View Full Version : Official April 2009 White Dwarf (USA 351, UK 352 etc) Feedback Thread

11-03-2009, 19:52
Its time for yet another White Dwarf Feedback thread, this time for the April issue (US 351, UK 352 etc).

If any of you wish to make more general comments about WD, please will you make them in the General White Dwarf Feedback Thread (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23972).

I would like to make a couple of other requests. If you post the score you have given to the current WD on the thread, would you please explain why especially if you have voted 1 or 10. I think this is useful (and interesting) for other WarSeer members reading the thread, it also provides useful feedback for others who read the thread which may include GW Staffers.

The other request is related to the previous one. Do not criticise people for posting their score and views about WD, I believe we are all entitled to voice our opinions without the the fear of them being criticised.

As always, all off-topic posts and spam will be deleted without notice.

The WarSeer Inquisition

17-03-2009, 02:17
War of the Ring brings us extra heapings of LotR this month:
All New Releases are LotR related
On the Web blurbs
Design Notes
Battle Report
Army painting article
Terrain Article
Plastic set ads at the end

Article on Shadowswords with some Apoc sheets
Painting the Stompa
Citadel Hall of Fame: Blanche picks a Jes work for fame status
Wade Pryce's World Eaters of Khrone
Bitz packs
Pictures of some of the IG boxes with a list of releases

Page on the forthcoming Empire Greatswords & Archers, mentions a painting guide too
Lizardmen article
Old War Stories: Dave & Jeremy tell us how to do campaigns

Golden Demon 2009 Rules
Jervis is back with a Reader's edition in Standard Bearer
The Razor Saw is the Hobby Essential this month

Next Month: "The Emperor Needs You!"
IG with sides of War of the Rings an a 'Eavy Metal Masterclass for Warhammer

Have not gotten too indepth yet but it is looking 7ish to me so far.

No user found
17-03-2009, 16:48
I'm not into whfb or lotr so its usefulness would be based entirely on 40k. On my quick flip through, I wasn't(as usual) impressed. Oh but pictures of the boxes for IG, that's worth it right? So WD is another write-off for me.

17-03-2009, 16:57
Liked it. Lots of content...IMO much more content than advertising. It was more WHF and LotR / WotR focused than 40k.

Caveat...it is still not worth $8 an issue.

17-03-2009, 17:04
It was more WHF and LotR / WotR focused than 40k.

Which given last issue was more 40k-focussed than anything else, seems fair enough!

Although it won't stop the 40k fanbois from whinging that GW dared to cover another system within *their* rightful space...


Looking forward to it. :D

17-03-2009, 17:06
Not currently a LotR player, but might try it in the future. Some rally nice pictures of massed battles - never a bad thing!

18-03-2009, 00:25
Not sure if anyone else had a $9 price tag on this issue, but mine certainly does. I've signed up for the 2 year subscription awhile back, so it really blew me away when I noticed it, but I think it's a misprint.

Had to laugh though that I wouldn't put it past GW to jack up their WD price by 100% or so without an announcement :p

18-03-2009, 16:18
I'd give it a 7, solid articles. Yeh I'm not a LotR player but then this isn't 40 and WHFB magazine it's white dwarf so other stuff should get a mention.

Lord Damocles
19-03-2009, 14:36

Editorial - [sigh] At least it's not written by a cartoon anymore... Right?

New Releases - The only non-LoTR release is in fact a re-release of the Marine Veterans (but one of the five is new - go out and buy arm-fulls of them now!)
I will say that I quite like the longer view of some of the previews though; the Empire won't be out until June, but we get a picture of some new models now.

The Great Battle of Our Time (War of the Ring) - I've got no interest in LoTR, but in the interests of fairness, I skimmed through the articles anyway. This one seems OK. Some step-by-step illustrations of some of the game machanics would have been nice for those of us who don't know the difference between a point of Fate and a point of Might.

