Page 82 of 82 FirstFirst ... 32 72 80 81 82
Results 1,621 to 1,639 of 1639

Thread: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

  1. #1621
    Brother Sergeant
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    69

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    You know I'm actually optimistic that there will be big improvements and that they will have battle reports with maps and turn by turn analysis etc.

    The move to weekly seems to have been at the hight of the madness at GW headquarters. Now that Kirby is no longer pulling the strings there seems to have been a big change of direction for the better. Will see how it goes tho.

  2. #1622
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    537

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Animal310 View Post
    You know I'm actually optimistic that there will be big improvements and that they will have battle reports with maps and turn by turn analysis etc.

    The move to weekly seems to have been at the hight of the madness at GW headquarters. Now that Kirby is no longer pulling the strings there seems to have been a big change of direction for the better. Will see how it goes tho.
    I'm sure the Kult of Kirby is still there, hiding in the dark corners of GW hq...

  3. #1623
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Jacka View Post
    I'm now subscribed again. My 120 WD issue protest is finished. About time things may be changing for the better at GW. Hmmmmm, maybe, maybe not! :confused:
    Y'all remember what happened last time White Dwarf was re-launched in a new format which specifically advertised glossiness..?


    Forgive me if I don't get all over excited.
    Last edited by Lord Damocles; 23-06-2016 at 14:50.

  4. #1624
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    Warseer is reborn - and so is White Dwarf.

    I'll just copy some thoughts over from Dakka...



    September:


    Although I’m rather late to the party now, I used to do reviews of White Dwarf over on Warseer in ye olden days, and since I’ve finally managed to find somewhere which hasn’t sold out of this month’s, I might as well see what the latest format back-peddle re-launch is all about.

    White Dwarf (Editorial) – ‘Fact: White Dwarf magazine launched in 1977, and its name was chosen as it carried both science fiction and fantasy overtones, representing both a small star and a fantasy character – Grombrindal himself, naturally!’ Is that true? I don’t feel like that’s true. Warhammer Fantasy wasn’t a thing when White Dwarf initially launched, so I suspect Grombindal wasn’t a thing either. It’s not a fact if it isn’t true, Bickham.

    Editorials have traditionally been rather a waste of space, and the brief list of what’s in this issue and pictures of the White Dwarf team don’t greatly alter that.

    Contents – When more page space is taken up by pictures than words in the list of contents, you’ve done it wrong. This really needn’t have taken up more than one page.

    Planet Warhammer (News & New Releases) – Compared to the 50 page abominations of the death throes of old Dwarf, a mere 18 pages seems really rather restrained.
    Honestly, it isn’t too bad. It could still easily lose a few pages, and be better formatted (less repetition, group like products together (Kharn with Traitor’s Hate, all the Deathwatch together after Death Masque, for example), etc.).
    The information on all of the licensed computer games which are being churned out lately is a relatively useful update on what’s going on, and could probably have used some more page space – maybe focussing on a single game rather than having only a [short] paragraph on each.

    Contact (Mailbag) – Letters pages always look great in that they show that a company is in direct correspondence with their fans/customers, but I can’t help but think that there’s almost always an undercurrent of manipulation going on. It sure is convenient that one letter says that they like Age of Sigmar not having points and bemoans their (re-)introduction, whilst another implies that they’d favour an Age-of-Sigmar-ification of 40K. Hmm...
    Also, two of the four main blocks of text are from a former editor, and some dudes who helped work on the General’s Handbook respectively, which hardly makes it look like the net was cast very wide for gathering feedback/input.
    The major problem of readers’ letters sections previously was that they devolved into little more than ‘Show my models GDubz? k thnx bye’; with the encouragement to ‘send us your letters and pictures...’ we’ll have to wait and see how this turns out.

    Also: Issue #81 (back when they had numbers *glares at spine of current issue*) was only 95p and had an awesome Amazon lady who looks like she’s lost the rest of her hair metal band and had to enlist the help of a giant eagle with a pom-pom on its head to find them again on the cover. The 80s were incredible.

    ‘Eavy Metal – A sort of weird not really a painting guide look at painting the White Dwarf and Kurnoth Hunters. I’m not really sure why this is here.

    A Tale of Four warlords (A Tale of Four Gamers) – Previous attempts to revitalise this series failed due to the removal of the monthly budget (and to a lesser extent the lack of a bitz service to make unique conversions). That’s not been rectified here.
    Since everyone starts with a Start Collecting! box, they have technically spent the same amount so far, but going by the rules laid out here, that’s as close to parity as they’re going to get.
    Of the six pages which make up this article, half a page is a big advert for the Start Collecting! Boxes, half a page is a picture of models which are about to be repeated on the next four pages, and half a page is about the previous iterations of the series.
    Sadly – particularly given the tiny picture of Richard Gunson’s Bretonnians – all of the models on display here are as they come straight from the box(es) with no conversions.

    Hall of Fame (Nagash) (the new one, not the clown one) – ‘Seb drew the original concept artwork for Nagash’ – the implication is that the artwork shown is the original concept work, but we’re also told that, ‘Myself and Seb Perbet sat down and came up with a load of different ideas, trying to figure out what he’d look like'. I hardly think that the nice clean sketch which is almost exactly as the model turned out was even close to the original design. Why can’t we see the earlier work? That should be the bread and butter of this series – how the models ended up as they are. Compare and contrast this with the concept art of Chaplain Cassius shown when the 4th edition Codex: Space Marines was released showing how he evolved through several stages of looking more feral and having a more obvious Tyranid influence, before ending up looking like pretty much every other Chaplain.

    Army of the Month (Biel Tan Eldar) – Good. Big pictures of pretty models.
    It could almost have done with a bit less text and more pictures, a mini- painting guide or something.
    If I’ve got any complaints, the pull out page is annoying, and the army itself, while very nice, isn’t all that exciting – the models are in great part the standard models in a fairly standard colour scheme.

    Cover Feature: Boxed Games Bonanza‘Games Workshop makes a huge range of self-contained boxed games...’ well, you don’t actually make Space Hulk any more do you; but go on...

    New rules for Deathwatch: Overkill, Space Hulk, Betrayal at Calth, Lost Patrol, Assassinorum: Execution Force, Gorechosen, Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower, Age of Sigmar, and Stormcloud Attack (followed by a double page ad for some of them).

    New rules are good, and welcome, but I wonder if it might not have been better to focus on one or two games and give them more in-depth content this month, and then do another couple next month, and so on.
    New missions rather than variant rules for existing missions might make more narrative sense.
    Also you can’t cut the rules out of the issue directly without chopping up other rules, which seems a pity (even more of a pity that they’re not on card pop-outs like in the good old days).

    Golden Demon (The Horus Heresy) – More pretty pictures of models are good.
    Again though, it seems a missed opportunity that only five entries from a single category are shown. If more space was dedicated to this, then all prize winning entries from all categories could be shown.

    Illuminations (Deathwatch) – Literally just pictures taken from Codex: Deathwatch. Several of them aren’t even that great: The Deathwatch: Overkill box art has all sorts of derpy posing going on, and the Deathwatch vs Necrons picture really gives the finger to perspective. They also all suffer from being pictures of the studio models, rather than pictures of the background.

