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.

Its fairly easy to work out who designed/was part of the team that designed a kit. Lots of the studio sculptors are on Instagram, and will often say around pre-order or release date that they designed a kit.

Some of the Eavy Metal painters are on there as well, and will say which models they painted.

Ah, the 6 monthly thread of "ooo, eee, ahhh, aren't my favourite games company doing awesome".
Clearly charging far too much to make that much profit. Sigh.

I don't buy the blanket anonymisation for the safety of creatives explanation for one second. MTG credits artists, video games can do it (when a company is not using "removal from the credits" as a cudgel to keep workers in line), movies too. Essentially every major entertainment industry does.

Those are all also much bigger industries than GW that are also highly collaborative when it comes to the process. They also have that type of obsessed fans that GW has in numbers that dwarf GW. If somebody wanted to stay anonymous then that should be their decisions (see solutions like Alan Smithee for movie directors), not GW's, when it comes to credits.

I don't quite know why GW doesn't credit picture artists anymore, and it does seem like they credit them significantly less than they used to. My 1988 Adeptus Titanicus has a comprehensive list of illustrators, although not on a per-image basis, while my 2002 Codex Daemonhunters has no artist credits. But the anonymity argument is specifically for rules, isn't it? MTG doesn't credit rules writers to my knowledge, and in any case I don't think MTG players get quite as angry when a new card comes out that is bad. I definitely think some video game players would be upset if they could pin gameplay changes in popular mass market games on specific persons. I still see people on social media speculate on who wrote which codexes, creating theories about there being an "A-team" and the "B-team", and being legitimately angry about bad codexes, so if codexes were still strongly identified with specific authors, I'm pretty sure some personal problems could arise. The thing is that it does not take that many lunatics in order to be intolerable - only one person out of a thousand needs to take a piss in the soup before I'm not interested in having any.

Regarding miniatures, I suspect the design process is so collaborative and distributed that it is often difficult to pin down a single artist. Probably you have someone come up with the concept and general pose, someone doing some details, someone else doing others, maybe someone doing adjustments for ease of production, etc. Perhaps some small models are done completely by individuals, while larger models are team efforts, and it ends up being quite a hassle figuring out how to assign individual credit. It's not like in the old days where a Perry twin, or someone like Aly Morrison or Trish Carden, would often scult a miniature (or entire range) all on their own in greenstuff.

For space marines, it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of them start of a base model and adjusted.

 Apple fox wrote:
For space marines, it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of them start of a base model and adjusted.

Yeah that has been done single the early days. And not just with space marines. More than one name as designers would often be stated on kit boxes, WD articles and Forgeworld catalogues.

Their newest artwork still looks like something AI would generate, so bleh.

 Patriarch wrote:

I read that more positively. "We are aware AI exists and don't pretend otherwise. However our output is driven by artists and we all hate AI when applied to the artistic field. We might use it for mundane stuff like spreadsheet management if we had to, but we don't currently touch it otherwise." Pretty clear that they don't want people taking shortcuts, or scaring contributors off. If any investors are red hot about the potential of AI, they should probably be investing somewhere else.

I expect the reason is more that GW legal are concerned about the possibility that AI generated works do not gain copyright protection than it being particularly about the feelings of GW's artistic staff.

But the result is the same.

With the three-year cycle on editions, one relatively easy fix is to just release a "credits" at the end of each edition with a list of everyone who contributed anything (writers, sculptors, artists etc.) released for that game during that three years.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
GW stores aren’t like regular shops. They sell stuff, yes. But they also offer hobby sessions etc.

It won’t necessarily work. But relatively simple things, like offering more painting or gaming tutorials and actively inviting people to those gets people in the store. And someone visiting your store is infinitely more likely to buy something in said store than if they stayed home and looked online.

I can't see how that works in the era of one man stores, which seem to be most going by this:

Of our 575 stores, 424 are low cost, 148 are multi person operating extended hours

I may be a couple of years out of date now, but the last time I went into a smaller store there wasn't really capacity for anything beyond the quick demos. It was also a 1 man so had to close for breaks which really kills off the social space atmosphere.

I agree with you that they need to try and provide some value add reason to spend time in the store rather than just buying items for full retail.

The things I suggested are low cost, but potentially high benefit.

Particularly for people entirely new, being at least offered some basic painting and gaming lessons (which could be focussing on a specific rule or interaction) helps them not only build the skills necessary to get the most out their new hobby, but makes them feel welcome.

True, some stores are proper dinky. And you need to work around that as best you can. But they all have at least demo boards and a painting station or two.

The clever bit is inviting people to teach you. Gives them at least a wee ego boost, and an excuse/reason to drop into the store. And you can totally fake that if necessary. Me? I don’t need to fake being a basic painter with basic skills. But even if you know how to paint really good flesh tones? Ask the person to show you their way. Even if you know it, or end up preferring your method? They’ve still had a chance to flex a little hobby muscle, and ideally feel genuinely valued.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, Jes Goodwin is still there. I’d imagine he’s positioned to have considerable say.

