PDA

View Full Version : Official July 2010 White Dwarf (USA 366, UK 367 etc) Feedback Thread



Wintermute
21-06-2010, 19:53
Its time for yet another White Dwarf Feedback thread, this time for the July issue (US 366, UK 367 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

the creator
21-06-2010, 20:24
i was very annoyed about the new white dwarf. no 40k what so ever. great for those who love warhammer or even both and im glad that games workshop is excited about their new edition but as a pure 40k player i feel ripped off. i do sub to white dwarf and have for about 10 years. this for me is the "worst" issue in a longtime.

i generally think WD has been going down hill in the last few years. this for me is the cream on the cake. very disappointed. i just cant see GW doing a 40k only issue and if they did they should be shot.

spikyjames
21-06-2010, 20:26
I voted 1, utter cack if you don't play fantasy, very short sighted of GW.

I'll be binning my subscription now, not just because i'm starting to get rather bored with the mag as a whole, also because the dog gets it 50% of the time it comes through the door :D , she can keep it this month!

james

t-tauri
21-06-2010, 20:45
No 40k? Dreadful. Plumbing new depths here.

SPSchnepp2
21-06-2010, 21:14
Wait, it actually has some Warhammer Fantasy content? Hot diggity dog, there might be a reason for me to pick it up this month!

Considering most other issues have been 40k with about a page of pictures of Fantasy, I think it's okay for them to switch it up every once in a while - especially considering this month's the release of our new edition and all.

the creator
21-06-2010, 21:25
Considering most other issues have been 40k with about a page of pictures of Fantasy, I think it's okay for them to switch it up every once in a while - especially considering this month's the release of our new edition and all.

i do agree with you here, but 1 page of fantasy is better then nothing at all. i and sending my first ever angry email to GW about it. i dont know why but i was very annoyed about this.

spikyjames
21-06-2010, 21:28
Well, i would have sent you mine but i've just chucked it in the bin, never done that with a WD the day i've recieved it before, it hasn't even hit store shelves yet :eek:

I did have another look through to make sure i wasn't missing something, but no, there's about 3 very small 40k pics at the back helping to advertise stuff!

There isn't even any LotR content, the magazine has never been completely void of all but one game system and i've been buying it for over 20 years.

Very, very dissappointed.

James

p.s. i normally don't rant about stuff, i'm just astounded GW let this go out.

the creator
21-06-2010, 21:41
p.s. i normally don't rant about stuff, i'm just astounded GW let this go out.

you and me both, fella.

i have just sent off my first ever angry customer email to GW. if you are annoyed, send their Customer Services a few lines. just let them know.

Bigbot
22-06-2010, 00:02
The actual Warhammer stuff was awful, very vague articles about fluff and ideas. a nice article with John Blanche but that's it.

I'll do a full review tomorrow when i'm not tired

RevEv
22-06-2010, 00:08
I'll go against the trend here.

A good edition of WD IF you like FB and are anticipating the new release. OK, there are no 40K or LoTR articles but, as there are no planned releases for these systems in July, that is not surprising.

The articles on the new game are pretty bog standard designer notes, but the battle report gives a good feel of how the new game should play (I'ved only played an intro session so can make no further comment on the depth of the article). There's also the sense that there is far more that the new Edition has to offer than we already know about.

I'm now looking forward to reading more of the magazine more in depth.

8 from me (lost points for leaving out the other systems - LoTR I don't care about, but 40K I do).

philbrad2
22-06-2010, 07:28
WHFB only edition... bad idea. Never known an edition of WD in all my years to be solely dedicated to a single system and its a very bad move. Sure push the nice new shiny WHFB 8th ed but throw 40K and LoTR players some sort of bone those who have this on subscription (i.e me) find it totally pointless. BAD move GW 1/10!

PhilB
:chrome:

plantagenet
22-06-2010, 09:29
I gave this issue an 8 after the last two months of White Dwarf beign almost completely devoid of any fantasy content this issue was a oasis in a desert of 40k.

I do understand why 40k junkies are annoyed however. White Dwarf really needs to be more balanced so there is a good selection of content for all subscribers.

The reason I gave this issue only an 8 even though as a fantasy junkie I couldnt ask for much more is due to some of the content. The designer notes were a little weak. I would really like to see more in depth talks with the designers. Types of questions such as what element were you most satisified with. What rules brought the greatest challenges. At the moment it is a fairly shallow monologue from the designer and lacks any depth.

Having said that the interview with John Blanche was much better. They normally are as he always seems to have some interesting information to impart. I must admit would love to see some more in depth interviews with the artists. Looking at there work and comparisons to real paintings that they have drawn influence from.