Liber Apocalyptica - There. Is. Fluff. In. White. Dwarf :eek:
HOWEVER... at the risk of reinforcing my reputation as a cranky fluff-Nazi, there do seem to be some... erm... oddities with the background for the Iron Saint and it's crew:
- '...crewed by a dozen or more men...' - Is it a dozen or is it more? Also, I'd be prepared to bet that most tanks don't have a dedicated catering crew like the Iron Saint seems to have.
- If Baneblades and their varients are so rare and OMG:eek:Awesome, doesn't it seem a bit contradictory to crew them with criminals and other nerdowells?
- If shadowswords are designed to bring down titans, then killing three Stompas doesn't seem all that much to get excited about... especially when on the very same page, it implies that they took out a Gargant.
- Having a 40% rate of friendly fire should have earned the cook a visit from the Commissar.
Oddities asside though, at least it's something; and there's some (more) datasheets for those who like that sort of thing.

Wisdom of the Ancients (Collecting Lizardmen) - Just like last week, I don't see the point of this. There's no real direction to the article (or the series for that matter), and it strays dangerously close to, 'Buy Stegadons!' in places.

Dave and Jerm's Old War Stories - This is OK, but the cynic in me can't help thinking that it exists just to have a, 'We're old timers who have a tendancy to ramble about topics totally unrelated to that at hand - beekeeping for example - oh look! we're rambling now. Isn't this great!' type article.
It's nowhere near as good as that series by someone who's name escapes me about the goings on in their garage as they play games.
It's a nice third plug for Mighty Empires (just in this issue no less!). they must really want to sell more of those sets...

The Battle of Pelenor Fields (Apocarings battle report) - It's easy enough to follow - which is an improvement over last month's fare - and it even kept me interested for long enough to read through it.
It did seem a little unfortunate that the baddies won though, since most of their characters and army had all died.

Standard Bearer - Look away now if you don't want an overdose of nerd rage... :mad:

'...if there's one thing I've learnt over the years it's that... pondering on whether a rule is exactly right, or if it would be fairer if the value of this unit or that unit were adjusted up or down a point or two... is only really of interest to games developers like me and a tiny percentage of the people that play our games...'
Well if there's one thing that I've learnt over the years, it's that Jervis is a chump.

The whole basis of this article is that it doesn't matter if the rules are leakier than the Titanic shortly after encountering that iceberg, because most people (which is about as accurate an assessment of numbers as anything gathered from a poll in 40K General Discussion) don't want them.

Now, while I think it's excellant that the views of readers are expressed in White Dwarf (although I won't be holding my breath for another letter to appear any thime soon), it does seem mightily convenient that this letter just happens to support the point of view which Jervis is always peddling in Standard Bearer - namely that the rules don't really matter, we're all taking it too seriously, true line of sight in 40K is great (Ha!), and that we should all go out and buy Apocalypse. Who wouldn't have prefered to see a letter which challenged some of the recent decisions made by GW? Thus prompting Jervis to have to reply to these concerns?
Or is it just me?

I'm so insensed by the whole thrust of this article (and to be fair, practically every other Standard bearer article :rolleyes:) that, that... I'm going to write a letter. DUR DUR DUR!

(Oh look, and yet another plug for Mighty Empires)

Hobby Essentials (razor saw) - Well at least it isn't as bad as the last time we were told how to use a saw - which provided my favourite ever WD quote: 'The saw is thin and sharp'. No s**t :eyebrows:
Oh, wait no, it says that here too.

Painting Da Stompa - As a companion to last moth's 'Building Da Stompa' it's reasonable. Not much else to say about it really.

Citadel Hall of Fame (John Blanch) - This man is a god. I've gotta get a shrine to him.
Rather than just 'pick a model; any model, then include some other random models', there's a sensible choice, and no other barely related models to fill up the space. Plus we get to see more of Blanche's models (now that would make a good article or series - just pictures of Blanche's armies / models).
Ps. The Relictor Marines is labelled wrong - it's a Reviler.

Army Painting - Much like any of the other 'How to Paint an Army' articles we've had before (but with lots of pictures of LoTR models).