    Battle Report: The Brimfire Ritual (Stormcast vs Bloodbound) – ‘No Khorne army is complete without a Bloodthirster, so I took three!’ No comment. Nuh uh.

    Are the armies equal? I have no idea.
    The pictures of the board aren’t as readable as actual maps would be.
    The text (what little of it there actually is) reads like a shopping list of things which happened, rather than either being a narrative, or offering an explanation of why the players took the actions they did.
    The battle itself isn’t greatly inspiring – the Khorne abandoned their defensive positions, the Stormcast ploughed straight through them, but Dan won anyway because he rolled well.

    - Double page spread of Age of Sigmar books –

    The Ultimate Guide to... Imperial Knights – ‘Ultimate’ is a strong word...
    As a relatively brief overview which is mostly cut and pasted from Codex: Imperial Knights, it’s not too bad.
    The double page of the Knight Warden seems like a missed opportunity to have a cutaway diagram, or Imperial Armour style technical specifications or something.

    Temporal Distort (looking at an old issue of White Dwarf (?!)) – ‘...everything is relative, and Fat Dwarf’s 112 pages are in fact 36 fewer than those of the issue in your hands.' Y’know Bickham, it’s not the size which matters, it’s what you do with it that counts.

    Issue202 (back when they had numbers *glares at spine of current issue*) had new rules, background, concept art, card pullouts, a battle report with proper maps. Looks pretty sweet.
    Can I read that instead..?
    I’ve long suggested that White Dwarf should re-publish some of the ‘classic’ background articles of yesteryear (Dawn of the C’tan, Tyranid invasions, Space Wolf Lost Companies, the Battle of Macragge, etc. etc.). This would make a good place for that kind of material – rather than showing us nice things which we can’t have.

    Battleground: Ruins of Dras’shiel (Terrain Workshop) – Somewhat better than previous terrain workshops in that there is (an admittedly small) work in progress picture of the board, and a bunch of detail shots. However; the majority of the board is [still] hundreds and hundreds of pounds worth of GW plastic terrain (and resin rocks!) and there is still very little in-progress detail.
    A more detailed article on how the big tower was built, or even how the big tree with a derpy face was made would have been of more practical use (but at least now I know that I can pick up rocks! Although that would entail going outdoors...)

    Blanchitsu – Oh, Blanche, I feel bad for you. I really do.
    The lighting of the models is much improved from the last time they rebooted the series, but the page count is too small, and duplicate pictures of all of the models take up too much of what space there is.
    More from Blanche – concepts, in-progress pictures, painting guides, background on Cephiivytra or the characters. Content. That good stuff. That’s what’s needed here.

    Parade Ground: Warhammer 40,000 Kill Teams – Once again, pictures of models are good, but this could really have done with some more space – either show more Kill Teams, or go into more detail on each of those which are shown – more focus on the conversions and background, fewer duplicate pictures, for example.

    Modelling and Painting: Sprues and Glue (Tau Kill Team and Kit-bashing Deathwatch) – ‘This month we get the clippers and glue out to convert a Tau Kill Team from the contents of the Kill Team Boxed game’ ...and parts from half a dozen other kits. Don’t forget to mention those, nice GW person. There’s a Ghostkeel, Stormsurge, and Pathfinders all donating parts.
    There’s nothing greatly insightful going on here.

    Paint Splatter – A very basic introduction to painting, and a simple guide to painting the Slaughterpriest and White Dwarf.
    The brief ‘what colours we used’ style painting guides are ok; but they’re no ‘Eavy Metal.

    Designers’ Notes: Slayers of the Alien Hoard (Deathwatch) – ‘The models in Overkill are the epitomes of their Chapters – the young and reckless Space Wolf, the sullen Dark Angel, the stealthy Raven Guard...’ the whowhat? How does the Dark Angel look sullen? Because he’s wearing a cowl? And how is Mr Look at my noisy jump pack and giant claw hands ‘stealthy’?
    ‘...so I came up with some more weapon types / there’s the sniper...’; The Stalker isn’t a new weapon. Don’t think I wouldn’t catch that.
    ‘You’ll notice there are no ammo feeds or bulky backpacks for the heavy weapons...’; So we’re ignoring Rodricus Grytt then, are we? Righto!
    ‘I wanted all the Deathwatch to be up on their toes running into action...’; yet only one of the five sets of Mk VIII legs appears to be moving at more than the pace of a casual stroll...
    ‘I like how you sculpted the pouches onto the torso piece so people don’t have to glue them on...’; Erm, whut? The pouches are separate to the torso.
    ‘I thought it would be interesting to give the sergeant the option for an alien blade / when it comes down to it, a blade’s a blade!’; Heresy detected.
    ‘The [Corvus] doors are the same size as Rhino doors to keep a coherent feel across he range’; but not to allow cross-compatibility of parts. Thanks for that.
    ‘What we quickly realised was that a Kill Team wouldn’t specialise against Orks per se, but against hordes of infantry / There are Deathwatch Kill Teams to deal with every different unit type – heavy support, fast attack, HQs, and so on...’; So being pseudo-specialised against hordey Ork Boyz translates into being specialised against Tactical Marines? Or if the Orks aren’t Troops, not being specialised against them at all. Okay...
    ‘So while it may seem you’re not getting the most out of, say, the Vanguard’s jump pack, you’ll get other bonuses to the Kill Team instead...’; But Vanguard Guy totally screws the rest of the team if they want to embark in a transport. How would allowing him to remove his jump pack (like other colours of Vanguard) detract from your aim of showing that, ‘...Kill Teams really do include a diverse range of Space Marines and that they all bring something to the table’?

    If the gladius swords were a sufficiently important design choice to warrant specifically mentioning, how come they’re costed in such a way that they’re basically never worth taking on Veterans?
    Why don’t the Deathwatch have access to most of the heavy weapons other Marines do?
    Why can they take Grav Guns but not Combi-Gravs? They get all the other combi-weapons.
    Why have Heavy Bolters been downplayed so much compared to previous Deathwatch rulesets?
    How come Scouts still get Hellfire shells as base, but the specialist Deathwatch don’t?
    What happened to Metal Storm ammunition?
    Why no Techmarines, Apothecaries, Land Speeders, Storm Ravens etc.? We know the Deathwatch have access to them.
    Why don’t Watch Masters have guns?
    Wouldn’t Preferred Enemy: Xenos have made sense?

    Why? Why? WHY? As usual, these designers’ notes say what but not why. Why?!

    Readers’ Models – They’re pretty enough. Bit random that they’re just here at the back, devoid of any context, but whatever.

    In The Bunker – One page of some stuff which fills one page, I guess. The ‘what we’ve all been doing’ bits of White Dwarf have never contained enough information to be of any real use or interest.

    Next Month – Could’ve previewed some Genestealer Cultists here, but nah.

    ---

    I’d been hearing good things about this issue – and to be fair there is some content here; mostly the rules for the various boxed games – but the scattergun approach to articles; a little splash of this, a dab of that, a quick page or two here, a couple of pages there; hasn’t done it any favours.

    Almost all of the articles really could have done with greater page counts and greater detail.