The Battle report was fun and showed nicely some of the effects of the new rules. Jervis article was interesting as it imparted some of the information on what they were trying to achieve with the new edition. Loved the scenery article as I just like the idea of a forest beating people up and walking away.

Been reading the WD for well over an hour and still got more to read so this is definetly a good one as far as I am concerned.

Osbad
22-06-2010, 10:58
Perversely I am actually interested in seeing this issue. I may not go so far as to actually buy this, but I am interested in seeing it.

This is becauser I play LotR (a little) and 40k (a little), but have not played WFB since 1987. Which is a shame really. I have quite a large number of vintage Orcs and Goblins, enough to form the core of a decent army and also a decent quantity of Rackham undead models, again sufficient to form the core of a WFB army, so it has always struck me as a shame that the rules have put me off hitherto.

So, the news that there is a radically revised set of WFB rules in the offing intrigues me. Enough to want to read what the manufacturer has to say about it, and if that (and what else I read and hear about it on the intenrnet) inspires me, possibly enough to buy the rules.

Frankly, provided whatever is written is interesting, I don't really care which system they write about.

The problem with WD over the last couple of years for me has been the poor quality of the writing, rather than which games systems they have (or have not) covered.

To be frank I find the whole "WD covered a game I don't play (i.e. usually anything other than 40k!), so I'm going to spit my dummy" attitude rather narrow minded and childish.

mrtn
22-06-2010, 11:35
Compared to the absolute minimum of fantasy coverage we've had for the first half of this year they sure had saved it up for this issue. But then I think they've planned it this way as they knew that the summer/autumn would be fantasy heavy.

I think this was the best issue in ages and I'm one of the heretics who voted a 10.

Sleazy
22-06-2010, 12:55
Its ok, I love WFB but an entire issue is wrong.

A lot of it is just "8th ed is cool mkay?" and "Now you need bigger units".

I like the armies shown, would have been better if they were a bit more unique with conversions and ideas but i guess cookie cutter is the way nowadays.

I gave it a 6. Am firmly of the belief that an issue can only be a 10 if there is no scope for improvement. Theres quite a bit of text this issue but most of it is just waffle.

mrtn
22-06-2010, 13:03
I like the armies shown, would have been better if they were a bit more unique with conversions and ideas but i guess cookie cutter is the way nowadays.
Did you look at the vampire army? :shifty:

the creator
22-06-2010, 19:29
To be frank I find the whole "WD covered a game I don't play (i.e. usually anything other than 40k!), so I'm going to spit my dummy" attitude rather narrow minded and childish.

im sorry, how is it childish and narrow-minded to expect content relevant to what i pay for? i sub WD for about 10 years and have been happy until now. as i said before a ******* 2 page 40k tactica would have been enough.

i expect multiple content for each system.

Art Is Resistance
22-06-2010, 21:42
A couple of choice lines as to why, in my opinion this was a very low 6:
*'This is Warhammer that is unlike anything[..]seen before[..]There are too many details to list here' - Here's a thought - list them! Give us details of the changes, like GW used to in the days of 3rd ed WFB and 2nd / 3rd ed 40k!
*'Whilst not wanting to get drawn on specifics' For heck's sake, Aren't these design notes? Don't you want players to have an idea of what to expect??
*All the stuff we've mentioned are but a few highlights of a game that an't be covered in just a couple of pages' Well take a few more! Instead of pointless two page art spreads (two of the things - one of minis and one an advert for the product they've just told us they can't go into detail on!), and a background blurb that could have been a page instead of two, give us more details!
The battle report didn't do much more either. Whilst it gave a bit more of a feel for the new rules, it could have done with a breakdown of how the rules affected play compared to 7th ed.

This is an opportunity missed. I really wanted to like this issue, jsut as I did the Spearhead issue, but I'm left feeling like there should have been more.

Maybe if they'd given us the TO4G in the mag rather than online, I would have been happier.
Of course the main reason for the 6 is the write up for the 1st Company Vets - my club!

Sleazy
22-06-2010, 21:58
Did you look at the vampire army? :shifty:

yes I did, was ok. Not a patch on some of the gamers vampires armys of WD past.

Cherrystone
22-06-2010, 23:29
'This is Warhammer that is unlike anything[..]seen before[..]There are too many details to list here'

I was thinking youve got a whole magazine this month surly theres plenty of space to detail whats changed and with reasons WHY :confused:

Crube
23-06-2010, 10:23
Interesting for me... Good to see a WFB centred issue rather than the previous 40K and LotR mags. Previously there's been nothing useful for WFB... now it's payback time :D

Editorial - Meh

New Releases - Nice pictures of shiny things (and that FW dragon looks awful...) - OK

News - Interesting, actually. Some of these snippets could be the basis of a decent article (therefore, probably won't, but hey...) - Good

On the Web - Why is To4G on the web - it should be in the mag. - Meh

Warhammer Heroes - Buy moar bookz..... does have a small snippet of fiction :eek: - Good

WFB notes - OK. Could have been better with more depth, but you know what? It's done its job. I want my 8th edition book NOW!

