View Full Version : February 2017 White Dwarf Feedback Thread

Lord Damocles
01-02-2017, 18:44
Time for the February 2017 issue!

For more general comments about White Dwarf, there is the General White Dwarf Feedback Thread (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?23972-General-White-Dwarf-Feedback-Thread).

If you post the score you have given to the current White Dwarf in the thread, please explain why as this is useful and interesting for Warseer members and others reading the thread.

Please do not criticise people for posting their score and views about White Dwarf; we are all entitled to voice our opinions without the the fear of them being criticised.

Lord Damocles
12-02-2017, 21:42
I can't remember whether last issue promised any content which might not be in this issue. Oh well.

Editorial – ‘The Visarch, he’s got the look of an Eldar Corsair...’; well, that’s not strictly true, since he doesn’t fit with the style of any of the actual current/past Corsair models. Kelly, I believe, stated that the Visarch looks like what he envisages Corsairs looking like, but it’s not what we’ve been shown Corsairs to actually look like (why Corsairs would necessarily share more stylistic similarities with the ancient Aeldari (/Dark Eldar) than the Craftworlders who they clearly trade with, acquire weapons/equipment from, and work relatively closely with isn’t clear).

'...the Eldar have been drawn into the storm gathering across the galaxy in the wake of Abaddon’s 13th Black Crusade...’; the 13th Black Crusade is ongoing during the events of Fracture of Biel-Tan. It’s not really the ‘wake’ is it?

Contents – Does anyone even use the contents?

Planet Warhammer – Ha! Fire Warrior reference!
Gangs of Commorragh (which is mostly destroyed now, I guess?) gets all of one page and not another mention. Last month it got literally twice the page count just in a teaser advert!

- Double page spread for Warhammer Quest II: The Questening –

Contact – Almost an entire page is taken up by a letter from Mr McKissock, followed by the answer. McKissock notes that the format of battle reports is horrible – with multiple boxouts being repetitive and confusing, and that the older format (’Tell the tale through main page text and only have the extra boxes to cover important points, rule explanations and bits of fiction related to the story’) was better.
The reply is another mewling non-answer in the vein of ‘maps aren’t suitable’ (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?23972-General-White-Dwarf-Feedback-Thread&p=7646285&viewfull=1#post7646285) which talks about ’different kinds of battle reports’, as if the basic format is dependant on whether the players are experienced or not, or whether a scenario is being played out.
The formatting and style of every battle report in the current run (not counting the confused mess that was the Blood Bowl report, or Melissa being ditzy) has been basically the same. This month’s report is apparently ‘...more of a commentary on the game and the armies...’, yet reads in exactly the same way as any of the previous reports, but with the perspective switched from third to first person.
Last month’s report was apparently narrative (’...narrative very much led the way’); which is true in the strictest sense that a series of events were listed in order to create a description of what occurred during the game, but that isn’t even close to what I (and I assume 99% of others) would consider a narrative report. If that was a narrative report, then all reports are narrative reports – because that’s what a report is!

The reply to Mr McKissock does nothing to actually address the points he made in his letter about horrible formatting.

Other correspondence: ‘multi-ethnic models are good’, ‘can we haz Errant-Questor rules for Silver Tower?’, ‘look at my model’, ‘ White Dwarf is great’, ‘I don’t have Google’, cool guy in Kuala Lumpur.

Spike Magazine: The Blood Bowl Glossary – Last month the blog got a bunch of posts showcasing converted teams, while White Dwarf got repeated pictures of the standard plastic teams. This month there’s a page and a half of in-universe glossary, and that’s it for content for a game which only released two months ago.

Temporal Distort (# 166) –Just look at those pictures from the battle report. I re-read the issue 166 report, thinking about Mr McKissock’s letter, and the past was certainly vastly superior. The White Dwarf team could learn a lot from the work of their predecessors.
I still don’t really get why White Dwarf/GW advertise how much better things used to be (like the box on how you used to be able to mail order individual bits).

The Fate of the Eldar – Sort of designers’ notes mixed with description of the events in Fracture of Biel-Tan. This would have worked better folded in with the later article in this issue.
Goodwin’s concept sketches are a welcome feature, but as usual, they appear to be from very late in the design process – more/earlier designs would be more interesting in illustrating the evolution of the designs.

’Some of Jes’s older Eldar models had fur around their shoulders, but we haven’t done anything like that for a long time’. Erm, hello? (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dark+eldar+archon&biw=1366&bih=673&tbm=isch&imgil=lj3p4yotqmb-lM%253A%253B1EkicN7aGtEzMM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F% 25252Fwww.dakkadakka.com%25252Fdakkaforum%25252Fpo sts%25252Flist%25252F420%25252F595606.page&source=iu&pf=m&fir=lj3p4yotqmb-lM%253A%252C1EkicN7aGtEzMM%252C_&usg=__1BHlhiVOR7FUNx3fNhgFZ1EC1Lk%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjLloO9w4vSAhXCLcAKHZY9AgwQyjcIKQ&ei=79agWIvjAcLbgAaW-4hg#imgrc=lj3p4yotqmb-lM:)

‘Yvraine believes that when reunited, these five swords will enable Ynnead to be reborn. So far she has found three of the five blades...’ Vilith-zhar, Asu-var, Kha-vir, Spear of Twilight. That’s four, no?