    The battle report wasn’t a patch on the golden years. There was little background – and what there was wasn’t new. The painting guide was pretty weak. Designers’ notes were a disaster area. And there was no Lord of the Rings/Hobbit content AT ALL (other than in the copyright notice).

    It’s not as bad as the really bad old days before monthly White Dwarf committed seppuku, but without the rules – which presumably were a one-time dealio – it wouldn’t be all that much better.
    It’s possible that it will improve, with longer, more focussed articles, but given that this issue was written in May, it will be at least four months before any improvement based on reader-submitted input is visible – and previous promises of improvement haven’t borne fruit.

    I almost wonder if it wouldn’t have been better to decrease the page count (and cover price!) and do less in terms of content, but do it better.

    I’d probably rate this issue a 4.

    ---

    Oh, and there was a free model, which is pretty alright, I suppose. If I’d wanted a Slaughterpriest. Which I don’t particularly. But I might find a use for him in my Diggamob army.

    ---

    I’m gonna go read White Dwarf 202.

  5. #1625
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    Well, Bickham's gone, to be replaced by Keefe:
    https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/blog/blog.jsp


    'Jes’s reign was rather remarkable: a 2012 relaunch leading to what’s widely regarded as the finest run in White Dwarf’s history, then the colossal achievement of producing a new White Dwarf every single week for two and a half years from early 2014 until the middle of this year, and, finally, his undoubted crowning achievement, the new monthly White Dwarf, the ultimate Warhammer magazine.'
    I'm not sure I trust somebody who can describe the worst period of quality/content in White Dwarf's 40 year history as 'the finest run'.

    We'll see, I suppose...




    October:


    Ding dong, Bickham’s gone. Everyone change places!

    Editorial – So the editor has moved on after a grand total of one issue. Huh. At least Keefe didn’t repeat the absurd claim he made in the slightly longer version of this same announcement on the GW blog last month about the success of Bickham’s time as editor.

    Contents – I mean, it’s literally listed on half a page, yet it’s bulked out with pictures to fill two pages worth of space.

    Planet Warhammer – Page 5 claims that Genetealer Cults are a ‘new faction’, which isn’t true at this point in time.
    Page 15 incorrectly describes the Genestealer Cult dice as having symbols on both the 6 and the 1.
    As usual, more space is taken up by showcasing the new releases than is required (17 pages in this case).

    Contact – Half of the page space is taken up by a letter from a ‘White Dwarf contributor’. I think I said something last month regarding concern over how far the net would be cast.

    The reply to Mr Austin’s message seems to miss the [presumed] point – simply having A Tale of Four Gamers/Warlords or a battle report isn’t in itself sufficient – it was the specific format and content of these features which made them so successful; not just that they existed.
    Also, Deathwatch vs. Genestealer Cults is described as a ‘classic match-up’, despite this being the first time they’ve ever fought one another in a battle report.

    Awakenings & Revelations (Titan Comics) – I feel like the bits from the back of the actual comic about the design of the cover and composition and colouring of pages should have gone in here instead.
    There’s going to be a series of comics. The Dark Angels are going to run into the Fallen (of course they are – do they ever do anything outside of their pigeon hole anymore?). With all of the female names in the world to choose from, the Inquisitor got one which has been used before (ref: The Invitation).
    ‘There’s the Inquisitor, Sabbathiel, who brings an investigate thread to the story’ – surely that should be investigative thread?

    - Double page spread of Black Library adverts – most of which are duplicates from the new releases section –

    Hall of Fame (Smaug) – You’d have thought that they’d have got some reference materials together rather than having to work from literally going to the cinema to see the second Hobbit movie...
    As usual it’s missing out on concept art, in-progress shots, discussion of the design beyond basic description.

    Army of the month (Space Wolves) – It’s always Space Wolves. These are even the same Space Wolves we saw last month in the Kill Teams article.
    I can’t help but feel that what we’re really seeing is an edited version of the army – with the exception of Sternhammer’s Wulfen and the bodies of the Long Fangs, there’s a distinct lack of non-current models. Maybe Simon really doesn’t have any in the army (although given that he cites the original (2nd edition) Codex: Space Wolves as initial inspiration, I find that unlikely), but I’m suspicious.
    If anything, it could have got away with less text and more or larger pictures instead.

    The White Dwarf Interview: The Gothic and the Eldritch (Jes Goodwin) – There was a lot of page space (although the first page is just a big ol’ picture), but not a lot was really said.
    Each range has its own ‘design vocabulary’ – but beyond that not particularly revelatory piece of insight, there wasn’t really much else.
    It would have been more interesting to take a single model or range as a case study and follow the evolution of its design(s) over time, explaining how they evolved, and why.

    ‘In the 1990s, Jes produced the first incarnations of a number of iconic special characters for both the Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines.’ Also the only incarnations of all four of those pictured. Typhus wasn’t even released in the 90s!

    - Double page spread advertising... Facebook...?! –

    Temporal Distort (#266) – I don’t understand why White Dwarf is now advertising how much stuff isn’t in White Dwarf anymore?
    Index Astartes, Index Xenos, Dogs of War army list, War of the Beard background (and rules IIRC), issue numbers... All that good stuff.

    Collecting: Armies on Parade 2016 – Yeah. This works well enough; better than when they used to cram the entries onto a single page.

    ‘An Aquila Lander from Forge World’ Try again editor – that’s an Arvus, champ.

    - Double page spread of Start Collecting! Boxes –

    The Ultimate Guide to Genestealer Cults – As with last month, ‘ultimate’ isn’t really the right word to use here. As a very brief overview for those who know nothing of the cults it’s alright. The Regimental Standard page was good (although I’m not sure that the semi-comedic style really fits an apparently in-universe document). The dark boxouts were also interesting in that they gave information which I don’t think is included in the Codex (?): namely that the cultisit’s suits are STC tech.

    Designers’ Notes: Genestealer Cults – As with last month again, there’s a lot of what, and very little why.

    Why are Russes, Sentinels etc. in the Codex when they could just be allied in like all the other Guard vehicles?
    Why do the Genestealers of the First Curse formation have random mutations?
    Why do Metamorphs exist? Why are they a compulsory choice in the Brood Cycle but Aberrants aren’t?
    Since when has the head with no eyes been a ‘classic Genetealer mutation’? Page 8 claimed that it was reminiscent of a Tyrant Guard.
    The Goliath ‘needs to work in hazardous environments, which is why the cab is completely sealed, with roll-shutter doors, extractors and vents.’ And an open transport platform where the operator of the servo arm mounted weapon and any passengers have to travel..?
    ‘That’s why there are no cult icons sculpted on the Goliath – it really is an anonymous-looking vehicle.’ That explains why there are no cult icons on the Guard-issue vehicles either then. Wait, no...

    Exclusive Mission: The Hunter, Hunted – I think simply disallowing the defender to use reserves would have made more sense than the restrictions on flying transports and deep strike, but whatever. It seems basically functional, which is more than some White Dwarf missions have been in the past.

