PDA

View Full Version : Official June 2010 White Dwarf (USA 365, UK 366 etc) Feedback Thread



Wintermute
25-05-2010, 19:59
Its time for yet another White Dwarf Feedback thread, this time for the June issue (US 365, UK 366 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.

Wintermute
The WarSeer Inquisition

Aedes
26-05-2010, 02:17
Well, the new WD was better than last months one-- but that was
not really hard to do. :rolleyes:
I gave it a 6-- as always I liked the painting guides, and I also liked the
tactica for the new Blood Angels (after I just started a new army).
I dont have any vehicles and dont like tanks-- so the spearhead expansion
was not really useful for me, but I think it is great to have an expansion
in WD instead of an expensive extra rule book.
I am also very curious towards the new Fantasy rule book....:D

Lord Damocles
26-05-2010, 16:51
'Drive me closer, so I can hit them with my sword!'


Editorial - Rather than telling us anything about yourself, mister new editor person, how about you just list the contents of this month's issue? Ah, excellent.
Poor

News/New Releases - Throughout this issue, numerous mentions will be made of how there are lots of new kits/vehicles released this month. Those of us able to count will quickly realise that there are a grand total of FOUR new releases (one of which isn't a tank); which isn't actually all that impressive as new releases go...
Quote of the month: 'An omnibus of revised editions of the fan-favourite novels, Warrior Brood and warrior Coven...' Yeah. Everyone loved those god-awful novels so much, that they had to 'revise' them before re-release :shifty:
OK

Tank Shock (new vehicles) - There's a lot of waffle here without anything much actually being said.
I like how the Russ is described as being 'backwards', despite being an STC design from the Golden Age of Technology...

The Russ sprue breakdown is pretty pointless (oh look, it's just like the Demolisher but with different guns...), and as much as I like new rules in White Dwarf, the Night Spinner is a bit pointless (20pts for vectored Engines on an artillery tank? Really?) considering the 'backwards' tanks of the Imperium get better results from lobbing explosive shells at the enemy...:eyebrows:
Poor

Spearhead - Wow, great; Spearhead! I can't wait to play! I've got all my Baneblades out ready! All I need is to read the rules here... oh, wait... no... THE RULES ARE ONLINE!?!

SERIOUSLY?!?*

If a significant chunk of the rules (Spearhead Formations) are online, why bother putting the other parts in White Dwarf at all?

Also, if the sample Tankhunter Spearhead is anything to go by, some races *cough*Dark Eldar*cough* are royally screwed by not having any Tanks in their list :rolleyes:

As I've siad before, I generally like having new rules in White Dwarf, but if you have to go online anyway, what's the bleedin' point?
OK

LoTR Reinforcements - Last month it got nearly the whole mag, this month: 4 pages. Hmm...
New rules: good, inability to balance coverage of different systems: bad.
Good

War is Coming (Fantasy preview) - Does that warhammer have rocket trusters?
'Warhammer has evolved and we'll be here to cover the event as it unfolds' - Somebody should point out that this isn't Sky News. I can tell you now what this means: a list of some of the changes to the rules with a developer telling us how awesome they are without explaining why they were changed, lots of pictures of models we've all seen before, several double-page spreads of advertising Fantasy models, lots of pictures of models we've all seen before, a [huge and most likely unbalanced] battle report.
OK

On Wings of Blood (Blood Angels Tactica) - 'Everthings great. Take all of it'.
Poor

Liber Apocalyptica - Let me get this right... Pask has an ICBM fitted with a vortex warhead, the Eldar shields are down, and he knows where the alien tower-thingy is. Yet he opts to send in wave after wave of men and tanks to get killed, only firing his missile at the last second after most of his men are dead, why exactly? :confused:

The actual datasheets are OK if you're one of those people who plays Apocalypse and happens to own multiples of each of the new kits I suppose...
OK

The Battle of Phantomfall (Spearhead Battle Report) - There are a few 'interesting' choices in army selection (21 Guardian Jetbikes, but no Shuriken Cannons?), and some stupid moves in-game ('I'll just Deep Strike my Swooping Hawks right next to this lump of Guardsmen. What could possibly go wrong?' :rolleyes:)

I really wish White Dwarf would just feature a nice normal, 1500pt game not using the studio armies.
Poor