Wade Pryce's World eaters of Khorne - Blimey, non studio armies in WD. That's a novel idea.
This could easily have taken up twice the space that it does here.

War of the Ring Terrain - *More* Apocarings. It's really just a 'how to set up a table' article, which is odd. There's even a distinct lack of, 'Buy plactic terrain!'. Very odd indeed...
Oh, 'The deeping stream was represented bya river that was already incorporated into the table. For gaming purposes it was classed as difficult terrain so movement was doubled when moving over it'. Surely this should read, '...movement was halved...'?

Junk'n'Stuff - Wouldn't we all rather see Golden Deamon entries in the mag as opposed to online or stuffed at the back with all the adverts?

It's certainly not the worst White Dwarf I've ever had the misfortune to have delivered to me - the inclusion of non-studio armies, background, and real people's letters (if it was a real letter that is - it could all be one giant conspiracy) hints at a possible return to some sort of form in the not too distant future.
Then again, it's certainly not the best issue ever - it's too LoTR-centric for me (they should speard coverage of new stuff over several months), and Standard Bearer really got to me. If it wasn't for these, I'd probably give it a 5 (maybe even a 6 :eek:), but as it is I'll have to give it a 4. Which is acually not bad for me...

19-03-2009, 20:11
Agree with the above post about Standard Bearer, im sure alot of people care about the rules of the game. Over the last few years ive been playing more of other companies games because of the rules and thus buy their miniatures, so it does matter.

Overall articles and subjects are alittle more detailed in their telling but not much interest for WFB players (me) and little for 40K. If they havnt much to write about for a system why not put in more fluff, stories, comic, art, SG articles etc....

23-03-2009, 02:44
It's certainly not the worst White Dwarf I've ever had the misfortune to have delivered to me - the inclusion of non-studio armies, background, and real people's letters (if it was a real letter that is - it could all be one giant conspiracy) hints at a possible return to some sort of form in the not too distant future.

That was my letter, so no it was not fake. I stand by what I said as well ;).

Lord Damocles
23-03-2009, 12:38
That was my letter, so no it was not fake. I stand by what I said as well ;).
Good to know that it's not all a sinister conspiracy by shadowy organisations then :p

Don't get me wrong though, I don't think that the views which you expressed were in any way wrong; but at the same time, the views expressed in your letter and by Jervis in pretty much every Standard Bearer article to date are also not the only right views.

The way I look at the situation of GW's rules is that if they provide rules and FAQs etc. which are clear and concise from the outset, then both those people who are willing/able to adapt the rules to suit their own 'basement gaming group' and those who are unable to* can get the most from the game. Whereas if the rules / FAQs are written as they are currently, and the methods for resolving rules disputes (ie RAW) remains as it is, then it's far more difficult for players of certain races to get the most out of the game - which is a great shame.

I might not even mind so much if GW would accept that their rules were often full of holes and balance is but a pipe dream, but the impression which I always get from Standard Bearer in particular is that it's not GW's fault if they allow loopholes to exist in the rules, or obviously broken combinations of wargear/units to exist (lash armies being perhaps the worst offender - the designers just didn't think that people might take double lash... OK...:eyebrows:); but it's our fault as players - who purchase their products - if we don't go out of our way to correct GW's own mistakes.

Then again, I play Blood Angels, Necrons, Deamonhunters, and Whitchhunters, so perhaps I'm just bitter...

*if, for example, I go into my local GW store and anounce to an opponant that my Necrons only suffer a -1 penalty when rolling on the vehicle damage table for a glancing hit to offset the fact that they now require over 70 hits from Gauss Flayers to stop a RHINO, which is contrary to how they were intended to work when the codex was released (almost a decade ago with no updates :rolleyes:), it's not likely to go down well as I'm likely to be playing a relative stranger in a pickup game.

25-03-2009, 20:06
Good to know that it's not all a sinister conspiracy by shadowy organisations then :pAssuming of course that "AgeOfEgos" actually exists as a real person, and isn't just a front for the shadowy GW conspirators...

