 5th cover is amazingly good.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, David Gallagher did both BA and IG covers for 5th.

Personally I like the newer covers, as they seem to be brighter and (I'm guessing that this is not a word/acceptable term,) eye-popping. For example, the 4th ed. SM codex has the shiny HG on the cover, but there's lots of dark lines and random cables or other such grimy details. The new book seems to have more action or zeal to it.

'Nids, Blood Angels, Warriors of Chaos, and Imperial Guard have stupidly bad covers.

Everything else, IMHO, is fine.

Yes, of the recent Codices, the Woof cover is good.

That's only 25%?

I don't hate the IG cover. It's definitely not up to par with the SW job, however. Who did that cover anyway?

It was touched on earlier, but it's worth noting that not all of this is "subjective." There is actually more to art than just taste. So many people dislike the BA codex in part because it has real, technical, objective execution problems. In contrast, the IG and Tyranid covers aren't super loved but aren't as universally panned mostly because they're just boring to a lot of people, not boring and filled with things people see as being wrong or off even if they can't identify them.

In the BA cover, those things include:

- Perspective errors, e.g., some of the edges and lines on the helmets on the BA cover implying angles that aren't consistent with the other helmets

- Unnatural poses, e.g., most notably the main priest, but actually a bunch of the guys around him have really unbelievable, unworkable poses

- Proportion, e.g., the obviously problematic head on the main priest, but lots of the body parts in general are out of whack

- Layout, e.g., the focal point going to the priest's kneepad

The IG book also has some issues, e.g., tanks hovering in mid-air above Guardsmen, but not nearly as many. Between the BA, IG, and Tyranid books, whatever else the other problems may be, they're all also pretty unoriginal and static, but that just makes them "bleh" rather than hated.

Personally, I'd say the Skaven cover went from pretty good to great. The SW book is also very good. Space Marines I have mixed feelings about. The new scene is more interesting, but the old characters were more visually interesting. Personally I really like the Orks cover, but could take or leave the Chaos Marines front.

All in all, kind of a wash.

Here's a different question though: Are there more typos and grammar problems in the newer books? I'd say yes. Though I don't have a large collection of older books, they seem to have many fewer problems of that sort and to be a lot cleaner in that regard.

The old wolves cover art was stupid but the new one is sweet!

I think they are Recycling it, than taking a few bitz and calling it new. Like the Basilisk.

tjkopena wrote:So many people dislike the BA codex in part because it has real, technical, objective execution problems.

Indeed. And what adds insult to injury?

On p.3 of the new BA Codex, there appears to be a brand new piece by A Smith (printed in B&W) that would have made for a beautiful cover. And for whatever reason, GW decided NOT to use it.

Idiots.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

tjkopena wrote:So many people dislike the BA codex in part because it has real, technical, objective execution problems.

Indeed. And what adds insult to injury?

On p.3 of the new BA Codex, there appears to be a brand new piece by A Smith (printed in B&W) that would have made for a beautiful cover. And for whatever reason, GW decided NOT to use it.

Idiots.

Same with IG.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
On p.3 of the new BA Codex, there appears to be a brand new piece by A Smith (printed in B&W) that would have made for a beautiful cover. And for whatever reason, GW decided NOT to use it.

Idiots.

Quite, Adrian Smith is bloody amazing. I had A2 sized photocopies of his work from The Lost and the Damned on my wall as a 17 year old, all those years ago.

However, I'd love to see Mark Gibbons work back in codices again. His Blood Axe Warboss converted me as a lad to da smartist clan.

I think its hard to say that art is decreasing or improving in quality overall, because the artists all work in different styles, so theres no net change either way.

I voted for declining though, simply because in the rulebook, the illustration of a member of each race in the colour fluff section where every few pages is a section about a different race is a really really dramatic fall in quality compared to the 4th ed ones.

I dont know which artist did the 4th ed illustrations for that section of the book, but those are some of my all time favourite pieces of GW art. The new ones look like something a schoolboy would draw in the margin of his maths book.

gutted.

Also, for what its worth, did anyone notice that the new BA cover seems to be the same style/artist as the old 3rd ed BA codex? (I dont have pictures to compare so this might be rubbish Im spouting but they even seem like they could be two sections of the same painting [in my mind at least])

Got news for you guys both the 4th and 5th edition Tyranid Codexes suck. I still have my old 3rd edition one and that is by FAR the best cover art for a Tyranid Codex ever.

Nitros14 wrote:Got news for you guys both the 4th and 5th edition Tyranid Codexes suck. I still have my old 3rd edition one and that is by FAR the best cover art for a Tyranid Codex ever.

OMG! It's a John Blanche red-brown blur!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:Got news for you guys both the 4th and 5th edition Tyranid Codexes suck. I still have my old 3rd edition one and that is by FAR the best cover art for a Tyranid Codex ever.

OMG! It's a John Blanche red-brown blur!

That codex looked much better when I bought it 10 years ago

Anyway I'm just not a fan of the new Tyranid codex looks. That old one looks so much more dire and alien.

I must say, the cover of the upcoming BRB for WHFB looks poop.