Illuminations - John Blanche. Love him or hate him, this is a decent article. - Good

Call to Arms - interesting. Yes it's studio armies, but the actual lists have some different ideas... a bit short, but Good

Battle Rep - Interesting, fun, good little snippets.... - Good

Standard Bearer - Jervis, I love you man, but write something worth reading.... - Poor

Fields of Glory - some nice ideas - Good

Battlefields - pointless - Poor

Legion of Despair - a non studio army, with decent conversions. Halleleujah! I can't believe that people say they want non studio, converted armies, then complain when they get one :rolleyes: I know there's others out there, but this is a start - Good

Eavy Metal Showcase - Very nicely painted models, but I've seen better - OK

Directory etc - As per normal - OK

Overall, no 40K, Plenty of WFB, and actually stuff to read.

9/10

EldarWonderland
23-06-2010, 12:19
Thank goodness there's no LotR and 40K in it.

Makes a nice change NOT to see Blood Angels, how to paint Blood Angels, how to model Blood Angels, how to convert Blood Angels, how to base Blood Angels .......... get the picture?

The whole overkill over several issues of Blood Angels was utterly tedious and I'm rather glad that the 40K'ers are suffering.

EmperorNorton
23-06-2010, 14:11
After being thoroughly disappointed with White Dwarf last month because of the lack of Fantasy content I can understand the frustration of those who play only 40K.
For me this was a good issue, though, and, as Johann Fellhammer above, I actually spent an hour reading it instead of just flipping through and looking at the few interesting bits.
Not quite as enthusiastic as Crube, though. Most of it is still very thinly veiled advertising, the lack of depths annoys me and their suggestions for converting their terrain kits are a pet hate of mine. I sure would like to do it...if the darn stuff cost half of what it does...
Anyway, 7/10 from me, which I think is rather generous.

Lord Damocles
23-06-2010, 16:23
A world of Chaos. A time of Heroes. An age of War[hammer Fantasy, because there's no 40K or LoTR content at all].


Editorial - We like Warhammer Fantasy. You should like Warhammer Fantasy too. What do you mean you don't like Warhammer Fantasy?!?
Poor

News/New Releases - Warhammer Fantasy! ZOMG!!!eleventyone!!!! Your run-of-the-mill news/new releases section really. Sadly it seems that A Tale of Four Gamers has been relegated to the web; done properly (read: not like last time!) it could have been a classic, but on the web it's unlikely to get much in the way of attention.
OK

Warhammer Heroes - I'm not sure if this is really meant to be seperate from News/New Releases. Not great really. There's nothing here that I couldn't have got from information in New Releases or one of those little novel samples in GW stores.
Poor

War Never Ending/Fighting in Chaos/Rule the World/Mustering Your Army (Fantasy Designers' Notes) - Excessively Grim:skull:Dark setting; constant war; mankind on the verge of extinction? No it's not 40K, silly. It's Fantasy - the Grim:skull:Dark setting of unending war where mankind stands on the brink of extinction. To be fair, the similarities are striking...

First things first: Fishmen reference!

Second things second: 'There are just too many details to list here... not wanting to get drawn into specifics... what we have described here has barely scratched the surface' etc. *sigh* There's a lot of waffle about how great Fantasy is, and how great the new rules are, and how great Mat Ward and co. are. What there isn't a lot of is detail or substance.

I want to know about why such sweeping changes have been made to the game (as one local player put it, 'This is barely Warhammer any more'). I want to know what's going to happen regarding FAQs and erratas. I want to know the reasoning behind design choices. I want substance!
But I'm not getting it here.
Poor

Illuminations - The Art of Warhammer - John Blanche is a god. And as such, we don't need Adam Troke to 'interview' him. I'm sure Blanche is more than capable of putting together an informative and insightful article on his own.
'Note the inclusion of enormous ancestor cannons...' No can do I'm afraid. You've cropped them out of the picture :eyebrows:
As it is, this is a readable article (what else would we expect? It features John Blanche!) but leaving Blanche to his own devices (and with more space for words/larger pictures) would have worked far better in my opinion.
Good

Call to Arms (How to make Fantasy armies) - 'You will observe that heavily armoured warriors will doubtless chop me up. Yep you're right... If I wanted a balanced High Elf army, I could have one - but I don't'. Erm... OK...
It seems to me, that these sample armies fall in to the usual trap of being larger than those used in standard games (2498, 2996, 2999 2000, 2998).
Poor

Last Stand of the Slaughterer (Empire vs. Orks and Goblins battle report) - No better or worse than usual battle reports (conclude from that what you will :shifty:). I'll come back to this later.