Finn Sourscowl
25-03-2009, 20:34
I don't play LotR, but I still really enjoyed this month's WD. It has a bit of everything (although I agree that the Lizardmen article was a bit... random!) and more text than in the bad old days of a couple of years ago. This is a good thing.

I'd like to see a bit more like the "old timers" style articles (something with an odd slant to it), but everything else in there had a place, more or less, and I'm looking forward to the Guard issue next month... it's been a while since one of my armies had an update!

27-03-2009, 12:54
I gave it a 2, purely the due to the Lotr coverage and the reason I only play WFB and 40k and SG, and just to p*** off Osbad :p.

Break down: -

Lotr - Didnt read

40k - Apoc stuff ok, Iron Saint stats

WFB - Lizard Men stuff, pretty good

120 pages total

Around 60 pages devoted to Lotr

My advice only get it if you play Lotr, you are not missing anything else, I though they would have done a sneak peak IG article like they used to do.

I would really like GW to do a survey of WD readers and find out the percentages of what games the readers play, I think it would provide some interesting results

27-03-2009, 13:20
I dont play LotR, and still found it an ejoyable read overall.

Yes the LotR bits were a bit strange for me, but nice to read about the new stuff without being frothed over by a redshirt. The WFB and 40K stuf was Ok, but I felt the Standard Bearer this month was poor. I love Jervis, but RIcks ramblings last month were so much more entertaining...

THe return of an article like the Jerm and Dave's, and non Studio / staff armies is definitely a 'Good Thing'

I spent more time reading this issue than many in recent months, so a solid 8

28-03-2009, 00:00
7 for me. Jervis is getting rather tedious, but the rest was worth the entry fee.

And they devoted only half the magazine to promoting a brand new GAME. OMG!! A whole new game (not just a codex) and they still found room in the magazine for other stuff! Well wadya know!

Seriously, GW produce a whole new game, and people are complaining that there is a substantial proportion of WD dedicated to it? Jeez Louise!!

Compare this to issue 316 when the entire issue was dedicated to 1 new model and I think this can be acknowledged as a more proportionate response!

28-03-2009, 00:06
A solid seven for me, I don't play Lord of the Rings but the coverage was good. My favorite part was the two new datasheets, the titankiller looks like some serious fun. The empire painting guide was something I had never heard of until reading white dwarf, something that hasn't happened since I started using Warseer.

29-03-2009, 12:26
This massive battle game options are getting ridicously out of hand. WOTR appears to be a mishmash of WFB rules, were all they have really done is added the full command to all units now, thus transforming lotr into a rubbish version of WFB, and I do mean rubbish version.
By the way the Magazine was again below par, considering it costs $11.95 AU money.

Foolish Mortal
30-03-2009, 18:23
If I had to give this a personal rating, then it would have been about a 2 - 3 max. I'm not a huge fan of WFB, and LoTR really does nothing for me at all - no disrepect to the game it's just the background I don't like, and even after all this time, it still feels like GW's red headed stepchild.

For this poll, however I gave it a 7 - why?, well, the content may not have been to my taste, but at least there was content.

Main points for me:

Titan killer - interesting, if a little 'comic' with the crew names.

Painting the stompa - some nice tips for tackling this monster!!

Hall of fame - love him or hate him, the man can paint.

Army spotlight - nice to see 'real' armies for a change.

Bad points:

Army spotlight - finding out it is only an irregular series.

Hobby essentials - saws are sharp....wow, just....wow!

The rest........meh!!

If it carries on like this, maybe there is hope for WD.

31-03-2009, 04:30
Ugh. This one was bad.

The majority of the issue is LotR - War of the Rings. Maybe I am wrong, but number of players should not support the amount of the magazine that was dedicated in that direction. (I also grow weary of the LotR support, but that is getting OTT.)

The letter Jervis shares in his standard bearer article alienates tournament players and competitive gamers alike. Very poorly worded. I understand that the goal was to say that GW supports basement and 'for fun and fluff' players, but he stepped well beyond that line almost insinuating that they are playing the game 'better' than the tournament ilk.

