In an email they send me where they were responding to some suggestions I made about the magazine.
The new staff really wants to make this magazine the best there is I feel. They respond extremely fast to emails (mine was responded to within a few hours) and are very willing to hear what we the readers would like to see. The more people email them with good suggestions (and maybe examples from old white dwarfs) the better they will know what we the reader want and the better the magazine will become.Well first off, it seems as though we're all thinking in the same direction. You would like more painting guides in White Dwarf and that's exactly what we're planning to do. From January's edition onwards we've added an extra two pages to our Paint Splatter article as it seems to be one of the most popular in the magazine. We will always be trying out new things with it too, such as unit painting guides, fast painting, intricate details, freehand details, 'Eavy Metal tips - all that kind of stuff. Essentially these will be the new and revamped version of those old painting guides and we will be taking some inspiration from them when we make these new guides.
As for conversions for scenery, we'll be featuring a scenery Kit Bash in an upcoming issue. It's not a big one as I don't think people are used to converting scenery that much, but hopefully this will help change their mind. We've also got a board building article planned in for Spring next year, but we've got to work out how we're going to do it first.
Which of course begs the question, if we're [they're] all thinking in the same direction (which seems to be mostly what used to be in White Dwarf as regards painting...), why didn't they implement it with the redesign?
They can't have not realised that replacing 'Eavy Metal guides with Paint Platter was a step in any direction but forwards, surely?
Your last sentence appears to be a triple negative, I'm not entirely sure that I've not misunderstood what you weren't trying to say
Last edited by Maidel; 24-11-2012 at 10:00.
Originally Posted by Lothlanathorian
We, the readers and gamers, have been asking for ‘eavy Metal articles for a long time. Mike McVey’s articles were the stuff of legends. It shouldn’t really be a surprise to them that this is wanted/needed.
As for the scenery articles: why do they think that people don’t do terrain? Because Games Workshop themselves has tried to cash in on this by going “terrain is way too difficult to make – better buy our ridiculously overpriced gaming board instead” for a long time now.
I remember the days when Mike McVey had regular columns in White Dwarf. When Andy Chambers showed off his all-converted Chaos Marine army that he had used to play-test the first codex. When we got an article on how to make a hover-tank from a deodorant bottle and cardboard. And I still got the original “How to make wargame terrain” book featuring (shock and horror!) none-GW tools and products.
Yes, I’m highly cynical when it comes to Games Workshop in general (and White Dwarf in particular). Sure, we might get an article on how to glue two Fortresses of Redemption into one, but that’s about it. Making general terrain from none-GW sources? I’m highly doubtful...
If the new team couldn't have found out (or just made an informed guess...) what readers were likely to want, then... I really don't know what to say. It's not like wanting a return to good quality 'Eavy Metal guides every month is a new thing that people are asking for (or scratchbuilding terrain articles, background, detailed battle reports, Chapter Approved, tacticas etc.)
I am kindof bummed they never responded to my mail. I sent them like 3 text editor pages worth of feedback and I didn't get anything...
Oh well, at least I told them how I felt, and will do so again sometime this week, as I think I can really tell them now what I like and dislike about the mag.
My old grey brain cells are telling me that a couple of years ago, GW, HQ in the UK trimmed WAY back on manpower. IMHO, with way less people, the ones left do not have "extra" time for answering, e-mails sent to the company and not addressed to a specific person.
I am therefore I think OR I think therefore I am?
I am starting to wonder if the people at GW even have Warhammer as a hobby... most of what they say sounds like idiotic corporate spiel that comes across as unfeeling and uncaring. WD is a shambles - it's even worse now than ever before!
Paint splatter is one of the most popular articles in WD!? Pull the other one will you... who did you ask exactly? Dedicated GW shopper of 20 years here, still waiting for my questionnaire.
Oh wait - that was all made up as usual...
^ what he said
I'm willing to agree with the gentlemen, duffybear1988 and 75hastings69. That's a lot of numbers in names.
Originally Posted by unheilig
My name next to Hastings!!!!!!!
That almost cooled my GW nerd rage...
But anyways, I enjoy WD for what it currently is. I hope there will be more background information, additional rules and all that jazz in upcoming mags, but I enjoy it for what it currently is.
I wouldn't necessarily mind the digital products as a suplement to other hobby content IF the content wasn't being sucked from a magazine subscription that I am already paying for and being moved to something I have to pay additional for. It appears that Games Workshop is strictly trying to run WD into the ground and replace it with digital products that are considerably more expensive when you add it all up. Ok, so how is this any different than almost all the other decisions they have made over the past few years?
White Dwarf highlights from 2012:
- Warhammer civil war (January-April)
- Tyranid Tyrannofex and Tervigon release, Space Wolves Thunderwolf Cavalry article (March)
- Necron wave release article (May)
- 40k Tombworlds, Deathworlds (May)
- Warhammer Tome of Battle article (May)
- Heraldry of Demigriff Knights article (May)
- 40k flyer rules for Stormtalon and Dakkajet/Burna-Bomma/Blitza-Bomma (June)
- Seeker Chariot/Hellflayer rules, update for Daemons (August)
- New magazine layout (October) - only for the gate-fold picture of the Maulerfiend/Forgefiend
- Hellstriders and Skullcrushers rules (November)
Stuff that should have been better:
- 40k Rogue Trader 25th anniversary (February) - I wanted interviews with past designers and artists, old designers notes, thoughts on the evolution of the 40k game, etc.
- 40k 6th edition release (July) - nothing is written in an interesting or engaging way.
- 40k Dark Vengeance release (September) - same as above.
- New layout - a lot of wasted/empty space repeating the same thing