- Full page ad for Warhammer Digital –

Collecting: A Tale of Four Warlords – Totals for the series: Hutson: 535.50, King: 420, Karch: 325 + Blood Knights (who seem to no longer be available), Cowey: 284.
’In our sixth and final month, our four challengers were given free reign to paint anything else they wanted to add to their respective armies’; they’ve barely been constrained by the ‘rules’ of the series anyway, so it hardly matters.
The four-way battle report is exactly the sort of cluster-fudge McKissock was talking about.

Gathering Storm: A New Breed of Eldar – As a relatively brief (four pages including big pictures) run-through of the background in Fracture of Biel-Tan this is actually pretty good.
A sort of Ultimate Guide To... for new supplements is a good idea for those who aren’t intending to /can’t buy every release GW pumps out, but equally don’t want to be totally left behind in regards to background.

This should have been combined with the earlier designers’ notes. It would also have been better to have had an Index Xenos type article on the Ynnari. This is good, but it’s still not exactly in-depth or new (/exclusive) background.

- Double page spread for Black Library –

Battle Report: The Avenging Strike (Stormcast vs. Tzeentch) – Something something all three Age of Sigmar reports have featured Stormcast.
I have no idea whether the armies are even vaguely equal.
Johnson never explains why he elects to deepstrike his Vanguard-Hunters (or the rest of his forces, really), rather than deploying them normally and taking advantage of their Astral Compasses to redeploy as required. Given that one of his units not bothering to turn up until the last turn looks like it cost him dearly, this might have been worth some discussion, maybe?

Obviously this style of game just doesn’t suit maps either... But is does suit one paragraph of text per player turn and boxouts out the wazoo.

- Double page spread of Age of Sigmar models –

Illuminations: The Imperium of Man – ’...ask the artists behind these impressive pieces for some insights into their work’; ‘insight’ is rather optimistic. Most of the ‘insights’ are literally just descriptions of what’s in the pictures.
Like other Illuminations, without any content beyond just reprinting artwork from elsewhere, this feels very filler-y.

Collecting and Painting: Mustering For War – Essentially, write an army list first, then force yourself to paint everything to a schedule.
As an article about motivating yourself to paint lots of models to a deadline, it’s alright I suppose, but not exactly super inspiring.

Modelling and Painting: Paint Splatter (Yncarne, Kairos, Tzaangor Skyfires, Blue & Brimstone Horrors, Lord-Aquilor) – Good.
There’s at least a page-worth of space taken up by unnecessarily large pictures though.

Modelling and Painting: Realms of Battle – So there’s a whole page of sticking a Genestealer inside a Munitorum container, two pages of container colour schemes, and two pages of trees. The content here could have been included in half the page space.
Like previous terrain articles, this is decidedly weak.

Golden Demon: Warhammer Age of Sigmar – Ditch the text and close-ups and stop spreading this over so many issues.

New Rules: Denizens & Adversaries – Silver Tower rules for the Tzaangor Shaman, Tzaangor Enlightened, and Tzaangor Skyfires

Sniper Rifle/Missile Launcher rules for Lost Patrol.
The picture accompanying the Lost Patrol rules shows a conspicuously illegal weapon loadout. Don’t bother to read the rules you just wrote. Jeeze.

Four dataslates for deathworld terrain (I assume these are copy-pasted from inside the box).
They’re ludicrously OP. What was wrong with a pingpong ball with some cocktail sticks stuck in it?

Battleplan for the four player battle used in A Tale of Four Warlords.
The rules here don’t explain how to resolve combats (everyone fights regardless of whose player turn it is), which is mentioned in the battle report earlier in the issue.

- Full page ad for local stores –

A Tale of One Painter ( Christopher Stahl) – It’s ok. It doesn’t really need so much text accompanying each model. Taken together with Golden Demon, Blanchitsu, and expanded Readers’ Models, there are a lot of ‘pictures of models’ articles in this issue.

Modelling and Painting: ‘Eavy Metal Masterclass (crystal swords and gemstones) – Excellent. It’s about the millionth time gemstones have been covered, but still good.

Blanchitsu - ...this isn’t really about Blanche’s models anymore, is it?
As with last month, the models are pretty, but there is no information on how they relate to the Pilgrym or what they’re doing on Terra, which seems quite an oversight.
What’s the robed Alpha Legion Magos model?

- Double page ad for Warhammer World –

Readers’ Models – Now expanded to six pages (that’s 50% longer than Blanchitsu). Feels a bit filler-y at this length.

In The Bunker – Yes you can sail the seven seas, in the navy, yes you can put you mind at ease...
Some people did some things. Somebody painted a Valkyrie. Whatever.
Vox Chatter is a weird feature isn’t it. Eugh. Oh, hey, next month they’re promising Lord of the Rings content.
Is that next month like those Sisters of Silence rules..?

Largely forgettable. The painting sections are decent, and the overview of Fracture of Biel-Tan is okay for those who don't intend to purchase the book, but there's nothing else to write home about, really.

Didn't spot any spelling mistakes though.

13-02-2017, 12:06
I wonder if those who voted 10 and 9 could highlight why? I was more in the vein of the review above, though I did like the extra boardgame rules.

15-02-2017, 08:33
some good articles.

i'm a big fan of the painting ones. i hope they eventually link them to the model page on the website.

the battle reports still seem a bit, well amateurish. and as mentioned above hard to follow without even a simple map.

7 from me