    Battle Report: Deathwatch vs. Genestealer Cult - *sigh*
    - No points limit (they just happened to reach almost the same total by coincidence apparently.
    - The Cult army is illegal (the First Curse only has 16 of the compulsory 20 Purestrains).
    - The Deathwatch army is apparently Battle-forged despite actually being Unbound (because you can’t get a Terminator Squad in a Black Spear Strike Force).
    - The models have weapons not listed on the Deathwatch army list. Are they really there? Who knows? (although why would you take a Blackshield with base gear?)
    - The Magus apparently made a whole unit fire on friendlies using Mind Control, but it’s a Focussed Witchfire power, so only works on a single model.
    - The Land Raider is a different model in different pictures – sometimes it has (illegal) Frag Assault Launchers, sometimes it doesn’t!
    No maps. No tactical discussion beyond puddle depth. Huge points. Its mere presence doen’t make it good.

    Illuminations: Champions (AoS hero dudes) – Re-printing artwork for six pages seems kind of filler-y. It’s ok I suppose, but the space could have been better used.

    Golden Demon: Classic 2016 – Slightly less text and more pictures would have been good here.

    - Full page advert for digital products –

    A tale of Four Warlords – So Hutson spent £121.50, King spent £67.00, Karch spent £58.00, and Cowey spent £30.00. Fine. Yeah. That seems fair and even.

    Modelling and Painting: Sprues and Glue – There are two pages which boil down to ‘stick the heads from the hybrid upgrade sprue onto the Imperial Guard bodies’. Do we really need half a page on how to use clippers?

    Modelling and Painting: Paint Splatter – Red and black Blood Angels, and genetealer hybrids. It’s pretty good.

    Modelling and Painting: ‘Eavy Metal Masterclass (painting faces) – It’s decent. Last time it was done (or the time before that, maybe?) they also included pale and darker skin tones, which would have been nice.

    Blanchitsu – It’s got his name, but it’s not his models.
    The models are – as ever – very pretty, but the repetition of the first warband is unnecessary, and the second and third are horribly lit – the figure in black in the back, second from the right in the third warband; any ideas, anyone?

    Blanche and friends are obviously playing Inquisitor, so why not a series on their campaign(s)?

    Parade Ground: Les Martin’s Stormcast Eternals – Its okay. It gets the job done respectably.

    - Full page advert for GW stores –

    Readers’ Models – Again, rather out of context at the back, but whatever.

    - Double page spread advertising Warhammer World –

    The White Dwarf Guide – Two pages which advertise... pretty much everything GW do..? *shrug*

    In The Bunker – Henceforth to be sung to the tune of In The Navy.
    It’s one page showing some Silver Tower models.

    ---

    Like last month, what looks like a lot of content is, in fact, relatively shallow.

    The painting guides are pretty good, and the dark boxouts dealing with the Genestealer Cults actually provide some new content. The new mission is okay too.

    The battle report, designers’ notes, Tale of Four Warlords, and filler pieces are weak though.

    This month also sees the much anticipated return of multiple double page adverts.

    There were also multiple errors and a number of spelling errors (several of which I lost after my first read-through, so I didn’t mention them individually above).

    The free comic on its own merits was poor (there’s an Inquisitor, and the Dark Angels arrive somewhere. The end).

    I’d rather have been reading issue 266 again.

    ---

    A 4 from me.

  6. #1626
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ensis Ferrae
    Perhaps in the future, they'll do a 40k version of it? I pretty much agree with you here, that they're going with rule of cool and not "rule of how real world gamers collect and game" which I think a 40k version may be better to "force" the 4 gamers to do.
    The last version was for 40K (Eldar, Orks, Red Corsairs, Crimson Fists) - it went much the same way with the players adding basically whatever they wanted with no regards to budget. It got really silly for the last instalment, when they prepared for an Apocalypse game...

    Quote Originally Posted by raekone
    I want to like it but it feels like a gimmicky attempt to capture the magic that was once white dwarf.
    This is my main problem - they're clearly aiming to imitate a prior golden age, but without the actual gold.




    So the GW website blog is about White Dwarf again.
    It’s specifically about next month’s issue, but it’s of relevance to the last couple of months’, so I’ll put this here. Original: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/blog/blog.jsp

    Needless to say, there’s a ton of other great features which you read about below, but what I really want to talk about this month is battle reports. We know that these are some of your favourite parts of the magazine, and the response to the battle reports in the first two issues of the new monthly White Dwarf has been great. One thing that’s very obvious, though, is that everyone has their own favourite kind of battle report. Some people love having maps, others less so. Some people much prefer a dramatic, story-like narrative to the battle report while others want to hear the thoughts and tactical insights of the players. The thing is, battle reports can take many different shapes, so what we try to do is make use of some or all of these elements – if they suit the game in question.
    What? What?

    White Dwarf hasn’t tried to make use of properly legible maps, serious tactical discussion by players, or narrative in battle reports for years.

    Have none of these elements suited the games in question in all that time? Really? How were those years’ worth of battle reports unsuited to those elements? To maps?!

    What utter, blatant, drivel.

    Last month’s battle report, for instance, saw the Deathwatch and the Genestealer Cults – two quite new armies – pitted against each other.
    Last issue (October 2016) you described it as – and I quote – ‘a classic match-up’ (pg.23)!

    This kind of battle report is something of a White Dwarf classic, and a great way of seeing how new armies work.
    Two almost totally new armies (one released that month, and one the moth previous) isn’t a classic style of battle report. It’s generally a new army versus and established army.
    Nor did it serve to show how the armies work particularly effectively – since there wasn’t a points limit, a non-standard mission was used, and both armies were illegal.

    But there’s a host of other kinds of battle report, too, and what we try to do in White Dwarf is showcase a variety of them.
    No you don’t. When was the last time White Dwarf showcased a properly narrative battle report, huh?

    One thing we’ve had quite a few requests for is to see players using their own armies, and this issue that’s exactly what we’ve got for you! Ben Johnson and James Ashbey take to the field in a clash between Stormcast Eternals and the forces of Destruction.
    The implication is that the use of non-studio armies is as a result of feedback to the two post-reboot battle reports. Which is obviously not true because we know how far White Dwarf is written so far in advance.


    Also, a cynic might comment on how two out of three battle reports so far have featured Stormcast...


    Sadly, it seems increasingly like my concern that the [latest] reboot of White Dwarf would be largely more of the same, but with a veneer of faux concern for quality and addressing long-time customer concerns, were well founded.
    ‘- if they suit the game in question.’ HOGWASH.


    Also, I see that the featured army of the month is going to be Rik Turner’s Blood Ravens. Which we’ve seen before in White Dwarf. At least twice.




    Quote Originally Posted by SKR.HH 703937 8977882 null
    For somebody that obviously does not enjoy the White Dwarf you get easily excited about this, eh?
    I want to like White Dwarf, but I can only work with what I'm given...

    I do object to being peddled obvious falsehoods though; and won't just let Keefe (or others) keep doing so without comment.

  7. #1627
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    November:


    Editorial – Maps are back! Maps! Maps suit this month’s battle report!

    Contents – Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V: I mean, it’s literally listed on half a page, yet it’s bulked out with pictures to fill two pages worth of space.
    Wasted space.

    Planet Warhammer – Meh. The amount of space used up could be cut down. Most of the text boxouts could be done away with without really losing anything of consequence.
    Still less than half the page count which it used to take up in Old Dwarf, so it’s difficult to be too negative about it.