'Despite stringent safeguards a Snotling managed to slip through our defences with the result that the rules for victory points on page 143 of the Warhammer rulebook say you need to score twice as many victory points as your opponant in order to win a game. This is a mistake, and should read that you need to score 100 more victory points than your opponant to win the game, and at least twice as many victory points to achieve a crushing victory'.
Proof reading: Something other people do.
Poor

Standard Bearer - is this some sort of justification for people having to pay for all those extra pages in the absurdly large and unwieldy new rulebook?
'...we were rather happy with the way the rules worked...' - which begs the question, why the massive changes then? :rolleyes:
Even by usual White Dwarf standards, this article is badly proofread.
Poor

Fields of Glory (Fantasy terrain) - Or should that be terror-ain? *ba dum tich!* Get it? terror-ain? Huh? huh? Oh, never mind...
This is a bit pointless. We can see the terrain elsewhere in the issue, and we can see the rules in the rulebook.
Poor

Battlefields (Dave Andrew's battlefields) - 'Dave's concept sketches for the boards are very accurate renditions of how the battlefields ended up when finished'.
1) No s*** Sherlock
2) No they aren't
Poor

The Legion of Despair (Vampire Counts army showcase) - Nice to see something other than the usual studio armies, covered in some degree of detail; although could they not have featured somebody from *outside* the studio?
Good

Clash of Champions - Pretty models are pretty.
Good

Stuff at back - Here be Dragons nothing much of note.
Poor



War is Coming (Fantasy preview) - ...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.
It's like I can see into the future or something:
- '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' CHECK
- 'lots of pictures of models we've all seen before' CHECK
- 'several double-page spreads of advertising Fantasy models' CHECK
- 'lots of pictures of models we've all seen before' CHECK
- 'a [huge and most likely unbalanced] battle report' CHECK for the huge (3500pts), possible CHECK for unbalanced - when a historical battle report so closely follows what 'actually happened', I become suspicious (or at least more so than usual).

Even with the release of Fantasy 8th edition, the TOTAL lack of ANY 40K or LoTR content is unforgiveable to my mind. If GW want me to pay in advance for White Dwarf (which they do), then they need to provide content which I'll want to read. Thats not to say that there wasn't anything of interest to me in this months edition, but there was nothing specificly *aimed* at me.

While I do try to be reasonably objective in my ranting about White Dwarf, in light of the lack of anything not Fantasy related (and what there was was fairly wishy-washy), I feel I have no choice but to vote 1 this month.

-----------------------------

In other (and slightly self indulgent) news, my subscription has run out again. This time however, I won't be re-subscribing.
I don't *want* to not re-subscribe - my White Dwarf collection starts at 143, and I've got every issue since 229. For the most part I've thoughly enjoyed White Dwarf, and feel slightly guilty for 'giving up' on it now - but I just can't justify 40 a year (or 9 every three months by direct debit) anymore since there just isn't that much to interest me any more. No significant new background; rarely a decent battle report, no Chapter Approved-esque new rules, no FAQs, no in-depth tacticas, rarely a non-studio army.

So this will likely be my last little monthly rant review unless there are issues of particular interest to me.


So long amigos! :)

Zingbaby
24-06-2010, 00:18
I'll not be buying this one, thanks for the intel guys...

Covering Fire
24-06-2010, 09:34
So this will likely be my last little monthly rant review unless there are issues of particular interest to me.

So long amigos! :)

To quote Darth Vader in Revenge of the Sith: NOOOO!

After reading the latest WD I always go here and check for your review, and it's always spot on!:evilgrin:

Your reviews will be sorely missed!:cries:

As for this month's issue, I think it was ok. I'm a 40K player, but I don't mind reading about WHFB IF the articles are interesting. As always it was mostly pictures and no real info about the new changes in WHFB. The only article I really enjoyed was the one with John Blanche. More of those please! I want to read more about the thought processes and design work behind the games. Why did you change that rule and why is that in the background and so on...

I gave this issue a 7. Without the Blanche article I probably would have given it a 4.

SPSchnepp2
24-06-2010, 16:01
Its ok, I love WFB but an entire issue is wrong.

A lot of it is just "8th ed is cool mkay?" and "Now you need bigger units".