Standard Bearer - Jervis likes tanks. Buy tanks (I'm sure this revelation coinciding with the release of Spearhead is just one big coincidence).
Poor

Tusk and Gore (Orc Boarboys and River Trolls) - I like the new Trolls (although for that price they should be good models...), but most of the pictures in this 'article' lacked any real point (the 'Bitz Packs' boxout isn't even anything to do with the featured kits!)
OK

Modelling Workshop - Spearhead - We've seen this before in the Apoc rulebook, in codexes, and in past White Dwarves.
At least they've finally fixed the Smove Launcher on Calgar's Land Raider though.
Poor

Citadel Hall of Fame (Seb Perbet) - '...those initial Fellowship [of the Ring] models remain my favourites...' followed by, 'I've actually chosen a Hobbit figure that wasn't part of the fellowship at all...'. Now can anybody spot the obvious idiocy here?
Poor

Golden Demon Categories/Usual pointless bunk - Yeah. Erm... yeah.
Poor


*Sigh*
Andrew kenrick (you know, Andrew kenick. The new editor. The one we know nothing about. Yeah, him) started this issue by saying that, 'This issue exemplifies one of the things that I've always loved about White Dwarf: that I revisit the articles again and again'. I'm going to end this post by saying, 'You're wrong'. :(

A 3 from me this month.


*Punctuation overload, I know.

Finn Sourscowl
26-05-2010, 16:54
Flopped on the doormat this morning...

A quick skim through shows quite a fair amount of new stuff rules-wise, which should be interesting (Spearhead AND Liber Apocalyptica)...

One thing struck me (hence the post before I've actually read it) - there are no prices anywhere - not just in the new section at the front.

Nothing. Nowhere.

Anyone know why???

EmperorNorton
26-05-2010, 17:43
Unlike Jervis, I don't like tanks.
Unlike Jervis, I'm not too fond of Jervis, either.
This issue was a complete waste of time for me. The redeeming factor is that it didn't cost me more than two minutes flipping through it to assess that.

Mojaco
26-05-2010, 18:55
Can my Tyranids play along? Seems to me spearhead is just about tanks, while ignoring Tyranid's equivalents; monsters. Makes me sad :( There's hope though; with half the rules online, there might be something in there to help out.

Nice issue so far. Damocles is a bit too skeptical imo, but I can't echo the plead for 1500 pt battlereports with non-studio armies enough. I'm sick of seeing the studio armies over and over, while there's so many beautiful personal armies (even in GW's very own building, they just need to walk down the corridor). They also suffer from a distinct lack of theme, wheras well done personal armies usually ooze theme and character. I can't see why GW won't do it either. Just demand some new models to be painted up for the report and they'd be set.

Anyway, more about this issue. The new releases look really good, each tempting for me to buy. Eldar support weapons will likely be first. Too bad the didn't post the rules from these models, now I have to look for my codex :(

Spearhead looks like fun. I especially like deploying on the short table edges. However, putting a vital part online AND not having it ready at time of publishing is just stupid. If all twelve formations look like the one provided it would use just 6 pages. Drop the pointless leman russ sprue pictures and you're halfway there.

The Warhammer preview does its job of making me excited, but why no pictures of page spreads, or a small hint to the rules. Why these (old?) photos of models we already know. With 528 pages there should be plenty of new stuff to show off, so do so.

Still, a nice issue to have. A solid 6. Make a change to more personal armies and models and it'll quickly be a 7 or 8.

Wintermute
26-05-2010, 19:39
One thing struck me (hence the post before I've actually read it) - there are no prices anywhere - not just in the new section at the front.

Nothing. Nowhere.

Anyone know why???

There is a very simple answer to this question, at the time of sending the previous issue and this issue to the printers, GW didn't know what the prices would be due to the impending price rises.

Wintermute

Art Is Resistance
26-05-2010, 21:34
So,

After a couple of months looking forward to this issue, for the Spearhead supplement, how did I feel when I opened the magazine?

Ripped.Off.

If you advertise a 'brand new rules supplement in WD!' do so. Don't put half of it online, put it all in WD.

The rest of the magazine is a joke as well. The repeated shots fo the same kits, Jervis fankly laughable attempt at hiding the 'buy tanks!!!1!!!' in a poor excuse for an article. The sneak peek at WFB8 which is, well, a picture that's been seen before. Compare this with the previews that preceded WOTR, and you can see who has been mugged.