    Contact – From left to right: non-answer, somebody won a competition, look at my pictures, Index Astartes conspicuously absent from answer, could’ve Googled the answer, look at my pictures, GW are great!
    Ho hum. The answer to Mr Payne’s correspondence just ignores the bulk of what he wrote (about Index Astartes returning). It’s hardly brilliant.

    A Tale of Four Keyboards – Like the title. Otherwise entirely forgettable. It tries to do way too much in only a single page of text.
    As a conventional-style battle report of a digital battle it might have been an interesting change, or a text-based lets play, perhaps.
    Otherwise just a blatant advert in the form of big pretty pictures like when the original Dawn of War was released.

    Creating a Legend (Total war White Dwarf) – There’s a lot of talk (well, again, only about a page of text) about the process of designing Grombrindal (why not just copy the latest physical model like they did for most other models in the game?), but absolutely no in-progress pictures, no pictures of the artwork which is mentioned, or the various incarnations of the model etc.

    Golden Demon: Classic 2016 – It used to be that all of a year’s finalists would be featured in a single issue, didn’t it?
    As previously, the pictures are pretty, but the words aren’t really necessary.

    A Tale of Four Warlords – This month’s totals: Cowey £65, King £125, Hutson £107, Karch £36. Totally missed the point.

    Temporal Distort (issue 183) – Still don’t understand why they’re so set on making the past look so much better than the present. I mean, it was better, so it’s not inaccurate, but I’m not sure that’s what they were aiming for here...

    Hall of Fame (Land Raider) – Much better than usual Hall of Fame articles – there’s far more discussion of why the chosen model deserves to be featured, and what made (/makes) it special.
    It isn’t anywhere near as good as the feature from when the Land Raider was released (which again, they show a little picture of...)
    This could have been expanded – add more background material, talk about how/why the design of the tank has changed over time and between systems, showcase pictures of all of the different variants (including those which never got official models like the Ares, Tartarus, Deimos) etc.

    - Double page spread of gifts to celebrate the birth of the baby Jesus –

    Designers’ Notes: A World in Flames (Burning of Prospero) – The faux-interview is annoying. Why don’t Cruddace and Kelly just write it themselves (or pretend they wrote it) rather than having Harden interview them?
    I didn’t really learn anything about how the game plays, and still don’t understand why it has different mechanics to Betrayal at Calth.
    I’d particularly like to have known why the Sisters of Silence models have gauntlets, whereas every picture my Googling turned up has them with gloves. Is it because those other ladies are gonna have gloves?

    - Double page spread of Black Library –

    The Ultimate Guide to: Commorragh – I still don’t think ‘ultimate’ means what they think it means. As with previous instalments, as an overview it’s pretty decent. Possibly there’s even a smidge of new background material here with the names of Reaver and Hellion gangs, and how male Wyches are effectively breeding stock for the females?

    Army of the Month: Scions of Avidya (Blood Ravens) – Turner’s Blood Ravens have been seen before (as the article even points out with yet another picture of an old issue), but at least this focuses mostly on other models.
    I’m not a fan of including Sanguinary Guard, Grey Knights (Ordo Psykana, ok sure. But where are they getting the Psycannons from, and why do they have Grey Knight chapter iconography?) etc. but he doesn’t need to justify it here.

    ‘I settled on the 2nd Company... There was no background about them in any of the novels or games...’ They feature in Dark Crusade, where they defeat the Necrons at Thur’Abis, adopting the motto ‘Victory Over Death’. So there’s that. They’re also present for Soulstorm.

    Now, the way people collect Space Marines has changed a little, as the emphasis has shifted away from taking a whole Company to war, so now armies are built using the Strike Force method – so instead of your army being 2nd Company, say, it’s the 2nd Company, with assistance from Devastator Centurions from the 9th, or Bikers from the 7th, and so on’. People have always taken Scouts (10th) and/or Terminators (1st) and/or tanks (Armoury) in their Marine armies. If anything, since the core of the Gladius formation is the Demi-Company , Marine armies are probably more single-Company-focussed now than they were previously (plus there’s the actual full Company formation).

    Randomly, the ‘Faction Spotlight’ box drops what I believe is new information on the Kaurava Campaign noting that half the Chapter was lost. Metal Bawkses!

    This could well have been expanded to have a potted guide to the timeline of the events from the games/novels, just copy-paste the Index Astartes or something?

    Gaming: The General’s Almanack – Eh. I’m not convinced by the argument for not having points (‘We came up with stories behind our games and created our own scenarios. It was, in a way, liberating’). And then points came back anyway; so there goes your stories and scenarios. Or something.
    The argument for points was far more convincing (‘This helps re-establish that common language that any Warhammer Age of Sigmar player can work with’).
    There wasn’t anything especially brilliant here, but it was okay.

    Battle Report: The Border War (Stormcast vs. Destruction mashup) – There are maps. Comparing the maps here to those from issue 183 (on page 40), the older, slightly more abstract style, I find the classic version easier to read.

    Maps – of course – aren’t everything. There are these things called words. Text. That stuff. There’s only a couple of paragraphs on each turn. The text for the first turn even neglects to mention how all of the wolf riders and the Megaboss were killed.
    The mass of smaller pictures and bits and pieces of explanatory text scattered around all over the place don’t help matters.

    It would have been better if the battle report was more closely linked to what Johnson was talking about when discussing tactics in the previous article. A discussion of the battle as it progressed from his point of view with discussion of his changing plans etc as the game went on would potentially have been interesting.
    As it is, it looks more like after allowing the mostly-Orks the first turn, the Stormcast just almost effortlessly steamrolled through them (with the exception of the Mawcrusher).

    I don’t see how this battle report suited maps any more than any other. But that’s how Keefe said it works...

    Collecting: Armies On Parade – The pictures are still pretty. I feel it would be better if the formatting was altered so that the centrefold didn’t pass right through the main pictures of the boards. Shunt the big picture onto one page, and swap the text block across to sit with the smaller images.

    Illuminations: Prospero Burns – Still seems like a way of filling six pages with very little effort. If they wanted to look at the Battle of Prospero, there could have been an actual article whilst still using most of the pictures.

    Battleground: The Fortress of Kah’Rahkel – As a look at hundreds upon hundreds of pounds of GW plastic scenery it’s alright, but it’s not as of much practical use as the previous article on Dras’shiel, as there are no in-progress shots (etc.).
    I don’t believe that they got all of the skulls from their bits boxes.

    New Rules: Heresy & Salvation (Custodes for 30K, Contemptors for Burning of Prospero, Lord-Veritant for Age of Sigmar) – It’s seriously weak that they didn’t include rules for the Sisters of Silence – especially given the huge amounts of dead space on the Custodes’ rule pages. It’s not like they were really producing anything in the way of content surrounding the rules – they just copy-pasted them from Inferno (not even going so far as to include the inevitable HQ character(s) which will also have rules) so including the Sisters would have required barely any extra effort.

    If the Custodes and Sisters were to be separated, there would have been vastly more value in some sort of Index Imperialis explaining who the Custodes are, where they came from, what they were doing in the Heresy, what they’ve been doing since, what the rationale is for them being out and about away from Terra in M41 (and then the same for the Sisters next month).