The single article I enjoyed in this issue was the Apocalypse tank and formation. The ability to shift damage from your shadowsword to accompanying LRBT's? Sweet!

31-03-2009, 09:42
Another solid 7 here.

It lasted me more then 15 minutes, which is a good sign. I read it on and off due to public transportation, but I think it lasted me an hour or so, which is pretty good.

Despite not being into WFB or LotR, I enjoyed those articles anyway. The War of the ring 'interview' annoyed me a bit, as they kept telling us how enthousiastic or animated the interviewees were. I'm sure they're happy with a job well done, but it's completely unnecesarry and I doubt anyone will be swayed to play the game because its developers are happy people.
The Dave and Jeremy segment was nice to read and a welcome new series of articles; love for the hobby was underexposed previously, and these guys seems to have bucketloads.

7 euros 50 is something I'll never understand though. It's rediculous.

The Muster of Rohan
31-03-2009, 13:33
I found this issue of White Dwarf to be as distinctly average as usual. The War of the Ring coverage was more or less what I'd expect, with the battle report a predictable low point - I really would have liked to see a smaller-scale game played which showed how important movement and manouevring are without it being swamped beneath impossible to interpret pictures and maps. The design notes were workaday, failing to give any insight into the design ethos, beyond "big games rule".

I have little interest in Apocalypse, but I found the background to the Shadowsword commander amusing. More original background in White Dwarf please! The Stompa painting guide...less impressive. Good detail on tchniques and ideas, but the overall finish of the Stompa just looked rubbish.

The Lizardmen article seemed to exist only so that Warhammer was represented - which is fair enough, but surely they could have come up with something more interesting? Even a few pages about the Studio "Arena of Death" tournament rather than a box-out would have been an improvement.

I did rather enjoy the article on army painting.

02-04-2009, 15:01
I gave this issue a 2.
In my opinion it was the worst issue of the last 6 months.
I'm a fantasy player, but, funnily enough I have enjoyed 40k themed issues more than fantasy ones lately (january -2nd wave orcs sticking out in my mind as the most enjoyable of the latest ones).

The major culprit is of course the battle report. This had the potential to be really entertaining, but failed big time.

I know it's cliche to compare today's (generally awful) battle reports, to the entertaining ones of issues from the past, but I want to make a point.

Battle reports that are introducing a new game have the potential to be really good. I (very fondly) remember the one when necromunda was released, or when epic was re-released for its last time (a classic jervis vs chambers affair with imperial fists taking on orcs).
Both of those, were very good, and succeeded in making a new release look very attractive. They showed exactly how the game was played, making the reader instantly familiar with the new games' mechanics.

The report in this month's issue is a big failure. In fact, I believe, it is so bad that can actually make people who were considering buying War of the Ring turn away.

Mat Ward has shown time and time again that he completely lacks imagination. He approaches games as rulesets, with the mentality of an accountant, not a gamer. Suspension of disbelief (very important for immersion and enjoyment of the hobby) is impossible with any product he touches.

Other lowlights of this issue was the miniature hall of fame (an article that I really enjoyed in the last few months), and, of course, standard bearer. It's obvious that Jervis cannot find interesting things to say every month, this month he had to copy a reader's letter to fill his word quota. They should only feature his ramblings whenever he feels inspired and not force him to write crap every month.

The only reason this issue got a 2 (and not a 1) is the campaign article and wade pryce's inspiring world eaters army. I'm one of the people who think that white dwarf had been improving lately, however this issue is really bad.

I would suggest you avoid buying it.

02-04-2009, 15:43
I really didnt enjoy it at all.

Lord of the Rings stuff was ****, it the designers notes seemed to be quite shallow, actually focusing on what we could do rather than why we could do it.

battle report. One thing Latham and his crew need to get into their heads is that just shoving enough models to give a rhino a hernia onto a table does not make a good battle report. When I read a battle report, I actually want to see what tactics are employed and why they work, rather than "put down you bucket full of models and charge". It was the same last month with the apocalypse battle report and the month before with the frankly apalling lizardman report. It seems that rolling bucketfuls of dice is preferable to people having to think in these reports.

