They'll look like this, without the band on the bottom.

Pictures

The text is from an archive in Wisconsin, with just the advertisements for old addresses at the back changed.

They're 'looking at' their back catalog, in terms of reprints.

If someone posted this stuff here before me, lemme know. I'll replace this with a funny picture of a cat, or something.

Hm. That might just be a mockup as well.

Look rather...tasteless. But anyhow, good they are back in print.

Interesting combo of the 1e and 3e covers. At least they didn't use the first printing 1e covers, those were God-awful.

Quote from: danbuter;510179Interesting combo of the 1e and 3e covers. At least they didn't use the first printing 1e covers, those were God-awful.

I certainly can understand not liking the original 1e Monster Manual cover (I'm not a fan myself), but the original 1e cover of the Player's Handbook by Dave Trampier is without parallel in its sublime excellence and representation of the essence of AD&D.

I also very much like the original Dungeon Master's Guide cover, but can understand why some people don't.

Quote from: Kaldric;510167They'll look like this, without the band on the bottom.

Pictures

The text is from an archive in Wisconsin, with just the advertisements for old addresses at the back changed.

They're 'looking at' their back catalog, in terms of reprints.

If someone posted this stuff here before me, lemme know. I'll replace this with a funny picture of a cat, or something.

It looks like the limited edition covers will keep a small part of the original covers (the thieves on the idol from the PHB, and part of the Efreet from DMG).

I can't make out the MM at all...

Quote from: Akrasia;510211I can't make out the MM at all...

It is the red dragon from the 1e Monster Manual first printing.

Quote from: Akrasia;510211It looks like the limited edition covers will keep a small part of the original covers (the thieves on the idol from the PHB, and part of the Efreet from DMG).

I can't make out the MM at all...

on my forum there are two images; the monster manual cover is a tight cropping of the 1e MM red dragon.

Disliking the 1e MM cover is fine; even Sutherland thought it looked terrible but the PHB and DMG are great.

They dont look that bad though i hope thats a leatherette brown cover and not just a brown leather effect print as the reprints deserve a decent cover if they're limited editions.

Quote from: Broken-Serenity;510214They dont look that bad though i hope thats a leatherette brown cover and not just a brown leather effect print as the reprints deserve a decent cover if they're limited editions.

Yeah, some high gloss paper, cockroach-wing-colored mess isn't really what I want in my AD&D reprints, thanks.  I have some 3e books already.

I like them. Nicely respectful of the old covers whilst sidestepping any issues with them.

They look good. This approach ticks the boxes for me.

I don't like the fact that they extirpated "Advanced" from the cover.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;510240I don't like the fact that they extirpated "Advanced" from the cover.

Well technically it's not "Advanced" compared to 3rd and 4th ed, in both senses, I mean, in terms of the complexity of the system and in historical terms as well. In fact, or rather, it's 3rd ed that should have been called "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd edition" and 4e that should have been called "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 4th edition". That's what the 3 and 4 actually mean: they succeeded AD&D 2nd edition, in fact.

So I can understand the idea of just dropping the "Advanced", following that logic.

Quote from: Benoist;510244So I can understand the idea of just dropping the "Advanced", following that logic.

Ben I'm not picking on you here but by that logic Ballentine could drop the "Lord" part of Lord of the Rings I mean because really by this time so many people have read it that the question of who is the "Lord" is really not so clear cut; Sauron, of course, made the Ring and Gandalf cautions Merry and Pippin at the Grey Council in Rivendell when they say "Make way for Frodo, Lord of the Ring!" that there's only one "Lord of the Rings".  I mean, Bilbo had it for fifty, sixty years and was it's master, but Gollum had it for an entire age, then Frodo and indeed Sam for a short period; Galadriel wears a Ring, as does Gandalf.  So why not just call it ...Of the Ring?  Really clears things up, yeah?

Oh wait, I know why!

BECAUSE IT ISN'T THE NAME THE FUCKING AUTHOR GAVE THE FUCKING BOOK.

(I am not yelling at you, it just grinds my damn gears is all.)