    I’d also have liked the 40K rules to have been included here for completeness’ sake.

    - Double page spread of Forge World Horus Heresy –

    Modelling and Painting: Sprues and Glue – Did we need half a page each on removing the tab from models designed for slattabases and removing bases from already based models? Does anybody need those?
    Mostly this was just ‘buy the new base kits’ with just enough filler added around the edges to bulk it out.

    Modelling and Painting: Paint Splatter – Basing using the new (stop changing them!) texture paints, and a bit on tints. It’s good. There’s not too much filler. The ‘White Dwarf Basing Cookbook’ looks like a potentially useful resource.

    - Page of digital products –

    Modelling and Painting: ‘Eavy Metal Masterclass (cloaks, coats and robes) – Good again. Painting guides/sections seem to be the one area where White Dwarf is fairly consistently high quality.

    ‘Eavy Metal Spotlight: Thousand Sons – If the two full page ads in this section weren’t here, then this could have been expanded into a basic painting guide over a couple of pages.

    - Page of ‘find your local store’ –

    Readers’ Models – If the Golden Demon sections were formatted more like this, I think they’d work better.
    I’m coming round to the idea of readers’ models just being here at the back for some totally arbitrary reason now that it’s more familiar.

    - Double page spread of Warhammer World –

    The White Dwarf Guide – This content could probably be spread across the rest of the issue as sidebars and little boxouts accompanying the relevant articles.

    In the Bunker – Meh.
    The picture of Blanche and friends at the bottom holds more interest for me than most of the other content in the issue. Is that a gingerbread church on wheels?!

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

    I feel like there were a lot of missed opportunities for real content in this issue. It would have made perfect sense, for example, to provide information on what the Custodes/Sisters are doing in 40K; or to expand upon many of the articles.

    Again, I think that White Dwarf would be improved by trying to do less per issue, but doing it better (ie. with more depth).


    Another 4 from me.
    Largely forgettable.





    That was a lot of text, wasn't it?

  8. #1628
    Chapter Master Angelwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    4,355

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    I've missed your WD reviews. The service is greatly appreciated.

  9. #1629
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    December:


    First thing's first:

    '...next month we'll be bringing you the rules for the Sisters of Silence.'
    White Dwarf November 2016, pg.112

    I guess three months before brazenly lying was a good run?


    ...Or did it get filed with the conclusion to the Battle of Tanrak? (Yeah, I remember Tanrak, Dwarf. I remember).




    Editorial – It seems a little odd that you’d put so many Blood Bowl references here, which presumably 99% of the people who weren’t around last time won’t understand.
    Meh.

    Contents - Still taking up 400% of the space it needs to.

    Planet Warhammer – A few thoughts: Space Hulk doesn’t mention it being a limited run (unlike the last two times, amirite!?), but it’s currently sold out on the webstore. So, is it limited..?
    The re-launch of The Hobbit gets a whole half a page and shall not be mentioned again. Still, half a page in four issues, can’t complain, eh?
    That diagram of Horus Heresy books (etc.). Wow. Maybe think we might have spun this out a bit, GW?
    Oh goodie an endless runner game about Orks. That can’t possibly be awful.
    The descriptions of Codex Supplement: Traitor Legions and Codex: Imperial Agents are next to non-existent (and where’s that Canoness?) Imperial Agents particularly gives essentially no information on what the product they’re trying to sell actually is.

    Contact – Left to right: Scenery articles – ‘it’s something we’ve been wanting to do for a while’ – Remind me what the editor’s job is, again..? ‘So.. they’re coming next month!’ Coming next month like those Sisters of Silence rules?
    Q: ‘Can we have updates from the rules team?’ A: ‘No’.
    ‘How do I use my imagination?’
    There’s going to be a campaign as part of A Tale of Four Warlords starting next month. Is that next month like those Sisters of Silence rules?
    Question about some dude’s fan fic.
    Q: ‘Can we have tacticas?’ A: ‘No’.
    Q: ‘Can we have Jervis?’ A: ‘Yes’.
    Questions to a cartoon dwarf.
    Question which could have been answered by Google (or 40K General as was...)
    Sort of worthwhile question which could have been answered by Google if anyone online had read Stormcast background.

    Horus Heresy: The Wolf and the Cyclops’But what may shock and surprise many is the inclusion of a new Loyalist faction, the Talons of the Emperor. Composed of the Legio Custodes and the Sisters of Silence...’ No. Nobody is surprised, because you put the Custodes rules in last month’s issue. When you said Sisters of Silence were getting rules this month. Remember?
    No reason this needs to exist outside of an entry in new releases.

    Hall of Fame (Killa Kans) – There’s lots of talk (well, about 2/3 of a page total) about how the Kans are designed to have interchangeable parts and be easier to paint, but absolutely no discussion as to how this is achieved.
    ‘The grotzooka... you can see the way they work...’ I defy anyone to tell me how that grotzooka works [for more than one shot].

    Blood Bowl: Spike magazine – A jumble of stuff about Blood Bowl. It would have made far more sense to have put this after the following article which introduces readers to what Blood Bowl is.
    It’s ok.

    Blood Bowl: Good Evening, Sports Fans – Again, it’s ok. It possibly could have used a little more bulking out, but it more or less gets the job done.
    It seems strange that Blood Bowl is a spin-off from the Old World, which doesn’t exist anymore, with apparently no connection to Age of Sigmar, but this is never actually mentioned or explained.

    - Full page ad for apps –

    Blanchitsu – It’s the gingerbread church on wheels! *squee!* ...hidden in a shadow, obscured by a ruin...
    So let me get this right, all these warbands which have been in Blanchitsu for months and months have been leading up to this Tale of the Pilgrym, but this is the first we’ve heard of it, and now we’ll be getting ‘a detailed look at all of it over the coming months’ (just like those Sisters of Silence rules, huh?).
    Jeeze. When I stop frenziedly pleasuring myself over the pretty pictures I’ll be really annoyed by how White Dwarf insists on spreading content so thinly rather than just delivering the content now.
    I do like the brown colouration of the pages.

    - Double page spread of Black Library books which have already been advertised under new releases –

    Golden Demon: Classic 2016 – Something something something spreading content so thinly...

    A Tale of Four Warlords – Hutson: £57.50, King: £46, Karch: £181, Cowey: £44.
    Hilariously staged picture of game in progress.

    Temporal Distort (Issue 316) – The ‘giant issue’. Really? Really?
    ’...issue 316 introduced another alien ally of the Tau – the Vespid.’ Erm, Codex: Tau Empire was released the previous month. Vespid were already firmly introduced by this point. Nice of you to highlight that even in the quagmire that was the giant issue there was Index Xenos, though.

    Army of the Month: The Knights of Azyr (Stormcast Eternals) – I’m sure they’re nice, but they’re the same army we saw last month in the battle report and General’s Almanack.
    ’That’s why all my models will always wear their helmets.’ Oh; not that there’s only one Stormcast model without a helmet and you don’t have him yet?
    Five dragons stardrakes all in the same pose looks kind of bad. Sorry, but it does.
    Unfortunately this isn’t showing us much that we haven’t seen before.
    The little painting guide is a good idea (which I had a couple of months ago) though.

