PDA

View Full Version : Official December 2011 White Dwarf (USA 383, UK 384 etc) Feedback Thread



Wintermute
26-11-2011, 10:35
Its time for yet another White Dwarf Feedback thread, this time for the December 2011 issue (US 383, UK 384 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

ted1138
26-11-2011, 11:03
Above average, a good mix of articles, not too pushy with the hard sell(there are some very nice releases this December, if a little pricey). Will probably pick up the "Blood in the Badlands" campaign book based on the write up here. No Jervis this month, but there is a two page spread featuring a FW model!! :eek:

benvoliothefirst
26-11-2011, 17:25
I was actually very surprised by the amount of WHFB content in this issue. As a fantasy only player, I usually skip any issue that is more 40K/LotR oriented, but even so I feel like this issue had way more fantasy articles than usual, and I loved it! I managed to avoid being spoiled on the contents of the issue, so all the new releases were great. I enjoyed the painting articles and terrain workshops as well. I gave it a ten, and although I can hear the cries of "there's always room for improvement!" in the background, I can't think of anything else I could realistically want.

stahly
26-11-2011, 19:36
To my surprise, I was quite impressed with this issue. Lacking the flavour of the month, there was a really good mix of articles - rules, scenarios, battle reports with players' armies, showcases and tutorials. This issue felt actually like a true hobby magazine. Still stuff like the Dreadfleet booklet and the Beastmen article were quite lackluster. I give it a solid 7/10. As every month, you can find a more in-depth review on Tale of Painters, just follow the link in my signature.

Rosstifer
26-11-2011, 20:19
This is what every issue should be more like. Great mix of hobby, gaming and painting, and a great mix of systems as well. Plus, if you ignore the Dreadfleet booklet, they barely tried that hard to sell you anything! Colour me impressed.

RevEv
26-11-2011, 20:42
Quite impressed for two reasons

1) Not too much hard sell of older releases and some superb new releases to consider - yes really!

2) My subscription arrived on time - well, the day of release at least. Could it be that GW have now sorted out delivery problems or is it just a flash in the pan? I go for the latter but it's all too late anyway as I've now cancelled my subscription (GW take note).

Overall a 7.

Lord Damocles
26-11-2011, 21:01
I'm confused. wasn't white Dwarf supposed to arrive later nowadays or something? Seems as early as ever though.


Anyway, I haven't finished reading it yet, but I took a few minutes out from making sweet sweet love to my plastic Immortals (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooMuchInformation) to look over the Necron article (from practically the whole issue last month to a single article this month. I miss the Ghost Ark :shifty:


Slaughter on Shrodinger VII - Question: If you're going to go to the trouble of replacing Helbrecht's sword with something more appropriate, why not take away his Bionics too? He has a bionic arm before losing it in a duel during the final scenario...
Question: Shouldn't the use of special characters who weren't there have been restricted? ('Why yes, Grimraldus is lugging a lump of an Armageddon temple around Shrodinger VII 70 years before he acquired it...')
Question: What do you do with any Drop Pods which survived the early battle(s) in the final scenario?
Question: Do you get whole squads back in the final scenario, or just the models which survived? Seems rather unfortunate that a 20 strong Crusader squad can take 19 casualties, and then they all get better for the final showdown.
Question: How come the Templars can deploy via Drop Pod/Thunderhawk inside the Necron tomb (it's like Thur'Abis all over again :shifty:), but can't inside the ice cavern? (same question for Imotekh's storm) Seems to make assassinating the Nexus via Chainfists rather simple...
Question: If the Emperor's Champion gets beheaded by Imotekh, do you just get another one for the subsequent scenarios? In which case, it's better to have your hero beheaded than it is to have them survive?
Question: How does the ongoing roster thingy actually work? If Chaplain McSkullington loses a foot to imotekh in Templar Strike, can you just use Chaplain McSkullington II (same gear, different name) in the next mission?
How come characters who survive being 'killed' by Imotekh in Templar Strike can come back in all subsequent scenarios except the final one?
Question: Where do Templar units fall back to in Marked For Death?
Question: Can Helbrecht and friends deploy inside a vehicle/building in Marked For Death?
Question: Does '...apt to dissolve into molten ice' even make sense? Surely that's just melting? ...into water?
Question: How do you select the D3 random casulaties if a unit is affected by the terrible perils of 'molten ice'?

