PDA

View Full Version : Official June 2011 White Dwarf (USA 377, UK 378 etc) Feedback Thread



Wintermute
25-05-2011, 18:35
Its time for yet another White Dwarf Feedback thread, this time for the June 2011 issue (US 377, UK 378 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

Deakor
25-05-2011, 20:56
I had drifted away from GW stuff and minis in general for the last few months but picked up this WD when I saw it at my FLGS.

The old complaints about WD being nothing but a big ad that you have to pay for are still valid. The bulk of the issue can be summed up as "BUY FINECAST MINIS, AND THEN BUY THE NEW DE STUFF."

That said, I actually kind of enjoyed reading about the new line-up and seeing pictures of some of the other models being released.

Haven't had a chance to dig into the tactics articles yet, but there is one for TK and another for GK.

I liked the small two page spread on Matt Weaver's SW army (which was originally shown on the GW website awhile back). I really wish they would make this a monthly feature as I really enjoy seeing other hobbyists armies.

Provided you know going in what to expect, the issue was perfectly serviceable. I gave it a 5.

SunTzu
25-05-2011, 22:13
Lots of guys who work for GW tell you how great GW's new money-making venture is.

Yawn. 3/10.

stahly
26-05-2011, 08:06
I think it's a solid but not outstanding issue. Of course if you didn't like the last couple of issues this won't be your kind of bag either. There were some players' armies, a refreshing change of pace. However there were no painting guides whatsoever. But I must admit I enjoyed the pictures of the great new Dark Eldar models. Read my full tutorial at http://stahlyspaintstation.blogspot.com/ (the earliest WD review in the net, each month - shameless plug ;) )

Lord Damocles
26-05-2011, 09:44
(Calling it now - his book will be either the current Fantasy or 40K Rulebook(s)).
'...I've decided it really has to be the latest edition of the Warhammer rulebook.'

Edgar Cayce, eat your heart out.

bluemage
26-05-2011, 20:11
Well I glanced through it at GW while waiting for glue to dry. Anyways it was just page after page of ads for finecast. They really only needed one page telling people what it is, not 30. Anyways I didn't see anything worthwhile and so gave it a 1.

tezdal
26-05-2011, 21:41
Same trash, different month, and doesn't even make good wiping paper

sjap98
27-05-2011, 09:17
I liked it very much.

(in spite of all the finecast spam).

Excellent DE coverage!

Have fun,
Sjap.
P.S.
Lord Damocles, well observed! I deleted my post after I realized the difference between player turn and game turn...




As 'turn' always referes to the 'player turn' unless otherwise specified (BRB, pg.9) they actually played it correctly. If Kelly had immobilied his own vehicles in his player turn (eg. flying into area terrain and becomming immobilised) then the guys inside would have been killed outright.
EDIT: Oh, it's gone

Lord Damocles
27-05-2011, 10:29
Editorial - The actual editor can't do the subject justice, the guest editor doesn't say anything beneficial. Le sigh.
Poor

Finecast - Whoa! Hold up a second. Seriously? SERIOUSLY?! This (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=16700019a) is equivalent to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4)? Really GW?

There's pages and pages of drivel about Finecast. I mean, it might be awesome and all, but casting in resin isn't some glorious step forwards - other companies have been doing it for literally years - and if the best they can do to sell it to me is tell me that the Finecast models are just like the greens (no ****. That's how casting works), and they're not shiny (because I've often bemoaned the terrible glare I get off my metal models while working on them) then they're failing at something.

The information on how to glue Finecast, and what extra preparation is needed before painting (nothing it would seem) might well be useful to those who don't work with resin often/at all, but that information only needs a single page at most.
Poor

New Releases - I like Dark Eldar as much as the next guy with a bondage fetish, but a double page spread for the talos/Chronos, a full page for five Scourge models, a full page for the Battleforce, a double page for the Razorwing, a full page for the Venom, and then two pages to cover the Wracks, Grotesque, and Haemonculus (a mightly seven models in total) is just absurd.
Poor