    - Double page spread of BIG BOX GAMES! –

    Blood Bowl Match Report: Reikland Reavers vs The Gouged Eye – I found it difficult to follow.
    I have no great interest in Blood Bowl, and have only a loose grasp of the rules, so that probably didn’t help. I don’t know how White Dwarf of yesteryear presented Blood Bowl reports (I might look back and check), but maybe the game just doesn’t lend itself well to them.
    Typo on pg.78.

    Collecting: Armies on Parade – Good.
    Are you actually allowed to have two entries masquerading as one?

    New Rules - Multi-player Lost Patrol, Stormsurge and Wraithknight in Imperial Knights: Renegade, variant hybrid weapons in Deathwatch: Overkill (why not with the Deathwatch weapon variants last month?), three multi-player 40K scenarios which don’t use points.
    The 40K scenarios look like a hot mess.

    Feature: The Crimson King: The History of Magnus and the Thousand Sons – It was... ok. Very brief, in the vein of ‘Ultimate Guide To...’ . My main issue (other than lack of anything new) was that it just looks a bit boring and uninspired layout-wise.
    ‘Magnus the Red is the very first Primarch sculpted for Warhammer 40,000’; I’d be inclined to say that Rogue Trader era Leman Russ counts.
    The first time Magnus the Red was illustrated was by John Blanche back in 2003’; Now that can’t be right, surely? He had a model in Epic near a decade before that.

    - Double page spread of become a store manager –

    ’Eavy Metal: Sons of Magnus – Not an actual painting guide, just two pages of pictures of the new Thousand Sons models.
    A more in-depth article about how the colours and painting style of the Thousand Sons models have changed over time (and why!) might have been interesting.

    ’Eavy Metal Spotlight (Wil Davies) – The block of text doesn’t add much. Otherwise alright (could have been longer).

    Battleground: Assault on Muster Tredecimma – Good. The words aren’t a complete waste of space.
    How did those Iron Hands get a Rapier battery up the control tower without the World Eaters noticing? And how are they planning to get away?

    Modelling and Painting: Paint Splatter – Basic painting guides for Thousand Son and Skavenblight Scrambler. It’s alright – I quite like the basic painting guides – but it’s no ‘Eavy Metal.

    Modelling and Painting: Basing Masterclass – Five pages on putting models on the new(-ish) sculpted bases, but Blanchitsu only got six pages...
    The worthwhile content from this article would have taken up one page at most, and should have been included in last month’s article on basing.

    - Full page ad for finding a store –

    Parade Ground: Warlords and Champions – Good; although I feel like there are quite a lot of articles which are essentially just pictures of nicely painted models.

    Readers’ Models – That Blood Angel Devastator has the wrong colour helmet. Just sayin’.

    - Double page spread advertising Warhammer World –

    The White Dwarf Guide – Nothing of particular use to anyone. Nice half page ad for Codex: Chaos Space Marines

    In The Bunker – Those Rubrik Terminators are better than the model used for the painting guide.
    Oh, hey, more Hobbit content!

    Next Month – Not Sisters of Silence. Again.

    ...

    Little really worthwhile content, again – and what there is is being spread out over multiple issues in the most infuriating way possible.

    Even the blog got an article about the new The Hobbit book. If all Lord of the Rings content had been deliberately exiled from White Dwarf I could forgive the consistent failure to feature it, but little bits do show up, so it doesn’t seem like it’s deliberately not being talked about.

    Also, no rules for Sisters of Silence.
    If White Dwarf can’t be trusted to deliver on content from one month to the next, why should anyone believe their claims regarding taking on board feedback and/or maintaining/increasing quality? – or any of their other claims about what is coming in future months?


    Last edited by Lord Damocles; 10-12-2016 at 17:52. Reason: Formatting error(s)

  10. #1630
    Chapter Master de Selby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
    Posts
    4,535

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    I've been enjoying the monthly white dwarfs, to the extent that I've started buying them again. I think this is a much better advert for the hobby than in the last few years.

    Interesting choice to put blood bowl on the cover instead of magnus.

  11. #1631
    coolest geek in town..... toonboy78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    1,801

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    looks like they have taken note of various comments and included maps in this month's battle report, i'm sure it will still not be good enough!
    my log (updated 04/05/17 Scorpion and Predator)

    the code

  12. #1632
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by toonboy78 View Post
    looks like they have taken note of various comments and included maps in this month's battle report, i'm sure it will still not be good enough!
    Ah, see, unlike in previous issues, this month's report suits maps. Obviously.

  13. #1633
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    cheshire
    Posts
    142

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    considering I have 5 white dwarfs from this months backwards and nothing before then all the way back to when Lord of the Rings was a regular thing...I think that tells you I feel the newer WD is a definite step forwards

  14. #1634
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    The cover of this month's issue (which isn't out until next week because reasons) states 'First Look Warhammer 40,000 special'.

    So that's a thing



    *Goes to look up definition of 'first' in the dictionary...*

  15. #1635
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    In other news:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	19059068_1800715633508376_1707123121233990841_n.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	41.4 KB 
ID:	230557

    'Okay, folks. So, we set a little challenge off the back of Dan's recent appearance on Warhammer Live – get us enough likes and we'd let Dan recreate the Last Stand at Glazer's Creek. Well, as some of you liked the page, and others liked the post (and a lot more of you shared it – thanks!), the results weren't quite so clear cut… but there was clearly a lot of enthusiasm, so well done everybody, you've made Dan's day. We're going to recreate the battle in a future issue. It might be a little while yet – we want to do it justice – but your efforts have paid off and Dan is a very happy man.
    So, why not let us know what other classic battle reports you'd love to see re-fought, recreated or updated in the magazine? There might be the opportunity for a few of them…'

    Link


    Presumably we won't be seeing anything of it for at least four months, but it will be interesting to have a literal like-for-like comparison of classic and current battle reports.

  16. #1636
    coolest geek in town..... toonboy78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    1,801

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    as i was saying in the june thread, i think magazines in general are struggling to find what they do.

    no longer are the place to see first releases of stuff, the community poage are doing a good enough job of showing us this

    battle reports. this has always been an issue for them recently, just as much the games have too. but now highlighting the 3 types of gaming (open/narrative/matched) maybe the reports in the future will be a little clearer in what they are doing. them saying i took this because it looked cool in a open game is fine, if it is matched then i would expect a more tactical reason why they took X.i'm still not sure on the issue of why they are not using maps.

    adverts: i don't find the amount too many really. i sometimes read railway modelling mags and they are well over 50% adverts.

    interviews/games designs: give us more details on why and how things came about. i still don't know how or why the new dwarves have flying ships. how did that idea grow form a chat in the canteen about flying dwarves to real models?

    the audience: one issue is what age range ois this publication for? i have a feeling it is not mine! i am still guessing it is foe the 13-19 year old and as such i am put off a little but some of the over enthusiastic wording used in there (same as going into the shops) ni am buying the wrong publication?

    i still like it. the pics are great and quality wise the layout i still think is good. i'm probably keeping if for another year
    my log (updated 04/05/17 Scorpion and Predator)

    the code

  17. #1637
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    [ramble]

    First, if I was trying to Improve White Dwarf, I'd do less - that is to say I'd decrease the page count. Several times recently White Dwarf has boasted of having a greater page count than during the 'Fat Dwarf' period, but modern issues are doing less with those pages.
    I'd remove the most filler-y 'articles' - Illuminations, Readers' Models, In the Navy Bunker, Golden Demon as a standard feature, 'Eavy Metal picture pages, Contact - and I'd spend the remaining pages on fewer but generally longer articles.