New stuff: Ent is nice and will be in my wood elf army before long, but aside from that, crap. And why are WD showing a thunderhawk and ork warboss on the foreworld new releases page, instead of the beautiful brass scorpion?

Empire preview was too brief, but the archers look sweet.

Leiber apocalypica: I love this series, but I didnt like this section.The domination force, I get the idea behind it, it just seems a little contrived to basically bounce shots off a shadowsword onto a russ, its effectively 3 extra structure points.

Wisdom of the ancients: Im sorry, what was this about?

Old war stories: Although I dont care about someone else's campain for a system I barely play, this does show some promise as long as they remember to do some stuff for 40k. And its an irregular series :rolleyes:

Standard bearer: again, dont care. Jervis, I think, is wheeled out at every full moon, asked to type an article and then locked back up under Rick Priestly's office. These articles seem to achieve nothing other than more pimpage of the release of the month.

Hobby essentials: I had to read it to believe it.

Ork stompa: The only redeeming feature of the magazine.

Army painting: read: You need to buy more models.

Army masters: Anyone spot the deliberate mistake of having a unit of 9 chaos terminators and then a unit of 7? Surely in a Khorne army, it should be 2 units of 8? Aside from that, interesting article, although a how to on some of his conversions would have been nice. Again, though, an irregular article. :rolleyes:

War of the rings terrain: Another excuse to show big army pictures.

Overall, really, really not impressed. The two articles showing promise are irregular ones, the only decent article was a painting one :eek:

If he doesnt buck his ideas up, Im going to have some very difficult questions for Mr Latham come Gamesday 09

Edit: I've avoided commenting on the hall of fame article simply because I know people on here have way too much respect for the man and I dont want to get harassed for months.

Lord Damocles
02-04-2009, 16:16
And why are WD showing a thunderhawk and ork warboss on the foreworld new releases page, instead of the beautiful brass scorpion?
It might be that because White Dwarf is written so far in advance of release, the Scorpion wasn't finished when it was written?
Just a thought.

The Thunderhawk is probably there because:
3) Need to sell more resin 'Hawks before the plastic one is released

Damien 1427
04-04-2009, 21:32
Maybe it's because I've been out of the loop for a while now, but I didn't mind this. It was nice to get a vague glimpse inside the minds behind WotR, but that's all it was, a vague glimpse. Something a bit meatier would have been prefered. A bit more of the why, less of "big battles are great". A bit more explaination of the rules would be nice, too.

The guide to army painting wasn't too bad, a few basic tips, and the Paint Stick idea is one I haven't heard before, but I'll be swiping.

The battle report actually was read for a change. Not that bad, could have done with a bit more text and a lot less massive pictures. I do agree that a smaller scale game to "get to know" the system would have been better though, with maybe progressively larger games building up to a massive battle in two or three months.

Overall, an alright introduction and a nifty recap for those of us lost in Darkest Essex. But the cover price is obscene. But then again, most magazines are priced in that area these days.

06-04-2009, 07:42
Worst White Dwarf in the last 3 years.

War of the Ring meh. Just another way to try and prop up a system that noone I have ever met has ever played. Where do The LOTR players hide as I have never seen one ever! Never even met one in a store where they sell it.

I expected a preview for IG but nothing there.

Shadowsword article was good as were the couple of fantasy articles.

Standard bearer was full of filler as Jervis has even run out of nothingness to say. I liked the letter Ryan writes and fully agree with him. However I doubt GW will take him seriously as he represents the mature/adult gamers who are the majority who play GW games.

Unfortunately the few good things in this WD (White Hobbit more like) were dragged down by Apocalypse of the Rings.

WD 1.5/10 (could be a minimum 5 every month if they got rid of LOTR) Only reason it got 1.5 was it had John Blanch in it.

06-04-2009, 09:37
eight from me, a new game system is always exciting, especially for Games Workshop's (in my opinion) nicest range of minis,

06-04-2009, 17:40
Worst White Dwarf in the last 3 years.