I like the armies shown, would have been better if they were a bit more unique with conversions and ideas but i guess cookie cutter is the way nowadays.

I gave it a 6. Am firmly of the belief that an issue can only be a 10 if there is no scope for improvement. Theres quite a bit of text this issue but most of it is just waffle.

I noticed that, looking through some of the older White Dwarf issues and comparing them to the ones on the shelves. The new ones can't hold a candle to the old ones most of the time.

In case you were wondering, I haven't shelled out for a WD issue in years. There's a reason for that.

tezdal
24-06-2010, 18:29
While I didn't buy (and never due) this white dwarf, I did peruse it, was good fairly good.......good to see Fantasy get a little love.

spetswalshe
24-06-2010, 19:40
I will buy this, because I like fantasy. Though if at any point it tells me I should have a bigger army I will relegate the entire issue to toilet duty.

I remember the days when a man could have twelve hard-bitten underhive scum/flea-bitten sewer-dwelling skaven and call himself a player. I'd actually play 40k and Fantasy if I weren't constantly given the impression that if a game is under 1500 points it isn't worth playing.

Tarax
25-06-2010, 09:32
I was waiting for this issue, because Fantasy was my first game. However, like I said in many other threads, I will have to wait for the rules to see if I will continue.
This issue did not give me any insight in the changes or why they did so. I don't want to repeat what many others have said, but I agree with most.

I just renewed my subscription. Yeah, I know, but I was weak at the time. :rolleyes: So I will be stuck with it for the next 2 years. What struck me most was that there is no incentive for subscribers to continue their subscription over those who just start with one. There is no additional discount or even a free miniature. When I renewed my sub, the salesperson asked if I wanted the special miniature. It would cost me though, an additional 12 euros. My subscription lasts for some 7 or 8 years and I would still have to pay for that! Give veterans a bone, please.

Chadjabdoul
25-06-2010, 12:13
So this will likely be my last little monthly rant review unless there are issues of particular interest to me.


So long amigos! :)

Your reviews will be missed Damocles. Sometimes they were a better read than the mag itself.

It's true though. Better to buy WD selectively than splash out for a subscription these days...

Osbad
25-06-2010, 15:18
Perversely I am actually interested in seeing this issue. I may not go so far as to actually buy this, but I am interested in seeing it.

Yup, wasn't intrigued enough to buy the issue. Strangely enough, it wasn't the vibrant shilling and pimpage that put me off, but the photos. Loads of photos of bazillions of nicely squarely ranked models crammed mercilessly onto tables, which while pretty, couldn't realistically be used to game with armies half that size. A clear attempt to "Apocalypse" Warhammer there. And a totally unattractive one at that.

Colour me unimpressed. I gave it a 3.

So, having flicked through it and been unimpressed by the pretty pictures, I wasn't inspired to read the text. Shallow? Probably. I decided to buy a bottle of wine with the 4.50 I saved though, so the decision wasn't a bad one.

(Incidentally demonstrating that I am not biased against GW, I also looked at the new Wargames Illustrated that sat on the shelf next to WD. As with WD it is a periodical I buy from time to time if the contents appeal. This month, most of the content was all about the American Civil War, a conflcit I have little interest in, so I didn't buy that either. I'll probably buy a really, really nice bottle of wine with the 9 I saved in total today! :) )

RevEv
25-06-2010, 15:42
Pop down to Tescos and you'll be on the Champagne with 9!

avien
25-06-2010, 18:03
I don't play WHFB, I have no interest in it apart from the models (but thats a general thing, nothing to do with the game systems involved)

I agree with previous posters who've said that the game doesn't get enough coverage in the magazine and while I'm more interested in 40k, I do feel that there is an unfair imbalance in the page count generally attributed to the 3 different games.

That said I don't remember EVER having a 40k only issue! nor would I want one. There should be some level of balance between the 3 systems.

I was expecting just an article or two for 40k, and that would have been fine, but NOTHING BUT FANTASY:wtf:

I definitely feel robbed of part of my subscription - lower price or not!

[edit] Oh I voted 1, just in case thats not obvious from above

Demrush
25-06-2010, 18:50
Funny how so many 40kers gave a downright 1 to this July issue...While I do understand their complaints towards the utter lack of 40k related content...I'd like to know why it automatically deserves a 1...Seriously, if this is how 40kers will react every time there is little or no content in it for them (which is roughly 1 out of every 12 issues!!!!!!!!!!), then I better start handing out 1s every time a new SM release is around the corner or a new 40k edition comes out. You shouldn't solely rate it based on the things that interest you...Try rating it based on the quality of the things in it which frankly, although this issue was poor, still doesn't deserve a 1.

