Why is this allowed?
It's almost like one is a specialised branch of the other that can afford to put out quality content because it doesn't have to stand on its own
>>43722046
It's almost like GW also once had quality and now it doesn't.
>>43724129
Shareholders don't give a fuck about quality, they care about profit.
That's what happens when you become successful.
>>43722004
Well the proportions on the left are less retarded.
>>43722004
On is giving ideas to a hobbiest for how to customize his themed army
The other is a detailed account of the specific armor and weapons of a specific chapter focusing on the art detail
Niether is bad really I actually find the left in each codex a good jumping point
>>43725933
>That's what happens when you become successful.
It is also what happens shortly before said success ends.
>>43722004
Because the Night Lords were never codex. Why would you expect them to follow Codex standard markings that won't be promulgated until after the heresy?
>>43722004
Digital vs paper?
>>43726102
>>43726427
>>43726442
Stop making excuses for that pre-teen level of artwork. 40k art has always met a minimum standard/aesthetic. That shit on the left is an embarrassment to everyone.
>>43726442
Digital art is perfectly comparable to traditional if you hire a competent artist
>>43726521
>pre-teen level of artwork
They have great artwork in the books, but that image is not for art, its an exact replica of a model painted w/o high lights or real details to help player get an idea of how certain colours work on the model and some sub-faction colours
>>43726442
FW's art is probably also done in digital and not analogue.
Im done buying GW books if this is the art quality they now have, its all pirate and digital copies for me and no one asks me shit.
>>43725933
Shareholders don't even give a fuck about GW. They are a rounding error in most of their shareholder's portfolios.
>>43726521
No, it's Ultramarines following codex designated markings. Sure the drawing is shitty, but that's not the point.
The point is that the reason that the FW Night Lords legionaries don't have codex mandated pauldron colors is because they don't follow the codex. Duh.
>>43722004
Comparison between an older codex or index astartes image and the new codex image would be better. FW has always been better quality than gw.
>>43726716
A long time ago GW had nice pictures too
>>43726521
The stuff on the left is not meant to be artwork, it's meant to serve as a visual guide of sorts of how you can paint and theme your army, in this case, simplicity is best.
The stuff on the right is meant to be actual artwork and an example of how things look within the universe.
>>43726688
>exact replica
Then why aren't they popping a squat?
>>43728515
Here's an idea, how about you save that shit for the painting section of the book and use the actual models, eh? And use the art pictures for passing around lore and cool styles of different chapters/units.
the FW art on the left is still relatively ugly and uninspired.
I don't even know how GW justifies the coloring book plus MSPaint look they use in their codexes.
If it were some free tool on their website, maybe I could understand, but they could at least put some effort into the content of their $50 book.
>>43728607
>Here's an idea, how about you save that shit for the painting section of the book
What the fuck do you think the example in the OP is supposed to be akin to? By the way, codices don't have art and painting sections, they're intermixed now.
>use the actual models, eh?
What the fuck do you think GW did for years? Shit /tg/ and other whiners pissed and complained about because it wasn't art and was just pictures of models. Something they've cut back on severely because the current unit entries in codices essentially do the same damn thing.
It's also funny that people act like this shit is new just because it popped up in 40k codices, GW did it years before in their heraldry books, albeit slightly more detailed, for the Empire, High Elves, and Skaven, but I guess they didn't sell well enough to justify being books on their own.
>>43728747
>Shit /tg/ and other whiners pissed and complained about because it wasn't art and was just pictures of models.
Nobody complained.
>GW did it years before in their heraldry books, albeit slightly more detailed,
>more detailed
exactly. They did it more detailed.
>>43728830
>Nobody complained.
Hahahaha
>exactly. They did it more detailed.
Considering that the heraldry books were pretty much all pictures like this, I'd hope they be more detailed. Personally I'm willing to cut them a break when they're interspersed through codices, not to mention the fact that they're main purpose is to show off color schemes and army markings, so I don't view the lack of detail as being a big deal.
>>43728747
>What the fuck do you think the example in the OP is supposed to be akin to?
Just random photos. There's no guides on how to paint those models or what paints to use.
>codices don't have art and painting sections
Can you spot the problem here?
>intermixed
No, they're gone.
>Shit /tg/ and other whiners pissed and complained
And GW prides itself by not listening to their customers, so who the fuck cares? Models are still better than 9000 seconds in MSPaint.