But it’s always been pretty collaborative. If you seek out Filmdeg and Jordan Sorcery on YouTube, you’ll find interviews with past staff who confirm, even back in the olden days of “sod it, that’ll be good for a laugh” it was never just one person doing their own thing in seclusion.

Jes is either retired, or in the process of retiring at this point though so I suspect anything he had a hand in will end in 11th ed at the latest.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
£31,000,000 in tax paid. Unsure if that’s all taxes, or just UK Corporation Tax and that.

Corporation Tax only (see the full P&Ls before the notes).

deano2099 wrote:
With the three-year cycle on editions, one relatively easy fix is to just release a "credits" at the end of each edition with a list of everyone who contributed anything (writers, sculptors, artists etc.) released for that game during that three years.

They stopped sharing the creators' surnames in articles and videos after Duncan Rhodes and Louise Sudgen left to start successful media/product businesses. They also forced Darren Latham to remove his "Masterclass" and tutorials from YouTube before having the internal paint team recreate them at a lower skill level.

The "creators get death threats" argument is old and potentially apocryphal, based on the Matt Ward UM Codex from six editions ago. They clearly just don't want to mint anymore microcelebrities that can leverage their association with the GW brand to kick off a new YT channel or Patreon. It makes perfect sense – a middling Patreon probably pays better than a staff position in the painting department. As an American, it also feels like there's just a latent "tall poppy" and "know your place" attitude at the company that tries to keep the talent from finding it's market price.

I feel bad for the talent – it's so childish to read interviews with these people, among the most talented artists in their fields by a wide margin – referred to by their first names only.

 flaherty wrote:

deano2099 wrote:
With the three-year cycle on editions, one relatively easy fix is to just release a "credits" at the end of each edition with a list of everyone who contributed anything (writers, sculptors, artists etc.) released for that game during that three years.

They stopped sharing the creators' surnames in articles and videos after Duncan Rhodes and Louise Sudgen left to start successful media/product businesses. They also forced Darren Latham to remove his "Masterclass" and tutorials from YouTube before having the internal paint team recreate them at a lower skill level.

The "creators get death threats" argument is old and potentially apocryphal, based on the Matt Ward UM Codex from six editions ago. They clearly just don't want to mint anymore microcelebrities that can leverage their association with the GW brand to kick off a new YT channel or Patreon. It makes perfect sense – a middling Patreon probably pays better than a staff position in the painting department. As an American, it also feels like there's just a latent "tall poppy" and "know your place" attitude at the company that tries to keep the talent from finding it's market price.

I feel bad for the talent – it's so childish to read interviews with these people, among the most talented artists in their fields by a wide margin – referred to by their first names only.

Actually and in the way art is going, GW creating and supporting/giving credit to their talented staff is the best marketing thing they can and should do now.

GW still have an edge because their product is physical not digital so the impact of AI there will be slower; but yeah give it a few years and "designed by a real human" is going to become almost essential to try and survive against AI - unless the AI system collapses in on itself (or they charge the actual cost it takes to make something)

 Overread wrote:
GW still have an edge because their product is physical not digital so the impact of AI there will be slower; but yeah give it a few years and "designed by a real human" is going to become almost essential to try and survive against AI - unless the AI system collapses in on itself (or they charge the actual cost it takes to make something)

AI that can turn AI slop pictures into 3D printable objects is already being advertised as a thing and I've seen people using it in the Battletech Facebook group(to much criticism).

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Overread wrote:
GW still have an edge because their product is physical not digital so the impact of AI there will be slower; but yeah give it a few years and "designed by a real human" is going to become almost essential to try and survive against AI - unless the AI system collapses in on itself (or they charge the actual cost it takes to make something)

AI that can turn AI slop pictures into 3D printable objects is already being advertised as a thing and I've seen people using it in the Battletech Facebook group(to much criticism).

Yes and GW workflow is also digital too, so easier to integrate... if they are really willing to lose ownership over it, that is...

Let’s be honest here.

Anyone willing to buy an AI version of a GW model is already well served with recasters. And I suspect that by no means the Venn diagram there is just a circle.

Whatever I may feel about recasts? You’re at least buying from some one that put some level of technical ability and effort into it.

And so, I’m not terribly persuaded the market for AI Knock Offs is going to be all that large.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Let’s be honest here.

Anyone willing to buy an AI version of a GW model is already well served with recasters. And I suspect that by no means the Venn diagram there is just a circle.

Whatever I may feel about recasts? You’re at least buying from some one that put some level of technical ability and effort into it.