Lord Damocles
25-06-2010, 20:46
Funny how so many 40kers gave a downright 1 to this July issue...While I do understand their complaints towards the utter lack of 40k related content...I'd like to know why it automatically deserves a 1...
[For me at least] it's not a matter of there not being any 40K content - it's a matter of there being no 40K content, no LoTR content, and the Fantasy content that there is being of a generally poor quality.

It's not that it automatically deserves a 1, but that this is what I actually feel/felt it deserves (to be fair though, I am generally quite harsh).

Now, while in a perfect world we would all vote based purely on the objective quality of the articles, the fact is that everyone who reads White Dwarf does so for different reasons (some for tactics, some for painting tips (also conspicuous by their absence this month :shifty:), information on new releases etc. etc...) means that any review is going to be subjective to some extent - the same goes for just about any review on anything, be it publication, theatre, product etc.
Of course GW knows that it is the case that different people want different things from White Dwarf (or at least (I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and at least assume that they do...); and if they want people to continue purchasing their product, ought to aim to satisfy as many of their customers as possible.

It wouldn't have taken much to get some more marks from me this month - an article for LoTR, an article for 40K, and possibly an 'Eavy Metal Masterclass. Then maybe I'd have given the issue a 2 or 3 (the quality of the content was still poor).


In conclusion I don't think that it's necessarily a case of 40K players just 'automatically' voting the issue a 1, but rather a result of a combination of there being poor balance between games systems (usually in favour of 40K, but there was an almost pure-LoTR issue a few months back), and generally low quality content. Or something...



Your reviews will be sorely missed!:cries:

Your reviews will be missed Damocles. Sometimes they were a better read than the mag itself.
Ah, gee, thanks guys.

Demrush
26-06-2010, 03:04
[For me at least] it's not a matter of there not being any 40K content - it's a matter of there being no 40K content, no LoTR content, and the Fantasy content that there is being of a generally poor quality.

It's not that it automatically deserves a 1, but that this is what I actually feel/felt it deserves (to be fair though, I am generally quite harsh).

Now, while in a perfect world we would all vote based purely on the objective quality of the articles, the fact is that everyone who reads White Dwarf does so for different reasons (some for tactics, some for painting tips (also conspicuous by their absence this month ), information on new releases etc. etc...) means that any review is going to be subjective to some extent - the same goes for just about any review on anything, be it publication, theatre, product etc.
Of course GW knows that it is the case that different people want different things from White Dwarf (or at least (I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and at least assume that they do...); and if they want people to continue purchasing their product, ought to aim to satisfy as many of their customers as possible.

It wouldn't have taken much to get some more marks from me this month - an article for LoTR, an article for 40K, and possibly an 'Eavy Metal Masterclass. Then maybe I'd have given the issue a 2 or 3 (the quality of the content was still poor).


In conclusion I don't think that it's necessarily a case of 40K players just 'automatically' voting the issue a 1, but rather a result of a combination of there being poor balance between games systems (usually in favour of 40K, but there was an almost pure-LoTR issue a few months back), and generally low quality content. Or something...

I agree with most of the things you said LDamocles and for the record, I also regard this issue as being pretty bad...However, I still do believe that many of the 18 people who voted the issue a straight up 1 did so on the pure basis that there was no 40k in the issue; I'm talking about people who simply flipped through the mag, saw the lack of 40k related content, threw it out the window and then immediately proceeded to log onto warseer and let their wrath fall on the (1) button in the voting poll. I exaggerate a little perhaps :p but you get my point. Seriously though, if they can't take one WD without any 40k then let's all pray to god they don't start playing WFB or worst yet, LOTR!

And by the way, I'll also echo the comments of fellow posters and say that your WD "critiques" will be sorely missed :cries: You've influenced my purchase of this overly-glorified ad magazine on numerous occasions!

TheBigBadWolf
27-06-2010, 11:16
WHFB only edition... bad idea. Never known an edition of WD in all my years to be solely dedicated to a single system and its a very bad move. Sure push the nice new shiny WHFB 8th ed but throw 40K and LoTR players some sort of bone those who have this on subscription (i.e me) find it totally pointless. BAD move GW 1/10!

PhilB
:chrome:

Pretty much sums up my view, I gave it a 1 and WH is my second core game!

Rossco
27-06-2010, 18:30
What a terrible issue, I play WH and 40k so I wasn't left out completely but I don't think there should ever be an issue of WD that only focuses on one of the game systems it was completely unnecessary.

duffybear1988
27-06-2010, 22:31
ha... ha... ha...

now you need even bigger units!