I've had a little go at writing simple campaigns in the past (Sanctuary 101); and OK, mine was more basic, but I don't think it had anything like the number of rules holes this one does.

Question: Am I taking this all far too seriously? :angel:

Freakiq
26-11-2011, 21:48
Dissappointed by the amount of Necron content.

When the Dark Eldar and Blood Angels were released they had tacticas and painting guides galore, we only get some army specific scenarios.

SunTzu
26-11-2011, 22:08
I think I must have been sent the wrong magazine by mistake.

For a start, it arrived on time. It's almost as though they've realised subscribers are a guaranteed income and should be rewarded for their loyalty. But we all know that's not how White Dwarf works nowadays, don't we?

We also all know that White Dwarf doesn't contain hobby content any more. But there's actually quite a lot of it in this magazine. I really appreciated the "Blancheitsu" article: all too often people think that copying 'Eavy Metal is the only way to paint miniatures and it was really interesting to see a couple of alternative approaches; and especially to see how a multi-Golden-Demon-winner paints armies quickly when he's not painting competition entries. Fascinating, contained a few useful tips, and a considerably better use of pages than Jervis' shameless and increasingly desperate barrel-scraping.

That wasn't the only hobby content of course, though much of the rest of it fell into the trap of simply showing a photo and saying "I painted it good!" without explaining exactly how it was achieved; and the article about the 'Eavy Metal Masterclass book highlights only the tragic loss of Masterclasses within White Dwarf itself. So, not everything was good. But the Skullvane Manse article was OK (though the model itself leaves me cold)... and the Ogre monsters article was OK (though again I think the model is very poor)... it's actually quite surprising to realise how much hobby stuff is in there this month.

The battle reports were a bit anaemic but there was plenty in the way of rules content; Apocalypse formations for the recent armies was a pretty cool touch for example. The campaign didn't hold a lot of interest for me (and Lord Damocles has just dissected it in much greater detail than I ever would have) and I'd rather have seen the Beastmen Rare choices given an official 50-to-75-point reduction, than "summoning scrolls" for the execrable Storm of Magic; but to each their own I suppose, and the surprise appearance of Blood in the Badlands (and accompanying article) was something I received considerably more warmly.

The first few and last few pages are still a total waste of dead trees (unless you're stuck in Zaporozhye in the Ukraine with an urgent need to buy Games Workshop models but you don't have an internet connection but you do have a mobile phone), and the Dreadfleet leaflet went straight in the bin, but the bit in the middle of the magazine is surprisingly - nay, shockingly - interesting this month. There's a lot I want to read, it took rather more than half an hour to read it, and some of it I can even - gasp! - imagine coming back to at some point in the future.

That's not something I've been able to say about White Dwarf for a long, long time so I'm wondering if I've accidentally been sent a reincarnation of The Wargames Journal with a printing error on the cover; but joking apart, we've been here before so I don't want to get carried away. Only two months ago was the worst issue of White Dwarf I have ever read in over 250 issues, so it's going to take more than one good issue to make me feel like I'm getting value from my subscription; but let's be entirely fair, this was, for once, a good issue. Either that or I'm getting Stockholm Syndrome. 8/10.

Tarax
27-11-2011, 12:59
Well, first impressions on this month's WD:

-Dreadfleet is not what GW hoped it would be. Why else would they have included a 'campaign booklet' with additional advertisement? Also it seems that there are a lot of people working for GW. How else could they have 4 (!) Designers run that campaign? I've never heard of them, so don't know what they do. But besides Games Developers, WD-team, 'Eavy Metal-painters, Miniature Sculptors, Artists (most of whom are knowns through articles) and overhead-staff, what do these 4 guys actually do?

-Warhammer has really turned into Monsterhammer. Or is Storm of Magic also not selling well? I mean, more monsters, Scrolls of Binding and a(nother) huge battle report, there must be a reason why they do this?

I've already given up on Warhammer and focus more on 40K (and WotR), so this issue was not of much interest to me.
I also don't play Apocalypse and am not a fan of Blanche (to each his own) so from that point this sissue was also disappointing.
In the end I skimmed it through a couple of times and 'read' some bits, but it will probably end up with the others and this one will not be skimmed through in the future.