OK, so we get a few new data sheets (though some seemed familiar? Are they reprints with new models?), and a half baked article about the new boarboys.

This is not good GW. Not good enough by far.

A very generous 4 - and that's for the army list entry for the Night Spinner alone.

Grimstonefire
27-05-2010, 22:49
Quick question, what are the floating things supposed to be on page 48? I would have said something Tzeentchy, but this is Empire V Orcs.

Roks maybe?? ;)

Not a fan of tanks, or LOTR, so this was not a good magazine for me. Looking forwards to next months though.

Justicar Valius
27-05-2010, 23:39
They tried to make DH/WH codecies going Pdf sound like a good thing :wtf:

it gets a solid 3 from me (the nightspinner entry was quite good) and also this is an expansion being released in WD, except its not got many of the rules in. come on!

plantagenet
28-05-2010, 10:14
Unfortuantly if you are a warhammer fantasy player you should probably give this issue a big miss. I gave this issue a 3

For 40k players and LoTR there is more going on. But a lack of decent neutral documents, i.e. modellign or great painting guides meant this issue for me failed to deliver. The WHFB 4 page build up added very little. It would have been nice to see some interviews here with desginers. A look back on Warhammer version 7 its highs and lows and why they company felt it was time to change. They need to pick the editorial level of this magazine up and get some real content into it again. The look at the Boars and new Trolls in the back I felt was also particularly lacking and is actually covered in better detail on the website.

Oh well at least the next issue will have lots of pictures of the new fantasy in it. I just hope they can get some decent text content to accompany it.

Johann Fellhammer
28-05-2010, 12:11
I quite liked this WD, seems an improvement over the last 50 or so. I actually spend more than the usual 15 minutes reading it.

Likes:
Blood Angel Tactica (could have been more indept, but still)
Spearhead (but please, next time, print ALL the rules)

Dislikes:
Lack of featured armies, by other gamers/hobbiest. There is so much cool stuff out there, we want to see it!

Chris_Tzeentch
28-05-2010, 12:17
I cant find anything about Spearheads on the GW website at all, so this WD and Spearhead seems utterly pointless at the moment. It makes total sense to me to put the Spearhead rules online when they are distributing WD so that everyone has access to all the rules. Epic Fail.

As for the WD? Pretty poor all things considered, wouldn't disagree with anything above. I give it a generous 4.

edit : I found the Spearhead stuff online eventually. It is there, just not remotely easy to find. Slightly less Epic Fail!

DarthSte
28-05-2010, 12:57
edit : I found the Spearhead stuff online eventually. It is there, just not remotely easy to find. Slightly less Epic Fail!

Could you link it please, I couldn't find them...


If you advertise a 'brand new rules supplement in WD!' do so. Don't put half of it online, put it all in WD.

Exactly my thoughts, I was very disappointed. I was expecting much more from it, like even a seperate supplement magazine, you know like they used to do...


The Russ sprue breakdown is pretty pointless (oh look, it's just like the Demolisher but with different guns...),

I was expecting a break down of the Eldar kit instead. Would have been slighty more interesting...

Osbad
28-05-2010, 14:07
Spearhead link

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=9800021a&utm

burni
28-05-2010, 19:50
I enjoy reading this thread every month even though I never buy WD.

But I wanted to point out that in the very first announcement of Spearhead, GW said it would be a combined WD and website effort, so we can't say we weren't warmed about that from the get go :)

Still might buy this issue - first in quite sometime.

Thanks for the reports! :)

tiger g
28-05-2010, 21:29
not much to read

IAMNOTHERE
28-05-2010, 21:41
40k player here and a tread head to boot. I voted 8 because it was head and shoulders above more recent editions. Essentially I'll read most of the magazine.

Bigbot
29-05-2010, 12:14
I enjoyed the issue. though there were large apges of photos and not much else (the spearhead guides for different armies was laughable.

Good:
Spearhead (yes half of it was online but as stated, we were warned months before).
Battle report - I enjoyed it, so sobody made a silly mistake and put hawks next to guardsmen. You telling me you've NEVER made a mistake in a game?
Liber apoclyptica - gotta love those data sheets.
LOTR - yeh I'm not a huge fan but rules in white dwarf is a bonus and it was consise and didn't seem like a waste of space.