Gave it a 4 for the artists article, would have been a 2 otherwise.

5Pointer
27-06-2010, 22:34
As a collector (can't call myself a player yet...) of both WHFB and 40k I don't necessarily mind it being mono-system every once in a while.

What I do mind is the boring articles, the sell-sell-sell of huge units and the lack of inspiring pictures/fluff/rules/etc.

The only two features that I looked over more than once were the Vampire army and the John Blanche article.

For those (seeing as even they weren't good, merely OK), I gave it a 2.

Drop-Trooper
28-06-2010, 00:19
[QUOTE=Chadjabdoul;4764233]Your reviews will be missed Damocles. Sometimes they were a better read than the mag itself.

This is right, LD, your reviews will be missed

JackBurton01
28-06-2010, 14:26
I gave at 1 just for " we can't go into detail on the rules right now statement" The whole Mag is fantasy to pimp the new edition and istead of trying to seduce me; they just tried to slip me a micky"

Suicide Messiah
28-06-2010, 22:52
Theres no specifics in the whole mag which, coupled with the rumour shutdown really sucks. I need to actually see these minis. Even WIPs would do.

I did enjoy the JB article (though they should have just let him write the whole thing) and the VC army. Sure it wasnt very well painted and the minis were all fairly stock but its nice to see somthing a bit different.

Standard bearer. Consistently a waste of space.

For me this is a 4. 5 since it includes Blanche. I'll take this over pages of 40k rules anyday.

Oh, and I cant find ToFG on the website either.

BattleofLund
29-06-2010, 16:03
I did enjoy the JB article (though they should have just let him write the whole thing) and the VC army. Sure it wasnt very well painted and the minis were all fairly stock but its nice to see somthing a bit different.

JB?! Oh uh-hu John Blanche. :o

Actually I enjoyed this quite a bit. Big improvement. Seven.

(they could have tried running the ACTUAL historical armies from Azhag's demise though; mostly I hereby mean being bothered to look up the non-Azhag character names from the classical batrep.)

tu33y
30-06-2010, 08:38
normally when its a WD all about WFB or LOTR i get pretty 'roided up... i really dont care for either system.

however, this issue i actually enjoyed even tho i dislike fantasy.

why?

because its actually full of text and content. it made a change from the normal "*&* it that will do" text blocks and Andy Hall's half-written editorials.



i enjoyed it, it seemed aimed at a slightly older audience too.

spetswalshe
30-06-2010, 10:59
because its actually full of text and content. it made a change from the normal "*&* it that will do" text blocks and Andy Hall's half-written editorials.

I agree that it is full of words. There do seem to be more words than a normal issue. Content, however, is lacking in my opinion; only the WD staff can use so much space to say so little.

Things I Have Learned From This Issue;

Fighters can fight in two ranks, or three if you buy extra models
Monsters can too
Dwarfs are fast
Artillery hits more but hurts less
Cavalry are a bit rubbish
Lurid red looks quite nice on Dire Wolves
There are nice pictures in the new book, also rules
Only one in six trees in the Old World are normal; there is a better than eighty percent chance that terrain is made out of magic, so presumably the timber industry is the equivalent of modern-day special forces
So many people in the Old World die all the time that I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't one of those hell places where no one has to eat and everyone gets brought back to life to do it all again a few hours later

I could usually glean about the same amount of information for a game system from a regular issue - devoting an entire issue to faffing around and avoiding the subject is like going to a restaurant just to hear about the specials.

Col. Frost
30-06-2010, 15:34
Currently i only play fantasy, so i should be over the moon about a mono issue!

Im not. I honestly believe for a hobby magazine to cover only one of its core games and ignore the rest is a stupid way to run a magazine.

Normally i give a section by section rating, but today i can't be bothered, just like the WD staffers couldn't be bothered to write stuff for 40k or LoTR. My score is 3, and only because i honestly belive it's better than a 2 issue

My take on the issue:

Blah, blah, fantasy, blah, blah, buy stuff, blah blah, you have to buy more stuff or you infantry will really suck in 8th, blah blah, we could of condensed the entire issue into a ten page article if we didn't state the blindingly obvious all of the time, blah, waffle, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Don't buy this months issue, spend the money on something more useful, like a chocolate tea pot.

Caiphas Cain
30-06-2010, 15:43
normally when its a WD all about WFB or LOTR i get pretty 'roided up... i really dont care for either system.

however, this issue i actually enjoyed even tho i dislike fantasy.

why?

because its actually full of text and content. it made a change from the normal "*&* it that will do" text blocks and Andy Hall's half-written editorials.



i enjoyed it, it seemed aimed at a slightly older audience too.