Can't really give a grade here, as I'm too biased.

stahly
27-11-2011, 13:14
Also it seems that there are a lot of people working for GW. How else could they have 4 (!) Designers run that campaign? I've never heard of them, so don't know what they do. But besides Games Developers, WD-team, 'Eavy Metal-painters, Miniature Sculptors, Artists (most of whom are knowns through articles) and overhead-staff, what do these 4 guys actually do?


Well they do the graphic design and photography for White Dwarf, the Website and the army books? :wtf:

Spiney Norman
28-11-2011, 08:11
Well, first impressions on this month's WD:

-Dreadfleet is not what GW hoped it would be. Why else would they have included a 'campaign booklet' with additional advertisement? Also it seems that there are a lot of people working for GW. How else could they have 4 (!) Designers run that campaign? I've never heard of them, so don't know what they do. But besides Games Developers, WD-team, 'Eavy Metal-painters, Miniature Sculptors, Artists (most of whom are knowns through articles) and overhead-staff, what do these 4 guys actually do?


I actually appreciated the dreadfleet booklet this month, but then I quite enjoy the game. At least they sent it out separate to the mag and didn't eat up a bunch of pages inside with it.


-Warhammer has really turned into Monsterhammer. Or is Storm of Magic also not selling well? I mean, more monsters, Scrolls of Binding and a(nother) huge battle report, there must be a reason why they do this?

I've already given up on Warhammer and focus more on 40K (and WotR), so this issue was not of much interest to me.
I also don't play Apocalypse and am not a fan of Blanche (to each his own) so from that point this sissue was also disappointing.
In the end I skimmed it through a couple of times and 'read' some bits, but it will probably end up with the others and this one will not be skimmed through in the future.

Can't really give a grade here, as I'm too biased.

I think its clear that the new scroll of binding for the Jabberslythe wasn't promoing Storm of Magic, but rather a feeble attempt to get non-beastman players to pay for that grotesquely overpriced model. Given the abject failure of the beastmen army book I'd be surprised if there are a great many beastmen players left anyway.

I loved the Necron/Templar campaign structure, I'm so going to give it a go with my BT opponent sometime, useful heads up that we will need to house rule the holes first though.

On a happier note I also received my WD subscription copy on release day this month, I'm even going to overlook the fact that all my friends got their copy on Thursday by buying from the local indy stockist, at least I'm not a full week behind them this month :D

Lord Damocles
28-11-2011, 22:17
Editorial - I wonder if it really was deliberate that the content is more or less what has been released this year?
What does the wizard have to do with the content of the editorial? Is he just there because there's a mention of Storm of Magic? Seems a little odd.
Poor

News/New Releases - Pretty much a page per new (re)release as usual.
I do, however, approve muchly of the return of the 'people reading White Dwarf in unusual places/outfits' feature.
The extract from The Gildar Rift is pointless (it's about Silver Skulls vs. Red Corsairs, so obviously the extract includes... Space Wolves), the interview with Bill King ought to have been loger really to avoid 'new series is gonna be great. Buy it' syndrome.
OK

Denizens of the Forest Depths - The first page (what of it which isn't a huge picture at any rate) implies that this article is going to be an in-universe look at the Doomwahatsit, Jabbadodar, and Gorgthingy, but then nothing comes of it and the text just talks about the stats and special rules of the new monsters. Something like the old Old Wierd's Inculabrium (sp?) would have been much better (also less pictures :mad:)
Poor

Bloodied in the Badlands - As a very brief overview of what the new book is all about, it's not bad.
The battle report was easy enough to follow, although some of the action seemed to jump around quite a lot and I lost track of exactly where some units were/what they were doing.
There was a similar campaign between members of the studio (even set in the same geographical area?) some time ago in White Dwarf which had some background on the protagonists, but never really came to anything IIRC. I suppose that sort of stuff is in the actual book?
OK

Unleash the Beasts - The Scrolls of binding are good (they're giving Scrolls for all new beasties, so I think claims that these are all part of some conspiracy to sell the models to non-Beastmen players because all the Beastmen players have ragequit, or something are unfounded).
The first page is basicly a repeat of the information given earlier. This article should really have been merged with Denizens of the Forest Depths.
Good

Warmongers (Chaos and Daemons vs. Orks and Ogres Storm of Magic battle report) - I like how most of the wizards exploded. Easy enough to follow, and reasonably readable, although I'd still prefer to see non-studio armies with better maps, smaller/fewer pictures, and more in-depth tactial notes.
OK

