The first time I see the covers of the books, it remember me too much of D&D cover, very too much for my taste. I hate the cover. Why not a full cover of the drawing characters like the cover of the box. Those look cool and grim for my part this edition would be the greatest of all or the real end of time for the old World.

What do you think of the covers, good peoples of the Empire?

Praise Sigmar for all your sins to come.

They're just covers...

If it was a "normal" RPG I could agree with you that (if I got your point right) they might have a look resembling D&D ones and that FFG could be pointing to have a similar look to appeal more people...

But since this game comes in a box, and as you said the box image is quite cool, no occasional customer would be able to see the book covers before baying the box, other thank maybe a little image in the back...

So, what's exactly your point?

I mean, they can surely rememberD&D ones, with the image bordered in a lather book fashon, but the fell, for me at least, is totally different from D&D ones, starting from the images itself...

Fox said:

Wow, that would remind us D&D4e PHB covers. But honestly: you can't make a cover that D&D didn't already during it's 35 years.

Stil, box cover is totally awesome.

I don't care for the covers either.

But as long as the game is good, they could put night elves (*shudder*) on the cover for all I care

We have

1) a repeat of the box art on the main rule book. Good.

2) A warrior-priest of Sigmar on the religion book.

3) A Bright Wizard on the magic book.

Those are both iconic and representational images.

4) Lord of Change, the greater daemon that weaves terrible and convoluted plots on the cover of the GM book. Are they trying to tell us something?

I think the art is fairly attractive and appropriate. My personal taste would be to have a different priest and wizard on the covers of their respective books (say Celestial Wizard and Priest of Ulric) as their choices were perhaps excessively stereotypical, but there's nothing wrong with the images.

I don't really get the complaints about the covers. The art is incredible, like almost all of Fantasy Flight's products. And the main similarities between them and the D&D books is that they are both amazing covers for fantasy-based roleplaying games.

Where's the downside?

strayknife said:

strayknife said:

I didn't like the D&D covers.

The artwork for the WFRPG covers looks better, so the images themselves are cool. But I don't like the fake-tome look, as WotC went with when 3e D&D came out. I always thought those books looked pretty bad. Granted, these look about 10 times better than those did.

I think they look pretty good. I'm not a big fan of the 'faux tome' look, but I'm guilty of 'faux parchment' so I can't fault anyone for going that route. They do remind me of D&D book covers with the earth tones and centered image.

The art is either GW"s art, or art done for Warhammer online. It's the tome that I think most people comment on. The warrior priest is from the 6th ed empire army book iirc, and the brightwizard is from WAR.

Hellebore

I recogniced the bright wizard immediately. It's the concept art for WAR's archwizard. The warrior priest looked familiar but until hellebore mentioned it, i couldnt place it.

I'm ok with recycling pictures, but not on the cover as it raises my fears again for recycling of all the 2nd end fluff. Leaving me no reason to buy the books at all, as we're not intending to use 3rd ed mechanics. I hope future previews and releases of supplements prove me wrong.

The pictures they have used are and have always been cool though. I just dont like the baggage they carry with them..

Yeah, book covers look a bit D&D-ish. And the priest is taken from WFB straightaway. I suppose there's more WFB art inside, though (not that I'm complaining).

I agree that the covers look great, but I really do miss Ian Miller:

For me, he'll always be WFRP incarnate, but I suspect his work may not be as marketable as it was in the eighties. Interestingly though, his chaos imagery was recycled for Chaos In the Old World - many of the symbols' intricicasies are very Milleresque. Of course, Miller's work is tied up in childhood nostalgia for me, so I might be influenced by that.

Ye Ancient One said:

Sigh ... yeah, that one is one of the things I remember from playing WFRP back in the days. I was, and is, great. Though I'm sure it's not as commercially viable today, as you note.

/M

MagnusSeter said:

Why? Not argumentative why but just curious why. Why do you think that kind of art is not commercially viable today? Is it too understated for kids these days? Do you believe that new art is simply better?

I am big fan of both I.Miller and J.Blanche and I don't think that there is a 'progress' in art (i.e. that something new is by virtue of being new also better then something old) but what do you think? Why they didn't invite Mr. Blanche to be, for example, art director for WFRP project? I would bought something featuring his new art in no time.

John Blanche is still art director for Games Workshop, and he does a pretty good job keeping everything cohesive, both in terms of models and art. The recent Vampire Counts book contained a lot of his work - it was controversial, being very messy and splatter-punk, almost like doodles, but with that Blancheian flair. I adored it. I think there's a tendency nowadays towards realism in RPG art (!), at least in the mainstream. I haven't seen much abstract work like Blanche or Miller's in a while. I also loved the line drawings in Shadows Over Bogenhafen, Power Behind the Throne and Something Rotten In Kislev, but again, I think this level of abstractness is no longer acceptable to people for some reason. Also, full-colour interiors look to be the norm for this new WFRP and for Fantasy Flight in general, which rules out the kind of wood-cuts and line drawings I like.

On the other hand, I'm quite happy with the art in this new edition. It's evocative and fantastic. I think I'm just an old tortoise who longs for the art that inspired me when I was a youth. Perhaps if I were 12 again and looking at this new edition, I'd attach the same sentiments to this art as I do to Miller and Blanche.

I ramble ... my apologies. That's a minute of your life you'll never get back!

Perhaps I'm just an old fogey too but don't chalk up your tastes to simple nostalgia Ye Old One. That piece of art by Miller that you posted is one that I (having never played WFRP) have no prior connection with. But I can tell you that I MUCH prefer it to the current art that I'm seeing for WFRP. So, its not nostalgia. It may however be related to our age or something though. Being a longtime D&D player I also much prefer the art of my childhood for that game as well.

I'm not a huge fan of Miller's work, but the disturbing and bestial quality of many of his pieces make him an excellent choice for illustrating the nastier parts of the Warhammer world.

Ye Ancient One said:

Here is the rub so to speak. Why do we strive for greater mimesis in fantasy art these days? Hugo Pratt once remarked that being able to enjoy black and white comics (black and white being by definition a form of abstraction for him) is sure sign of being more mature.

And not to pass only as GrimDark Grognard I enjoyed in my time Tony diTerlizzi's work on Planescape immensely.

The setting could really use some Mike Mignola, honestly.

I mean, he doesn't even use grays: just pitch black shadows. And skulls everywhere (which is an every day icon in the Games Workshop Universe).