The Lords of Pain (Dark Eldar... what is this actually again? Designer's notes? OK, we'll go with that) - The text tells me nothing I couldn't have already got from previous designer's notes/the Codex/the videos they put on the website/the fething models. The background snippets are pointless. The sprue breakdown isn't particularly illuminating. The army lists don't match the pictures and are 'questionable' in their effectiveness. The two double page spreads of [the same!] Dark Eldar models within ten pages of each other are insulting.
Poor

Idols of the Desert Gods (Tomb Kings... BUY FINECAST!) - New stuff. It's Finecast. Ushabti can have bows (I'd never have guessed - what with all the pictures of Ushabti with goddamn bows plastered everywhere). Pointless battle scene which convieniently focusses on the new Finecast stuff.

The rules for Prince Apophas might be interesting to some people I suppose.
Poor

Tactica Tomb Kings - Randomly, this was the most readable 'article' in this issue for me. And I don't play Fantasy. Go figure...
Yeah, it's basic as hell (Pro tip: take the magic hat that stops your flamable guy being flamable; don't get your super important leader dude killed), but if you're new to Fantasy/Tomb Kings this might be useful.
OK
Interesting to compare and contrast with...

Tactica Grey Knights - Buy Grey Knights. Grey Knights are awesome. Take Grey Knights. Give your Grey Knights the overpowered grenades. Grey Knights.
It's pretty much just a list of what's available and what it does.
Poor

Kinstrife (Eldar vs. Dark Eldar battle report) - '...it's been well over a decade since the Eldar of the Craftworlds fought their evil kin in the pages of White Dwarf...' Now, I'm no expert (oh wait, yes I am it seems), but this is blatantly false. 'Shadows in the Jungle' in White Dwarves 283 and 284 - July and August 2003 - That's eight years ago. And the general of the Ulthwe Strike Force on that occasion? No less than a certain Mr Phil Kelly!

But there's a mistake in the Batrep (like often)
As 'turn' always referes to the 'player turn' unless otherwise specified (BRB, pg.9) they actually played it correctly. If Kelly had immobilied his own vehicles in his player turn (eg. flying into area terrain and becomming immobilised) then the guys inside would have been killed outright.
EDIT: Oh, it's gone :)

There is at least one proper error though - reference is made that, 'the Dire Avengers used their Fleet move to head northwards...' No they didn't! Fleet doesn't give you extra movement! They used their Run move. Not Fleet. Run! Fleet just lets you assault after running.

As usual, the army lists are bizzare (Surprise Assault on the Warp Spiders is completely redundant), as are the tactics ('Lets stand out in the open guys. Oh god, monoscythe missiles!' *splat*)

I'd have been much more interested in an article on the Dark Eldar terrain (that webway gate is funky (even if it is an almost direct copy of the warp gate from the Jericho Reach...))
Poor

Standard Bearer - Yeah. I called it.
Poor

Armies on Parade - The pictures are too small to see much detail. Why show a close up of the Carnifex when there's a nice converted Tervigon in the background?
OK

Matt Weaver's Space Wolves - I've seen them online. They were on the GW website weren't they? We had several Space Wolf armies showcased in White Dwarf when the codex was released.
Poor (I mean, they're nice and all, but did we really need two pages of Marines which aren't dissimilar to those we've all seen before (or actually have seen before as the case may be)?)

Eldar Phantom Titan - Seen it before online. Could they not have done a preview of The Doom of Mymaera? That would have been interesting. They could even have included a picture of the Phantom.
Poor

Peril at the Gap of Rohan (Fellowship vs. Isenguard battle report) - Didn't read it. Looks like the Fellowship just get dogpiled to death (in both games!) Inspiring.
Poor

Stuff that really should be online - Fifteen pages, and then some more Finecast.
Poor

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

Finecast Finecast Finecast Finecast Finecast Finecast Finecast

1.

Osbad
27-05-2011, 13:48
Flicked through it at the newsagents to see if there was anything worth a minute to read.

There wasn't.

As a (I suppose I should say "former" here, I must admit that now I think of it I haven't actually played the game for a good, long while now) LotR-SBG player I was interested to see a Bat-Rep for this much neglected game system. Shame the scenario was so boring. The new Failcast Fellowship models look uninteresting. Either they've got sub-par paintjobs, or they are worse than the metal originals.