>It's also funny that people act like this shit is new just because it popped up in 40k codices
Who acts like that? Who says it's just 40k? I don't see anything in OP that says it's 40k only. OP's demonstrating that while GW does this shit (regardless of whether it is in 40k or was in WHFB), FW does it a million times better. Unfortunately FW doesn't have tons of examples of it being done in WHFB.
>in their heraldry books, albeit slightly more detailed
And that makes it ok... how exactly?
>>43725971
That's because they are scouts
>>43728946
>Just random photos. There's no guides on how to paint those models or what paints to use.
Painting may have been something of a stretch, ultimately it's supposed to show off color schemes and army markings.
>Can you spot the problem here?
Not really considering that guides for how to paint 40k are available elsewhere and there is still art in the codices.
>Who acts like that?
Everyone who has recently brought this shit up because they have the mistaken belief that this has replaced art instead of being alongside it, a result of being so fucking lazy as to not even download a PDF and check for themselves.
Again the comparison with FW isn't exactly a great one. Not to mention that since the HH books from FW cost anywhere from $40-50 more than a 40k codex, I'd damn well expect them to be of a better quality.
Personally I like that they've decided to include the heraldry guides in the codices since it not only gives an example of color schemes, but more importantly shows off little details you can include to help your army feel more cohesive and more authentic to 40k.
>>43728964
Not these guys.
>>43729140
>show off color schemes and army markings
Which FW pics are not capable of?
>replaced art instead of being alongside it
You sure?
When I pay GW money for a codex, I do not expect there to be MSPaint doodles in there, regardless of how much space they take.
>HH books from FW
They also come with waaaay more art, rules, fluff, etc. But I guess none of that costs a dime.
>>43729212
>Which FW pics are not capable of?
Eh, you could argue that the detail makes it a bit hard. It's not as clear cut as I originally made it out to be. Sure it'd be great if ever codex was like the HH books or IA, but I can understand why that isn't a possibility at the current price point of codices.
>When I pay GW money for a codex, I do not expect there to be MSPaint doodles in there, regardless of how much space they take.
Then don't buy them.
>They also come with waaaay more art, rules, fluff, etc. But I guess none of that costs a dime.
Yes and as I said, all of that comes at the price of being roughly double the price of a codex.
The HH red books cost the same as a codex and all you get with them is rules and the few scraps of lore FW includes with army entries.
>>43729368
>it'd be great if ever codex was like the HH books or IA
Or, you know, like the old codexes? Like the ones that didn't need MSPaint to get any of this stuff across.
>Then don't buy them.
Yean, and if I don't buy them, I'll get the "well what did you expect, you didn't support them" or some other shit like that.
>Yes and as I said, all of that comes at the price of being roughly double the price of a codex.
So we agree that FW books are more expensive (partly) because they got more shit in them. Still doesn't explain how GW codexes get more expensive while putting in MSPaint crap, when old codexes were quite cheap and managed just fine without.
>>43729826
>Or, you know, like the old codexes? Like the ones that didn't need MSPaint to get any of this stuff across.
I'd rather have the heraldry than pictures of just models.
>Still doesn't explain how GW codexes get more expensive while putting in MSPaint crap, when old codexes were quite cheap and managed just fine without.
40k codices have retained the $50 price for being hardcover. The only ones off the top of my head that went up to $60 are SM and Eldar, because they have more pages than the others.
>>43730116
>I'd rather have the heraldry than pictures of just models.
You're talking like it's one or the other. It's not.
>>43730116
>I'd rather have the heraldry than pictures of just models.
Like this, right ? >>43728413
>>43722004
Wait, the shit on the left is not crap someone made with ms paint?
>>43730576
It kind of is since there is only so much space, though I've a feeling the Datasheets are more responsible for getting rid of the miniature gallery. 7E Eldar codex only has like around five pages showing off models, usually a sort of diorama featuring a specific Craftworld, compared to the 6E codex which showed off each and every model.
>>43728413
are space marine backpacks chaos detectors that spring out all wide when the marine goes crazy or something
i never got why chaos had weird retarded backpacks
>>43731856
Probably was to help distinguish CSM from SM. In universe it simply could be just some form of power pack variant.
>>43731856
It's called the Anvilus pattern backpack. It was a prototype set of thruster vents for void operations. Most of the chaos legions had them, so the successor warbands kept them.
>>43722004
The shit on the left is intended as a painting/modelling guide, not a realistic in-universe depiction of the space marines.
>>43732339
>The shit on the left is intended as a painting/modelling guide
So where are the name of the paints needed? The instructions? No, a painting guide is the shit they put on White Dwarf. Face it, GW standards fell WAY low for their current codices.