OK:
Golden deamon 2010 didn't really say much but I know we have one every year in the run up and to be fair, newer players need to know it.

New editor - meh he's ok

BA tactica - yep buy moar! still a few good tactics in there so I know what to avoid.

Poor:
Standard bearer - began really nicely and then halfway through became really preachy. I just wish Johnson would write what he thinks for once without doing the hard sell and sounding so forced.

Troll modelling guide - in honesty I would have rpeferred a straight painting guide than this, it didn't really tell me anything

spearhead formations - yes! we have BIIIG pictures of tanks and it doesn't really tell us much, so clearly a space wastig article.


No comment: I don't know why people moan about the stuff at the back and the front it's been there for so long and it tells you addresses, clubs and releases. Amount of times i'm used it is rediculous when trying to find a store in a new city.

Overall a 7 from me.

Malakai
29-05-2010, 15:33
There is a very simple answer to this question, at the time of sending the previous issue and this issue to the printers, GW didn't know what the prices would be due to the impending price rises.

Wintermute

White Dwarf U.S. hasn't had prices listed in it for nearly a year.

Spectrar Ghost
29-05-2010, 17:57
My understanding is there was a gaffe in which the printed prices were not the prices the kits were listed at at release, and WD has (wisely) not allowed that mistake to happen again.

Thoras
29-05-2010, 21:08
'Drive me closer, so I can hit them with my sword!'


Editorial - Rather than telling us anything ... *SNIP*
*Sigh*
Andrew kenrick (you know, Andrew kenick. The new editor. The one we know nothing about. Yeah, him) started this issue by saying that, 'This issue exemplifies one of the things that I've always loved about White Dwarf: that I revisit the articles again and again'. I'm going to end this post by saying, 'You're wrong'. :(

A 3 from me this month.




Basically, mostly this (well what Lord Damocles said). Spearhead was ok, night spinner rules good for me as an Eldar player, but a lot of the other material was pretty garbage.

Lowlight for me were the spearhead design notes, the free to view post they stuck on the website not so long ago on the development of the new fire prism was a hell of a lot more insightful on the design process (for reference here, http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=10500090a).

Skaven13
29-05-2010, 21:08
It has been some time in the US that WD had prices. IIRC, WD stopped featuring prices in the same issue month that the Goldswords were released. Kinda funny that they stop featuring prices starting with the set that ticked off quite a few folks out there.

BattleofLund
29-05-2010, 21:15
Not much. Would have given it a '4' instead of a '3' because of the flying tower-things...

... but that irrationality had to bow down to the irrationality of being depressed because of today's 40k game, where my mostly infantry Orcs had to run the gauntlet of a Feigned Flight Battle Mission against three Russes (and 100 Guardsmen) without much in the way of anti-tank gear. 'Fecal-y mission' is perhaps too harsh, I should've had/could've had more transports, Kommandos and Fast Attack. Anyhow, that brought my WD grading down to a '3' again.

Damien 1427
29-05-2010, 22:27
I enjoyed it. Maybe my sights were set rather low, since this is the first time in years I've bought it.

I liked the addition of Spearhead, the Battle Report was above the average but would have been improved by having player's armies rather than the same bloody Studio models again and again and again. Hey, LotR rules! Nifty. And full rules for a new Eldar tank. And a few datasheets.

However, they could axed a few pages of tank pictures (They'd have worked as adverts, but hey, no prices because they're raising them :rolleyes:) and put in the Spearheads from the Website.
The article on the River Trolls was pretty bad, too. A painting guide with different schemes, sure. But pics of stock-posed bare plastic? Boo-urns.
Also, Standard Bearer continues to be dire. "Just how awesome are our awesome products, Jervis?" "So awesome." Still, first time I've seen him with a beard. Looking good, Jervis. :)

Mat Ward's BLOOD BLOOD OF BLOOD ANGELS OF BLOOD article was interesting, but... it's Blood Angels. Nggh. Also, for some reason, Mat Ward looks so very, very chokeable. Like you could reach out and choke the life out of him. I have no idea why that is. Maybe I should get the doctor to up my dosage.

A comfortable Six. Got some good meat to it, but still suffers the old problems that have plagued it for years.