Put it back on the shelf unbought. Which was a shame as we're going camping over half-term with the kids and I would have liked something to read.

Even worse than the last 2 months.

1.

Xepher
27-05-2011, 20:13
is it me or is there no mention of the price rises? haven't really read it yet, just picked it up today as bank hol and for something new to look at..but other than the pics there isn't really anything that worthwhile you can't see on the net.

sposada4
28-05-2011, 03:47
Iīm impressed how negative some of you guys are, White Dwarf is beautiful magazine, with amazing illustrations, photography, artwork and good articles. I will always give it a 10, itīs a very worthy magazine LOTS of work on it.

If you donīt like DONīT BUY IT.

I see lots of people complaining all day about GW but still they buy all the stuff, whatīs the point, whinning?

ORKY ARD BOYZ
28-05-2011, 03:58
Iīm impressed how negative some of you guys are, White Dwarf is beautiful magazine, with amazing illustrations, photography, artwork and good articles. I will always give it a 10, itīs a very worthy magazine LOTS of work on it.


... 10 implies perfection or something close to it. I'd only give a magazine a 10 if it was literature, and was not filled with studio pics and articles that lack interesting background, like when they still had Index Astartes articles.

2 for me. There was nothing that jumped out at me and the articles felt so shallow and forgettable.

sposada4
28-05-2011, 05:52
... 10 implies perfection or something close to it. I'd only give a magazine a 10 if it was literature, and was not filled with studio pics and articles that lack interesting background, like when they still had Index Astartes articles.

2 for me. There was nothing that jumped out at me and the articles felt so shallow and forgettable.


Well I donīt wanna argue, but it depends what you are rating. Are you rating a literature book or a wargaming monthly magazine, you are not being accurate here.

If you are accurate you will rate is a magazine dude. You canīt compare a literature book with a magazine man.

And White Dwarf magazine is very good. It is not the best that is true, but is certainly good at least a 7, and if you are more accurate and see that it is Games Workshopīs monthly magazine, it will obviously be used to offer and market stuff.

It is a beautiful magazine.

Lord Damocles
28-05-2011, 08:04
Are you rating a literature book or a wargaming monthly magazine
Personally, I rate it compared to previous issues in my collection from the 'golden age' of White Dwarf (~#200-300).

bluemage
28-05-2011, 12:31
Really a 10? Have you ever read any of the issues from back when fat bloke was editer? Those were almost all deserving of a 10. The current magazine really doesn't have any redeeming features, which is why people score it lowly. If you want to compare it to a currennt magazine, take a look at Unseen Lurker.

Carthnage
29-05-2011, 05:49
i chose to give it a 1 because i felt the entire issue went... something, something, something, FINECAST!, some new eldar and a few tacticas that just stated obvious things.

carlisimo
29-05-2011, 06:12
If you like Eldar, is it any good?

Tay051173096
29-05-2011, 18:03
Just read it, gave it a three.

When are they going to do coverstions again? It just seems to be 'buy these models' not how to change the look or feel of the same units i.e. colour schemes and altered poses.

The LoTR section was 8 pages of nothing...

Strange on page 45 the battleforce is Ģ55 not Ģ60...

ted1138
30-05-2011, 11:17
A low 4, as it's nice to see the new minis, but if they hadn't kept them under wraps we'd have had nothing new to look at. Not the best, but not the worst either.

orlanth1000
30-05-2011, 13:31
3 for me, I had a read through, and it's the first one in a while I will not buy.

Under the last editor, I actually thought it had a glimmer of hope, but those hopes are squashed.

Torpedo Vegas
30-05-2011, 16:07
If you got past the laughably bad finecast stuff, it was rather good, The Dark Eldar stuff was pretty interesting, and the tomb kings feature was nice if very basic. Jervis is as bonkers as ever.

SunTzu
31-05-2011, 07:46
I will always give it a 10

Then your rating is meaningless. (Equally meaningless as anyone who would always give it a 1). The point of the poll is, "was this a good issue". You are choosing to ignore that and say, "I like WD" which may be a valid opinion but is nothing to do with the question being asked.