Thats pretty much my take on it too. I do like fantasy though, so it's no surprise I enjoyed this one much more than the last few (read: dozen). It had an irregular amount of depth for a white dwarf, and even though it didn't include anything for 40k, which I also play, I thought it was a fairly good white dwarf. I gave it a 7. The JB artical was great, too.

Angelwing
01-07-2010, 00:53
Borrowed this months issue.
H'mm.
Good points: More words, less gratuitous buy me! pictures, JB article, non studio army showcase.
Bad points: Vague detail about rule changes and why. You have the entire magazine to tell us the whys and hows not just 'we can't tell you about it now' drivel.
For an entire magazine devoted to the new warhammer, nothing whatsoever about the new boxset, unless my eyes glazed over it. I want to see the contents and quality!
Nothing at all for LotR or 40k players, in fact no new rules (experimental or otherwise), painting guides, scenarios, conversion clinics, fiction or collecting articles for any system. Finally:


....we were pretty happy with the (7th ed) rules...

So then Jervis, if thats the case why does 8th ed have so many rule changes? :confused:
I respect Jervis for the time he takes out to chat with gamers at warhammer world and answer emails etc, but I fear a mistake has been made here.

So, what score? Much of this months content is a wasted opportunity. Glaring lack of other content with very few exceptions. Sadly a read once and dispose of month, nothing to keep for future reference. I think a 3. Well below average but with a few embers to keep you shivering but alive. :(

The Clairvoyant
02-07-2010, 13:16
Bought it today, had a quick flick and skim-read a couple of articles. As there is still more to read after my 10 minutes with it, then its a good issue.
The lack of anything 40k or lotr doesn't bother me at all. I generally find the 40k stuff dull and i don't play lotr.

Only other thing of note from my skim was the horrid join on the FW dragon where the wing joins the body.

cornonthecob
04-07-2010, 08:59
I enjoyed it , I also enjoyed the battle report which has been quite rare lately , I give it an 8.

Malakai
07-07-2010, 11:04
What struck me most about this article (apart from being all fantasy) were the grammatical errors in it. I think the new editor is having some growing pains getting into his new role.

I'll mimic the others in saying that I was surprised at the vagaries regarding Warhammer rules. They had a whole issue to get into it yet they didn't - odd.

I rated the issue a 3 and I was being generous.

Bael
08-07-2010, 20:14
I was diasppointed. The one article I was looking forward to reading was what the main changes made from 7th to 8th edition were and why the designers decided on the changes they made. I know that the changes have been discussed at length on here, but I wanted to hear from the designers themselves. Instead, we have Jervis saying that they were happy with the last edition rules for the most part. :wtf:

At least John Blanche was featured which was one saving grace. He should have a regular column again. Jervis doesn't write about interesting things.

thenamelessdead
08-07-2010, 20:39
I went for 8 - good for what it was, which was really just puffery for WH. I enjoyed reading through it and compared to recent issues I've got there was a decent amount of wordage. Good bits on the artwork and some disgustingly cool pictures. It lacked a bit of depth in terms of game design explanations and could have gone into that a bit more, and some of the miniature-pushing was a bit too obvious, but apart from that it's a decent issue by current standards.

thenamelessdead
08-07-2010, 20:44
Only other thing of note from my skim was the horrid join on the FW dragon where the wing joins the body.

That shocked me as well! I'm no expert but surely a bit of rudimentary, beginner's level green-stuffing would have sorted that out?!

Logarithm Udgaur
11-07-2010, 13:13
I voted one, primary because I did not bother to buy it, nor even check what its contents are supposed to be. My interest in WD in general has waned that much.

Irisado
20-07-2010, 14:47
This was a very poor issue in my opinion, and the only reason why I gave it a score of two is because John Blanche's article on the artwork was quite interesting.

I'm sure that Jervis is a very pleasant chap, and he has written some good articles and rules in the past, but his Standard Bearer column reached new depths of waffle in this issue. What is the point in saying that there was nothing wrong with the seventh edition Warhammer rules, but then changing them, without explaining any of the thinking behind it? Poor Jervis, very poor.

The battle report was awful. I have the original battle report that it is based on from White Dwarf 157, and the contrast is immense. The original was easy to follow, had decent sized maps, was recounted in a logical manner, it was straightforward to identify the units on the map and during the game, and it had a sensible points limit. The report in this White Dwarf was the opposite of all those things, and drove me to distraction as a result.

Dedicating one whole issue to a single gaming system was also a very bad idea in my opinion for the reasons others have stated.

In short, there was very little to commend this issue at all, and I suspect that I will just go back to not buying the magazine again after this month's pathetic content.