And so, I’m not terribly persuaded the market for AI Knock Offs is going to be all that large.

What we are afraid of is AI being integrated with GW and they release themselves AI slop... official slop... Like cocacola etc

Which they’ve directly ruled out for their creative process.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Let’s be honest here.

Anyone willing to buy an AI version of a GW model is already well served with recasters. And I suspect that by no means the Venn diagram there is just a circle.

Whatever I may feel about recasts? You’re at least buying from some one that put some level of technical ability and effort into it.

And so, I’m not terribly persuaded the market for AI Knock Offs is going to be all that large.

The problem I see here is not people buying, it's people selling. AI lowers the bar to entry so much any schmuck with 5 minutes of time can churn out "designs" faster than they can list them on sales sites, and they bury real sculpts by real artists (GW knockoffs and original designs alike) under thousands of listings of worthless slop, making indie digital sculpting a non-viable career.

 flaherty wrote:
The "creators get death threats" argument is old and potentially apocryphal, based on the Matt Ward UM Codex from six editions ago.

You can Google to see what happened with the Warhammer Adventures books a few years back, or look at some of the current comments around Custodes.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which they’ve directly ruled out for their creative process.

Yes they did that now in 2026 reports. Thats why I said that, now its the best possible timing, marketing wise, to play the "only human Art" card and be proud of their talent by naming them...

Means little though if you understand how big corporations function.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
making indie digital sculpting a non-viable career.

Never was specially at the back of predating on traditional sculptors. So yes what comes around goes around.

"Self driving cars will finally make truckers pay for what they did to horse drawn carriages!" is a take one can have, I suppose.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
"Self driving cars will finally make truckers pay for what they did to horse drawn carriages!" is a take one can have, I suppose.

Weird nonsense comment as ussual.
You clearly dont care for none of that... you only want your toys regardless of who/what creates them, and leave it at that. Dont cry me a river for the poor Digital sculptors please.

You do realise a LOT of physical sculptors changed to digital right. Even the Perry Twins tried it out but, out of choice, stuck with physical.

I don’t see the difference between physical and digital sculpting. Both need a degree of learned, practiced skill for best results.

 Overread wrote:
You do realise a LOT of physical sculptors changed to digital right. Even the Perry Twins tried it out but, out of choice, stuck with physical.

Yep. Been following it closely. You do realise there was an avalanche of opportunist people/companies outside the industry that flooded the market and devaluated the price of any good traditional and digital sculpting to the bare minimums?
Ai its simply a consequence of that unsustainable race and economic model.

I never opposed different art expressions or tools or artists...

Sustainable art and artists always have been exploited by these opportunists that burn all in their way for a buck and thats what I reject. Companies and their clients may prefer otherwise and, thats fair enough for them, but then dont cry a river when all they have is what they have been supporting for years.

GW and most creative companies have many thought choices to make soon, some already have lets see how it pans out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don’t see the difference between physical and digital sculpting. Both need a degree of learned, practiced skill for best results.

There are differences some more obvious than others but theres not enough space in this thread for that, you really need to do both digital and traditional art to "get" the subtle nuances etc...Open a thread and will love to spill the beans.

Both are equally important to me regardless of preferences but when good artists in general get burried by business models geared towards cutting them out then yeah, not cool.

I believe all art expressions should walk side by side, because that gives options to future generations of artists... but the way its going with consumers going for the slop, cheap etc I fear for what we leave for the future artists.

GW is hinting going into the "right" way for now.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Let’s be honest here.

Anyone willing to buy an AI version of a GW model is already well served with recasters. And I suspect that by no means the Venn diagram there is just a circle.

Whatever I may feel about recasts? You’re at least buying from some one that put some level of technical ability and effort into it.

And so, I’m not terribly persuaded the market for AI Knock Offs is going to be all that large.

What we are afraid of is AI being integrated with GW and they release themselves AI slop... official slop... Like cocacola etc

GW pivoting into AI would be a death sentence. The reason they get away with their high prices is because of their (well-earned) reputation for high quality miniatures. Sharp details, with well thought through design. Mishaps happen (Coteaz) but those mishaps stand out all the more and are so memorable because they are rare. Almost all GW releases are excellent.

The moment that reputation of quality crumbles, that perception, GW is going to lose a lot of money. Their games have too much momentum to just die, but at minimum they would lose a lot more sales to third party, older recasts and so on. I have very often gone deliberately for GW over cheaper knock-offs or prints because the GW stuff simply looks better, less overly busy than some larger rival designers, but still sharp.

When that goes? It's an uh-oh situation. It really has to be stressed. GW's rules writing is inconsistent at best and isn't what anyone is here for. The lore attracts a lot of peripheral interest but isn't in itself the moneymaker. The miniatures are the key to it all. And I think GW knows that and is very keen to not risk their well-proven golden goose on the newest hype machine.