Compare WD to just about any other magazine and you'll realise why people don't rate it highly.


If you donīt like DONīT BUY IT.

Of course, by the time you've decided whether you like it, it's too late, you've already bought it. Duh?

So by rating it low, others can be saved the expense of wasting money on something that is rubbish.

eldargal
31-05-2011, 07:52
As an Eldar and Dark Eldar player who is actually pleased about the switch to resin, I thought it was a rather good issue.

7.

Frankly
31-05-2011, 09:27
Lots of guys who work for GW tell you how great GW's new money-making venture is.

Yawn. 3/10.

+1 agreed, actually I'm so tired of 'hoping' there will be any really features in it I've almost stopped flicking through it in the store while waiting for a train.

mrtn
02-06-2011, 01:22
Just as last time they didn't have a new major army release it was worse than it usually is. Content that's not picture based would be appreciated. Gave it a 3.

Angelwing
02-06-2011, 08:06
Borrowed a copy.
Good stuff: non studio armies, a little bit extra on the tomb kings.
Bad stuff: tiny pictures of non studio armies. Over blow of finecast. Would have been nice to have the green, then the metal, then the finecast in the comparison picture to show the improvement.

Overall: usual lack of real content, but of course one must remember WD is aimed at beginners and children, so I won't factor that in as I am neither and it would bias the final score. So, I think a below average but above rubbish 3 out of 10 for me.

CaptainFaramir
02-06-2011, 10:49
Picked up a copy, reached page 17 before I realised it was still adverts for FineCast. Put copy down, didn't buy it.

Achaylus72
02-06-2011, 11:19
I gave our local version a flick through and i was impressed with it, so i have given it an 8 it is better than the last couple of issues.

Memnos
02-06-2011, 11:58
As for the don't like it don't buy it argument, I thought it was common knowledge by now that any argument that is based on that saying is a logical fallacy

Hi. I'm curious, because I'm sure what you mean here.

Which logical fallacy are you referring to here? Genetic? Slippery slope? Ad hominem? None of the fallacies seems to fit. Which fallacy is it common knowledge that 'If you don't like it, don't buy it' is based on?

Because I would say it's common knowledge that this is just basic common sense. However, since people may have subscriptions, they have a full right to voice their opinion.

SpikeyChaosDwarf
02-06-2011, 19:25
Well, I let myself be talked into renewing my subscription. Hard to quit after all these years. I have had my WD sitting on the nightstand for two days now and barely thumbed through it. I can't give a very detailed review as nothing in there captured my attention enough to give it a thorough read yet. But at the same time, isn't that part of the problem? There is nothing in there I felt I hadn't already read. The tactics articles are always so generic they hold no interest and most of the magazine is pictures.

I looked at the pictures and skimmed the magazine and that is all it is really worth. I give it a 3. It still gets a three because the pictures are always good and I did like the view of other people's armies instead of the 'eavy metal team.

War Angel
03-06-2011, 16:49
The Razorwing Jetfighters look great. When I saw it I said aloud "That looks fun!"
The whole Dark Eldar range looks good so far and have some interesting stories attached to them.
Like the Wracks for example. And only those of Comoragh could come up with Talos Pain Engines
or Cronos Parasite Engines. :evilgrin: My one critique is why would Scourges have feathery wings? :confused:

On the WFB front I like that there's a character named Prince Apophas. Clearly named for the Apophis,
the Egyptian God of Destruction. Who later became and asteroid and Stargate SG-1 villian.

The Dark Eldar/Craft World Eldar battle report looks like alot of fun. I haven't read it yet so please don't spoil it.
Obviously it's an aerial battle but I'm hoping the Scourges and the Swooping Hawks go at each other.
Personally I'm rooting for the Dark Eldar since their army looks alot cooler.:cool:

SunTzu
03-06-2011, 17:16
Having had a bit more time with it, I think this is actually the worst issue I've read in a long, long time. Maybe ever?