Justicar Valius
29-05-2010, 22:40
Mat Ward's BLOOD BLOOD OF BLOOD ANGELS OF BLOOD article was interesting, but... it's Blood Angels. Nggh. Also, for some reason, Mat Ward looks so very, very chokeable. Like you could reach out and choke the life out of him. I have no idea why that is. Maybe I should get the doctor to up my dosage.

Sigged, that is brilliant!

TheBigBadWolf
30-05-2010, 09:32
I gave it a 6, better than last months (not difficult)

Wouldnt have minded some sprue pics of the manticore (and is it me or does the leman russ not have track guards anymore?)

Enjoyed the spearhead stuff, especially that actuall rules were posted for the Nightspinner (when was the last time rules for a unit not in a codex, tau rail rifles?)

Not much WH stuff, but thats to be expected due to next month, the new rulebook is mentioned at 528 pages!

Overall, it was an ok read, nothing glaring, bar the prices but thats been discussed.

A 6

Finn Sourscowl
30-05-2010, 19:04
There is a very simple answer to this question, at the time of sending the previous issue and this issue to the printers, GW didn't know what the prices would be due to the impending price rises.

Wintermute

Thanks Wintermute!

A 6, I think. I'd rather try to encourage new rules etc in WD than discourage by saying it's rubbish. My question is though, one of the main arguments GW have always put forward for not getting rid of the store finder etc at the back of WD is that not everyone has access to the internet... well, they seem happy to put most of an "expansion" there...

Haven't finished off the rest of the issue yet, but not greatly impressed. What is particularly frightening is that I don't have the urge to read it anymore. Possibly because there are no (or VERY few) articles that are even remotely in depth. I just don't understand why this is the case.

Sorry, I'm being hideously nieve here. The reason they don't is because that wouldn't "push product", as it were. And of course all WD readers have single figure IQs that means piccies not words are the way forward.

Maybe 6 is a little over-generous :(

EDIT: Oh, and as for the editorial... well, why don't GW just get rid of it - it's just a repeat of the contects page!

duffybear1988
30-05-2010, 21:36
Quick question, what are the floating things supposed to be on page 48? I would have said something Tzeentchy, but this is Empire V Orcs.

Roks maybe?? ;)

Well there is a rumour that in the new fantasy rules there is a magic item that allows you to place a tower in your deployment zone... doesn't say it has to be on the ground - sounds cool to me ;)


Anyway back to the mag -

Jervis up to his usual tricks of subliminally flogging you GW crap (psssst... Jervis... it doesn't work mate... give up already).

Mat Ward on Blood Angels... *cough* "I just realised nobody uses death company anymore... yikes!" *cough*

A battle report with commander Pask in an exterminator and a BS3 vanquisher... Feugan and swooping hawks... 1 eldar support weapon... no shrieker jetbikes - epic fail.

Fantasy is on the way. Some good artwork but little else.

Spearhead. Well that was my main reason for buying the magazine and guess what its all available online and thus there is no incentive to buy the mag... great. I was hoping that it might have more than 2 or 3 pages of rules. Honestly the only reason they didn't release an actual expansion book was because they lacked the rules to put in it I think. (maybe if they cut back on the shiny pictures of unpriced kits that are rather dull they could have more space for what we really want)!

I also liked the line about GW being all cheery about the never before done thing of actually putting rules for a new unit inside WD!!! shock horror GW you used to do it.

Well once again I find myself shocked by the crap that is White Dwarf... I gave it a 4 this month and that was only because of the new fantasy artwork which I really liked.

spetswalshe
31-05-2010, 19:16
After the Space Wolf Wolfy Wolf Wolf fiasco, I honestly thought Blood Angels might make reference to things other than blood - I was expecting angels, at least, to feature in a 50/50 split. However, instead we've got a character who comes very, very close to being called 'The Bloodinator' and enough blood references to make the codex read like it was written by a 14-year old 'urban youth' from Chelsea.

I agree on Mat Ward's chokability. He does look like the kind of person who, if you were sat opposite him on a train, you would stare at him in a really aggressive way, even though you normally avoid eye contact like all the other normal people.

What really churns my brain this issue is when Jervis writes about how (paraphrasing) 'Before we were able to do complex plastic kits we used to have a thing called 'Epic Scale', with tanks only half an inch long!'