War of the Ring meh. Just another way to try and prop up a system that noone I have ever met has ever played. Where do The LOTR players hide as I have never seen one ever! Never even met one in a store where they sell it.

Well there was quite a lot at The Great Devourer tournament a couple of weeks ago.... and the fair few I know.... and the ones down at my local GW..... and the quite large number that go LOTR GT (100+ this year). So not really hiding

Unfortunately the few good things in this WD (White Hobbit more like) were dragged down by Apocalypse of the Rings.

WD 1.5/10 (could be a minimum 5 every month if they got rid of LOTR) Only reason it got 1.5 was it had John Blanch in it.


Anywho, It was about the same as previous months to me, ok but not really worth it. Its an average read I for when your on the toilet but I never pick them up to read again. I'll give it a 5 i'd say.


12-04-2009, 15:47
A few thoughts:

I don't play LotR, but I read the articles and found them a waste of time.

The Stompa looked better without the paint.

The Iron Saint background was kinda fun.

I don't really see the purpose of the Standard Bearer column - so he printed a huge letter (a lot of which I agree with), but still had to temper it with telling us 'basement gamers' to get out there and hit up the tournaments. No thanks, I'll leave that to those that enjoy that kind of thing and they can leave me to my side of the hobby.

13-04-2009, 02:41
I rated it a 8.

My favourite game is LOTR and there where some good articles fot the new expansion. Also the old gamers Warhammer campaign thing, article with a normal gamers armys:O and the armie painiting article were also great.

13-04-2009, 11:30
Going by the old-style ratings, I'd give it a 2 or 3, but given the current standard of WDs, I gave it a 6 because it actually held my interest for a day or so.

However, there were a couple of very negative points that brought down the score for me.

1. Designer notes: They really need to drop the "interview" style, it just comes off as contrived, adds nothing and results in a disjointed article. Considering they were the thoughts of the designers, they had nothing much to say that a cursory read of the rules book wouldn't have told you already. Is it too much to ask that design notes give you an insight into the mind of the designers? Having read that article, I was none the wiser about the state of WotR. Also, go online for expanded design notes? What did I just pay 4.50 for then??

2. Battle report: Sadly, following the trend of Apocalypse, this was a complete mess. Very difficult to follow what was going on, or to discern any tactics, if indeed there were any. They really needed to hold off the battle for a few months, and the first WotR battle should have been a small scale affair, where the action was clear and the mechanics transparent. Once again, I wasn't much the wiser about how WotR worked, so as an intro battle report, it failed badly in this respect.

3. Standard bearer: Any lingering respect I had left for Jervis is now well and truly gone. His columns have been awful, patronising rubbish recenty, and this was the worst of the lot. He couldn't even be bothered to write half the article, instead publishing a letter that coincidentally agreed with him and the company line. Once again, this was GW showing a complete disregard for the customers, and TELLING us what we want instead of giving us what we want. It happened with the last chaos codex, and by this evidence, GW hasn't learned. In any other business, this would be commercial suicide, and I'll be interested to see what effects, if any, it might have on GW. Pompous drivel. Jervis, man, you used to be cool.

Still, a few nice painting articles, the Apoc feature was interesting and fairly well written, the campaign article was good, too, and the Khorne army showcase was fun, though as already mentioned, could have taken up twice the room it did.

15-04-2009, 12:25
I've only read a couple of articles so far, but I see several others I will be reading. And it has lots of pretty pictures. A pretty good issue from my perspective.

Lord of Worms
09-05-2009, 13:06
I would have given it a 5 (the only thing that redeemed it for me was the Shadowsword stuff), but I'm so sick of the low quality overall I gave it a one. I actually resolved to never buy another issue again and just read them in the store. It seems all ive been paying $10 for in the last couple years was advertising and apocalypse datasheets...both of which I can find online.:rolleyes: Do the powers that be even realize how crappy this magazine is now?

Edit: Upon flicking through the "General WD Feedback" thread, I realise to my dismay that people have been complaining about this for about 3-4 years now. Damn.