Dawn of war miniature rumours

[TheMawr]

That said, it would be weird to have a tie in boardgame and not use art of that game.. They have never been adverse to using art that dont matchup with the content before :

 

 

None of those 4 on the front are actually in the box, the lineup is similar in spirit, but not in looks. I think for a videogame tie-in its more important to have visuals that are associated with the videogame than have (repurposed) 40k art that is representative of the contents.

 

edit :

Especially as it uses the logo of Dawn of War 1 and 2.

3 has a different logo, a 4th one would likely have as well.

 

If its a general tie in then the art of 1 or 2 could have easily be used. ( I can imagine the terminator focus of 3 might be a bit too much of a stretch.)

Edited Monday at 10:32 PM by TheMawr

[TheMawr]

22 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Doing a quick search, I'm pretty sure that red version is not actually from GW. That exact one shows up on a deviartart page from someone who has just coloured (quite a lot of) Warhammer art themselves.

 

Ah ok, that explains why I couldnt find it in a codex ( I dont have all of them though.) I gonna guess all the red/yellow versions of known black and white artworks I have in my folders are theirs then ? ( because in codexes I either saw the BnW art or the digital remasters.)

 

Nonetheless, Im certain GW has done it before ( I even thought it was quite common.) however I was slow with my second post.. because Im just as skeptical but for a different reason involving the cover art. ( and in general I always test my skepticism like this.)

 

edit :
Though the biggest argument in favor of it being real is... why would someone, clearly with access to real products that arent even on the release schedule yet, go the effort to fake this ? its not April 1. Its also not really a ridiculous product in concept, GW has done similar before, its just that the coverart is off in several ways.

 

Edited Monday at 10:42 PM by TheMawr

[TheVoidDragon]

33 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

 

Ah ok, that explains why I couldnt find it in a codex ( I dont have all of them though.) I gonna guess all the red/yellow versions of known black and white artworks I have in my folders are theirs then ? ( because in codexes I either saw the BnW art or the digital remasters.)

 

Nonetheless, Im certain GW has done it before ( I even thought it was quite common.) however I was slow with my second post.. because Im just as skeptical but for a different reason involving the cover art. ( and in general I always test my skepticism like this.)

 

edit :
Though the biggest argument in favor of it being real is... why would someone, clearly with access to real products that arent even on the release schedule yet, go the effort to fake this ? its not April 1. Its also not really a ridiculous product in concept, GW has done similar before, its just that the coverart is off in several ways.

 

 

Possible they are, there is a lot of classic 40k art they seem to have coloured.  Can't find where that Eldar Warlock you posted is from either but i'll be surprised if that's official, you can see some of the previous background sketching that hasn't been removed in random places and for some reason the jewellery that was on the sword is gone.

 

Looking into this a bit further...I really think this whole thing might be fake. It seems like a combination of things we already have with slight edits, and stuff we don't have but is so vague and obscured we can't even tell.

Like, the drop pod is a single sprue. That's clearly not the entire kit and a 2nd sprue isn't even shown under it that we can see. The shape of it is broadly what you might expect, but we can't tell if it actually makes sense and matches what we've seen because it's so pixelated.

Similarly with the Knight. It's just a pile of sprues, the top of which we already have because its just the Chaos Knight sprue.

Both the image on the droppod and knight instructions are simply the Warhammer Community articles preview image. So even those aren't something new.

Taken with the DOW art being heavily edited existing art. that it avoids showing anything definite. that it's all so blurred and pixelated for no reason (which would conveniently hide any errors), and just that it was revealed AFTER the new knight was, the entire thing just doesn't seem overly believable to me.

Edited Monday at 11:02 PM by TheVoidDragon

[blue_raptor55]

7 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

Eeeesh. I only know of Valrak from posting on here, which I like, but if that is the style of content he puts out then I'm best away from GW type youtube as it's clearly not meant for folk like me. SHOUTY NEWS! Can't abide. 

 

 

Plenty warhammer youtube content that isn't just loud clickbait, just gotta sift through a bit.

[TheMawr]

5 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Possible they are, there is a lot of classic 40k art they seem to have coloured.  Can't find where that Eldar Warlock you posted is from either but i'll be surprised if that's official, you can see some of the previous background sketching that hasn't been removed in random places and for some reason the jewellery that was on the sword is gone.

 

Its official, this version (with blue gyrinx and without the sword jewel ) is from Fracture of Biel tan ( page 51) its actually the first one of the two versions I had seen myself. I remember people talking about the recolor, and somehow remembered it was more significant than just the Gyrinx. Probably doesnt mean much for the general consensus ( though I think not using actual dawn of war art is weirder than a recolor still ;) )

[Marshal Reinhard]

9 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Doing a quick search, I'm pretty sure that red version is not actually from GW. That exact one shows up on a deviartart page from someone who has just coloured (quite a lot of) Warhammer art themselves.

final nail in the coffin. Both lowers the effort needed to make the fake considerably, as well as meaning its essentially unofficial fan content

Edited Tuesday at 07:36 AM by Marshal Reinhard

[AppleCrumble]

On the topic of edited art, a couple of the B&N titles have used tweaked preexisting covers; the Dreadfane box used the Stormstrike Starter Set boxart, with some changes to better represent what was included. Same goes for the B&N Underworld starter set, compared to the general release one. It's not overly common but it does happen. 

 

Something worth noting is that all of the Dawn of War games were release before the Primaris launch, so they wouldn't really have any relevant game artwork to use, atleast if they wanted it to be a one to one match; recolouring re-existing artwork doesn't feel wildly off to me. 

 

[ZeroWolf]

27 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

final nail in the coffin. Both lowers the effort needed to make the fake considerably, as well as meaning its essentially unofficial fan content

Just for clarification, when the frater said red one, they meant the eldar warlock picture theMawr posted on the last page as an example of GW recolouring their own art.

 

However I don't think it changes the end result of it being fake (which is a shame as that sprue is a nice sprue so any chance to get it cheaper would be welcomed)

[Jukkiz]

i know i don´t love primarinades... but why?

Dawn of war was based on firstborns and this could been awesome to have named characters from old games show up as such.

is GW that obsessed with primarinading everything?

[Frogian]

yes - these games are meant to help get people in to the hobby. they aren't gonna use a load of legends firstborn models when they've got recent, pushfit primaris ones they can use.

[Wispy]

Primaris are what Space Marines look like now. When I worked at Relic, GW wanted us to integrate Primaris ASAP and even gave us an early preview of Dark Imperium. Not much came out of it, but we got Primaris Chaplain skin for Diomedes before the whole project imploded.

 

Presumably the new studio working on the sequel (I hear it's the Iron Harvest guys) are following the same guidance...

Edited yesterday at 01:23 AM by Wispy