I'll write that again (emphasis mine);

'The game Epic 40,000 no longer exists. We have superceeded that game (which no longer exists and which you aren't allowed to play even if you buy the models from our website) because you can now play it in 28mm scale!'

It's kind of like saying you no longer need to buy model WWII aircraft because you can buy real ones and paint them. In your garden.

freddythebig
01-06-2010, 17:28
Well, I gave in and bought it this month, mainly due to the much trumpeted Spearhead rules.....what a let down, just another thinly disguised exercise in trying to sell more models.
Standard bearer has got to be a joke. No-one of JJs supposed experience can really believe the inane drivel that he has written this month, can he?
Havn't decided on a score yet, I'm yet again disappointed but at least it is a bit better that last months.

Feeling generous so gave it a 5, on second look Spearhead is not that bad once you get past the initial 'buy more tanks' message.
Thing is though, I actually forgot I had it for a few days until I found it in my magazine rack and gave it another look.

e2055261
03-06-2010, 01:30
I liked the issue and gave it a pretty generous nine. That's probably because I have not bought an issue for a few months and just wanted a bit of a read. I've read most of the articles but not the BR yet. Spearhead looks like a hoot and I might actually play a game of it but I probably need a few more vehicles. Alas, money's an issue at the moment so I may have to shelve those ideas.

I did think the BA tactics were slightly pointless. He basically said everything is worth using. Weren't really any tactics - he just gave rationale for each unit in the codex.

That said, I think readers will enjoy the mag more if they're not so cynical about it...

Stormfather
03-06-2010, 15:00
On one hand, I agree that a lot of the magazine was a waste of paper on ink, and it's a shame that half the rules are in the book and half are online, etc. I made it about halfway through each article, none of them really caught my interest except the LOTR stuff... if not for Spearhead, I wouldn't have paid a nickel for the mag.



On the other hand: We all play GWs games, so we're all in the same boat here: we're willing to pay $30 for a box of plastic soldiers. For the price of a IG heavy weapons team, I got my hands on a ruleset that presents:
+New tactical choices
+New missions
+Incentive to finish my IG army.



I'm very happy with what my money got me, so I've given it a 10/10. Maybe my expectations of WD are low; I usually flip through the mags in-store but this is the first Ive bought in years.

Malakai
06-06-2010, 03:52
What really churns my brain this issue is when Jervis writes about how (paraphrasing) 'Before we were able to do complex plastic kits we used to have a thing called 'Epic Scale', with tanks only half an inch long!'

I'll write that again (emphasis mine);

'The game Epic 40,000 no longer exists. We have superceeded that game (which no longer exists and which you aren't allowed to play even if you buy the models from our website) because you can now play it in 28mm scale!'

It's kind of like saying you no longer need to buy model WWII aircraft because you can buy real ones and paint them. In your garden.

First off I'd like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. A lot of people have had problems with the Standard Bearer article since it began but I never really felt it deserved the rancor it instilled in some hobbyists until now.

WTF was Jervis thinking saying that?! I love Epic. It was my first game. I still paint and play Epic every now and again. It was like a slap in the face to all of us who continue to support that game with our time and money. He should know better. Bad Jervis! :mad:

Ok, so onto the rest of the issue. Being immersed in 40K at the moment and after last months LotR's craptastic issue I felt like it was Christmas come early. A new supplement, Armageddon data sheets, AND new rules for a brand new tank in a WD! Reminds me of the old days. I liked this issue a lot.

The one point of contention I had with it (apart from Jervis' rant, which is hardly the editor's fault) was the missing 'Eavy Metal Masterclass. After the last Editor said his goodbyes in April's WD and made mention of how he had tried to make the 'Eavy Metal Masterclass as informative as possible a feeling of dread came over me.

WD has pretty much sucked this past year with the exception of the Masterclass. Time and again it has been WD's one saving grace. No matter what system you play you can always take something from it. When he mentioned that the Masterclass was pretty much his brainchild I worried that with the new editor the article might be discontinued. Hopefully it'll return next issue because stuff like, 'How to paint Trolls: see here we painted the scales darker to make it look more sinister-no **** Sherlock' articles need to go.

Anyway all in all I rated it an 8 for the rules content which I was very happy to see return to WD. If you're reading this WD team, don't axe the Masterclass. It's the only thing you guys get right month after month.