How many entire-page (or even entire-double page) spreads of a Dark Eldar army (consisting of exactly the same models as shown a few pages ago, only in a slightly different arrangement) need???

Ugh. There's just nothing in the whole magazine that made me even slightly interested. Awful, just awful. If I could downgrade my vote to a 1, I would.

shelfunit.
03-06-2011, 17:20
Having had a bit more time with it, I think this is actually the worst issue I've read in a long, long time. Maybe ever?

How many entire-page (or even entire-double page) spreads of a Dark Eldar army (consisting of exactly the same models as shown a few pages ago, only in a slightly different arrangement) need???

Ugh. There's just nothing in the whole magazine that made me even slightly interested. Awful, just awful. If I could downgrade my vote to a 1, I would.

Don't worry, there's always next months...

The Marshel
05-06-2011, 13:43
so the lotr battle rep is bad then? thats a shame, id have bought it for that rep alone if it were worthwhile. the last Lotr related battle report i enjoyed was the mordor release. since then its just been huge and stupid wotr reports followed by nothing.

War Angel
07-06-2011, 18:21
As far as Battle Reports go I'm glad to see another 40k one that has no Imperium involvement.
It seems like a vast majority of them has an Imperial army fighting against non-Imperial army of the month.
This time we got a Dark Eldar vs. Eldar one. Something that I'd imagine would happen
quite alot in the 40k universe. :evilgrin: I hope to see more of these in the future.

As for LOTR Bat reps I just skip over those. Fantasy ones are slightly interesting because I have thoughts
of some day starting an army in that game.

brain_dead_1st
08-06-2011, 21:15
Good to see SBG back in it. Tbh we don't get enough love considering we outsell fantasy per advert (wd, website, and store troll) most years.

someone2040
09-06-2011, 01:44
so the lotr battle rep is bad then? thats a shame, id have bought it for that rep alone if it were worthwhile. the last Lotr related battle report i enjoyed was the mordor release. since then its just been huge and stupid wotr reports followed by nothing.
I thought the LOTR one was alright. It's basically a what if the Fellowship went through Isenguard even after Gandalf told them that Saruman was evil. It also has a small write up after of what happened when the players swapped sides.

But it certainly wasn't as flashy as a WFB or 40k battle report.

Myrmidon616
09-06-2011, 12:31
Positives: The design notes on the new DE stuff were quite interesting given that they are one of the best designed armies GW have released as of late. The armies on parade feature was good as its always nice to see differently painted armies.

Negatives: Yeah, we get the picture, citadel finecast (they can't just simply call it resin can then?) is out this month. If they look better in person, why are you plastering your pages with them. Another Grey Knights tactica! I swear they've had one in each WD since they've been released. When I turned to the page with Matt Weaver's SW army, I was soon disappointed that there were only 2 pages on it.

Overall the same as usual but now with added Citadel Finecast.

schmoozies
09-06-2011, 16:34
Gave it a three.

I really miss when white dwarf was a useful magazine with valid tactical insight and they would actually expand on the game systems with new troop ideas and campaign options. Since it’s descended into being a monthly catalogue update it really has been a fail. Definitely won't be renewing the subscription when it finally expires (only renewed this one because I really liked the subscription model). Overall a fail.

Tarax
10-06-2011, 08:43
As a subscriber, waiting for my subscription to end (next year), I only look at the articles I might like.

I've lost interest in Fantasy, so that's already a lot that I can skipp.

In contrast to others I found the introduction of Finecast nice, though too many pictures.
Likewise, they could hav done with less pictures of the same new release.

Depending on the armies used in the Battle Report, I read them. But even that I'm interested in both Eldar and Dark Eldar, I found it hard to keep my interest. This was mostly due to the loads of special rules that DE bring with them. I haven't got the codex, so I would know what everything does. This combined with the lack of good pictures/diagrams of the positioning of units and the shabby tactics used by the players, has stopped me reading further than the first turn.

Armies on Parade was nice to see, but could have done with more coverage, both in pictures (close-ups) and words.
Standard Bearer was the usual nothingness.

Except for the nice pictures of the new DE releases and some introduction into Fincast, this was a poor edition. Voting: 3