Blanchitsu - I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that Blanche really thought that he should make his models look like the 'Eavy Metal ones.
The bulk of the article is good though. More painters being covered would have been good (perhaps for future articles?) Also, Julian Baylisu's models could have done with a bit more flash perhaps? I know that they're very dark on purpose, but the pictures are *really* dark.
As usual, an article (or series!) just on Blanche's models would be awesome.
Good

Liber Apocalyptcia (Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle, Grey Knights) - They deserved some new ones. (OK, so nobody actually owns that many Repentia, but the thought is there...) They look reasonably balanced.
Good

The Contemptor Dreadnought - Well this is different to the usual Forgeworld double page spread. The rules could have been included, which would have been nice (there's a 'Buy IA: Apocalypse 2.0', but who's actually going to bother buying it just because of the Contemptor?) Background would have been good here (possibly a 'Dereadnought pattern/mark identification' style?)
OK

Slaughter on Shrodinger VII - There are... issues :shifty:
OK

'Eavy Metal - I'm not sure I really see the point of this article. if it was to talk about the 'Eavy Metal team then the pages of pictures detract from that; while if it was to show pretty pictures like usual, why bother with the text (it's not like White Dwarf usually needs an excuse).
An article about what it's actually like to have a job where you paint all day every day to tight timescales, with pictures of the painters at work wherever it is that they do it would have been more interesting than the models we've all seen before.
OK

Modelling Workshop: Skullvane Manse - The guide is pretty good, although some of the pictures are surplus to requirements.
Good

Modelling Workshop: Big Monsters - Same as above. I'm not sure we really needed another 'how to paint ogre flesh' though.
Good

Dragon Hunt (LoTR battle report) - It doesn't float my boat, but it's easy to follow, and a bit different to the usual (mass of Gondor/Rohan grind into mass of Mordor)
OK

Painting Masters: Neil Green - Pictures of nice models. Makes the previous 'Eavy Metal article somewhat redundant.
Good

Stuff at the Back - Usual comments. Although, this month, special mention goes to the Club Profile (South Woodford Library): I don't know why really, because I don't usually have much interest in these things, but I found this one rather readable. I'd actually have liked a bit more (less of the 'Join the GCN!' though, perhaps). It could have become a 'proper' article.
OK

EXTRA: Dreadfleet: Into the Maelstrom - Erm... OK. Why, exactly? there's some people playing Dreadfleet (wasn't stock strictly limited, first come first served, get it while stocks last etc. ect.?) and an advert for October's issue of White Dwarf.
Huh.
I usually keep these free bits and bods and eventually sell them on ebay, but I'm not sure that I'll bother holding onto this.
Could have put the Shrodinger campaign in it's own little booklet with cool conversions (Helbrecht, the early years / Tomb Nexus), Necron themed terrain (inside tomb complex), and background etc.. Then again, I'd probably only have moaned that it wasn't in the issue proper...
Poor

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

December issues are often the best of the year since there aren't usually all that many realeases (an unusually high number this year), and this year is no exception.
I was disappointed by the lack of Necron content after last month.
I was also somewhat disappointed (although not unexpectedly so) by the lack of any seasonal content.

Overall, more readable than usual; a 5 from me this month.

dijital_llama
30-11-2011, 00:12
gave it a solid 8/10. My jaw hit the floor when I saw it in my letter box on Saturday. The Badlands stuff is really interesting, seems like they've trimmed the new stuff and the augury and upped the quality of content. Really hoping this upwards trend is here to stay. As always full review at the link in my sig.

lbecks
06-12-2011, 14:15
7/10. The building painting article was nice and the kind of stuff hobby team should do. The Thundertusk guide should have been an EM article with Neil Green's color scheme. Enough with the Hobby Team painting not as good re-dos of EM stuff. The EM highlights are pretty much just "look how awesome EM is! Yeah!" They also need to correct their new releases pictures, they're getting beyond 1:1 scale. Blanchitsu article was good.

Foolish Mortal
12-12-2011, 10:46
I gave it a 5.

It's the first WD I've bought since cancelling my subscription, and to be honest I'm sure I'm not missing much.

While the content seemed 'better' (more of it), it still didn't grab my attention in a big way. I was happy to see no real pushing of the latest, greatest whatever (probably because there wasn't one), but still nowhere near where it should be.
I flicked through it at home, and didn't really bother to read any articles, I just tore out the modelling & painting sections and binned the rest.

It will still need to improve greatly to get me reading it again.