Dr. Who
06-06-2010, 18:01
Hmm, I don't think Jervis says that Epic no longer exists or is illegal either - nor do I think he implies it in the article. He does pimp Apocalypse and their current abilities to produce 28mm kits at the expense of Epic though. Still a fail.

New rules are of course welcome, but I'm too cynical to view it as anything but the usual GW 'buy more models' approach and content.

The rest of the magazine I found ho-hum - ish!

A 3.

- Dr.

Col. Frost
15-06-2010, 09:56
Well, this month is better (or is it some cunning tactic that they serve up a really bad issue to make the following months look good ;) ) but what i believe we should expect from an average month so i gave it a 5!!!

Front stuff - 5
Buy stuff! pretty much what we expect so an avearge scorer from me

Tank Shock - 7
Lots of photos of tanks, a sprue breakdown of a Russ and AN OFFICIAL ADDITION TO THE ELDAR CODEX!!!!. I hate to say this, but im slightly impressed. Slightly. This is what WD should be for, codex additions, optional units and 'fun' army lists.

Spearhead - 7
See above comment. An expansion issued through the mag, like the good old days!

Reinforcements - 6
New stuff for WoTR, as above its what WD should be used for but is lacking in content so a slight mark down.
5
War is Coming - 5
Teaser fo Fantasy rules, nothing to see here, move on.

On Wings Of Blood - 3
Matt 'Bloody Blood Angels of Blood' Ward becomes Captain Obvious and explains what to do with your new BA....... Oh, and get your hair cut. And as others have pointed out, he has the sort of face that makes me have violent thoughts toward him........

Tank Wars - 6
New stuff and formations for Apoc.

Battle Report - 5
Its a report, about a studio battle. Take from it what you will...

Jervis - 5
I like tanks, tanks are cool. Not to bad this month, but not really an insight into the hobby...

Tusk and Gore - 5
New O&G models.

Modelling Workshop - 3
Except it's not. Its just pictures of tanks. Not exactly a workshop, more of a gallery....

Hall of Fame - 5
Some of Seb Perbet's minis. Very nice.

Back of Mag - 5
Same as usual....


Overall not bad, can the new editor keep up the good work?

Osbad
15-06-2010, 10:26
I liked this issue and bought it, purely for the rules. I can't see myself buying enough tanks to play a spearhead ever, but borrowing and or proxying are always an option in my gaming group, so forking out 4.50 for some "fun" type expansion rules was worth it to me.

I didn't mind at all the dropping of the master class, as I really don't aspire to that level of painting quality. I'm much more a "paint it neat but quick" type of guy maxing out on foundation paints, inks/washes and drybrushing, and after 25+ years of painting models I've kind of settled into a groove and am not interested in taking my painting to those levels. I appreciate others enjoy that side of the hobby, but me, not so much. So I'm fine if the masterclass gets relegated to "not every issue" status as I skated over those pages anyhow.

Standard Bearer was the usual pointless drivel, but at least it was only 2 pages long this month.

Not much WFB, this month also was a + as I don't play that system and don't particularly like the models either.

So I gave it a 6. Worth buying and not so disposable as many recent issues have been.

Irisado
19-06-2010, 13:40
It's the first time I have purchased White Dwarf for some time, and based on the reviews here, I wasn't expecting much, but as an Eldar player who loved the Doomweaver in the original Epic Space Marine rules, I will probably field a Night Spinner at some stage, hence why I bought the magazine.

Including rules in White Dwarf was the high point of this issue, although I'm sure people who bought it for the spearhead scenarios more somewhat peeved to learn that they had to go online to get most of the rules, as other comments above suggest. This really was the low point of the issue for me. The point of putting together a new mission system in White Dwarf, and then saying that most of the rules are online seemed rather pointless to me.

The battle report was better than expected, and I could actually follow it, but I still miss the linear turn by turn reports and maps, and the perspective of the players actually participating in the game.

The Blood Angel tactica seemed reasonable to me for beginners, but it probably did not tell veteran players anything that they did not already know.

The rest of the magazine had too many adverts, and Standard Bearer was the worst of them ;).

I'll give it a five because of the fact that there was an effort to include some rules and new ideas, but it had the potential to be so much better. An opportunity missed in my opinion.