D&D 5E Which Is Better: Regular or Alternate Cover Art For Theros?

Here's a look at the full art pieces for the covers of Mythic Odysseys of Theros. The first is the regular, and the second is the alternate cover. Which is better?

​

 

[Sadras]

Regular, like my bowels.

 

[JeffB]

On the original cover-The spear lines up just fine with the Hydra head second to the left (the head "closest" to the viewer") Lines up with it's cheek/start of neck. The problem is the hero is looking further to the right and pointing that way. That is what makes it look "off"

As a former bowhunter and archery competitor this does not bug me nearly as much as the gazillions of artists who have no idea on which side of a bow riser the arrow should rest on the shelf (or hand ). You'd think artists would look at some people actually shooting a bow.

:end nitpicks:

 

[Ringtail]

As for which book I would rather own, I think I prefer the original cover.

The Alternate Artwork looks very cool, but I don't like the way the title and text on it looks (on WotC site.) It would make an awesome poster though.

 

[WisdomOfWombats]

Alternate. Reminds me of the covers of old Sci Fi and Fantasy Novels.

 

[Iry]

If you look at the illustration carefully, the hydra is drawn with exaggerated perspective, one of it's heads is a lot closer to the viewpoint. The hero could be aiming directly at the side of that head, but without scale reference points it's impossible to tell.

On the original cover-The spear lines up just fine with the Hydra head second to the left (the head "closest" to the viewer") Lines up with it's cheek/start of neck.

If the left head is looking at the hero then it would be behind the hero (just closer than it's other heads). If the left head is parallel to the hero, then its attacking the air for no visible reason. Since all the other heads are looking at the hero, except the two furthest back (eating a column, etc), I don't think the left head is parallel to the hero.

 

[dave2008]

The background on the alt cover is too saturated in color. Details are lost.
The first one doesn't drive me crazy either, but the book cover has the image cropped too tight for the actual cover.
I don't know what's happening over at WotC but they're really missing the mark for covers lately.
Wildemount looks terrible and cartoony.
Eberron was not good at all.
Hopefully it's just a phase.

I love the alt Eberron cover, it was the first alt cover I purchased. The wildemount cover is in the CR style, so that makes sense to me, and I like both of these. They are not great, but I would enjoy having either one.

 

[dave2008]

If the left head is looking at the hero then it would be behind the hero (just closer than it's other heads). If the left head is parallel to the hero, then its attacking the air for no visible reason. Since all the other heads are looking at the hero, except the two furthest back (eating a column, etc), I don't think the left head is parallel to the hero.

But think about it in motion. The scene makes sense to me, except you would get more force in the through if you are on the ground and not leaping. Of course that is not as epic, or should I say "mythic!"

 

[jayoungr]

The alternate cover is cool, no doubt about that, but the regular one edges it out by a whisker. The starry voidy-ness of the creature contrasted with the serene classical landscape really catches my interest.

I bought the alternate cover of the Eberron book--that was a no-brainer. And I also got the alternate cover of Descent into Avernus.

 

[Iry]

But think about it in motion.

Thinking about it in motion doesn't make the perspective issues any better to me.

 

[dave2008]

Thinking about it in motion doesn't make the perspective issues any better to me.

Motion changes the perspective relationship though - that is my point