    Between GW’s own blog and the internet more generally, lots of what White Dwarf is routinely providing as content is either available earlier (new release previews) or for free (battle reports, pictures of models, Golden Demon coverage).
    What White Dwarf should concentrate on is content which either is only available from them/GW directly, or content which they can create to a (generally) higher quality than others.

    Fiction is obvious content which could be included in White Dwarf – Black Library churn out short stories all the time. These could either be published first in White Dwarf, and then later directly by Black Library (they already routinely re-publish old material), or White Dwarf could publish material taken from old anthologies etc. It’s essentially recycled content, but I wouldn’t have a problem with it so long as it was decent.

    Content from the artists/designers/game developers could also potentially be actual worthwhile content. This should include designers’ notes which actually explain why changes have been made to background/rules, and not just lists of what has changed.
    Recent interviews with designers and artists have been hit and miss. The Blanche interview was decent, but others have felt rather lacking. Possibly simply providing space for people to use as a soapbox for whatever they happen to want to discuss would work better than the faux-interview style.
    Far greater use should be made of concept art – illustrating the evolution of the design of models over time. This can link with background articles and perhaps conversion features.

    White Dwarf can tease releases much further in advance than the blog does currently – show CAD designs, greens, concept art.
    There’s an argument that people knowing what’s coming in the future decreases sales in the present, but would revealing some early concept work on Mortarian really hit sales of Plague Marines or Plaguebearers that hard? Would the hype outweigh the hit?

    Official background material ought to find its place in White Dwarf again. The Ultimate Guide articles are a poor replacement for the background articles of old.
    The Mortal Realms and Dark Imperium offer a vast range of opportunities to create background which ‘fills in the gaps’. Background articles can be partnered with conversion & painting articles, terrain building, battle reports, and new rules allowing for linked content – Have an article on Blood Ravens, then some rules for characters from the Dawn of War games, and a conversion guide for a drop turret etc.

    Temporal Distort – rather than just being a double page illustrating how much better old issues were than current – should be an opportunity to republish old articles. Primarily I’d have these as some of the best background articles from past years, but ‘Eavy Metal guides and even battle reports would be obvious contenders for space.

    Battle reports ought to be producible to a consistently excellent quality – with maps, decent amounts of text describing in reasonable detail what’s happening each turn (and why!), accompanying background, etc.
    Variation in the size of games being played for battle reports would also be good. Smaller games would allow for more detail on specific actions (for example the deliberate positioning of individual models in assaults), and potentially allow for more in-depth discussion of tactics by the players.
    It would be good to have the players describe the battle as it progresses, describing their evolving plans etc.
    Detail, maps, and tactical discussion do not conflict with narrative.

    There have been some new rules in recent White Dwarf, but these have been primarily for specialist games (which is fine – don’t remove that!). New rules content for 40K and Age of Sigmar would provide a selling point.
    There’s loads of stuff which could have rules – new missions etc., updated rules for models which no longer have tabletop representation, rules for units from computer games which haven’t already been translated to the tabletop, new special characters.
    New rules could easily be tied in with campaign rules and conversion articles.
    I’m not a huge fan of having loads of variant army lists though like we got for 3rd/4th ed. 40K (most of them were trash rules-wise anyway, and thematic armies are better served by actual background than the odd rules tweak to let Savlar officers take 0-1 archeotech or whatever).
    The rules released over the course of a year could be edited together and released as compendiums annually so that people don’t miss out (but buying the White Dwarf with the rules in it gets you them sooner/cheaper so there’s still incentive to buy the magazine).

    Bring back conversion articles (Dok Butcher’s Conversion Clinic). Make the conversions reasonably achievable – It’s all very well having a converted model requiring £50 worth of parts to make, but that’s not very useful to most.
    There would be opportunity here for White Dwarf bundles to return, with the parts/sprues needed to make the featured conversion(s) bundles together and sold Direct Only for a couple of months after publication.

    Reintroduce terrain articles which aren’t just masses of GW plastic terrain. Jungle plants made from ping-pong balls and cocktail sticks, or ruins made from foamboard might not shift terrain sets, but they can be used to create interest in jungle and city battles, and models to fight in them, and so indirectly increase sales.

    Painting guides and army showcases are generally ok – good as they are. Previously there would be showcases of multiple armies from tournaments/events which provided a good way of showing lots of armies loosely themed and from people more distanced from GW. Every so often when there’s an event on at Warhammer World they could go down and harvest a few of the participating armies to quickly photograph on the day. Get the owners to email in a few sentences of wordy-bits, and there’s some interesting content.

    If there’s a large New Releases section, the vast majority of double-page ads are redundant. Maybe have some ad pages for products related to specific articles (have an article of Ork tribes in the Realm of Death, then have a page with some Ork kits).

    Bring back issue numbers.

    [/ramble]

  18. #1638
    Librarian DYoung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    466

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Damocles View Post
    [ramble]

    First, if I was trying to Improve White Dwarf, I'd do less - that is to say I'd decrease the page count. Several times recently White Dwarf has boasted of having a greater page count than during the 'Fat Dwarf' period, but modern issues are doing less with those pages.
    I'd remove the most filler-y 'articles' - Illuminations, Readers' Models, In the Navy Bunker, Golden Demon as a standard feature, 'Eavy Metal picture pages, Contact - and I'd spend the remaining pages on fewer but generally longer articles.

    Between GW’s own blog and the internet more generally, lots of what White Dwarf is routinely providing as content is either available earlier (new release previews) or for free (battle reports, pictures of models, Golden Demon coverage).
    What White Dwarf should concentrate on is content which either is only available from them/GW directly, or content which they can create to a (generally) higher quality than others.

    Fiction is obvious content which could be included in White Dwarf – Black Library churn out short stories all the time. These could either be published first in White Dwarf, and then later directly by Black Library (they already routinely re-publish old material), or White Dwarf could publish material taken from old anthologies etc. It’s essentially recycled content, but I wouldn’t have a problem with it so long as it was decent.

    Content from the artists/designers/game developers could also potentially be actual worthwhile content. This should include designers’ notes which actually explain why changes have been made to background/rules, and not just lists of what has changed.
    Recent interviews with designers and artists have been hit and miss. The Blanche interview was decent, but others have felt rather lacking. Possibly simply providing space for people to use as a soapbox for whatever they happen to want to discuss would work better than the faux-interview style.
    Far greater use should be made of concept art – illustrating the evolution of the design of models over time. This can link with background articles and perhaps conversion features.

    White Dwarf can tease releases much further in advance than the blog does currently – show CAD designs, greens, concept art.
    There’s an argument that people knowing what’s coming in the future decreases sales in the present, but would revealing some early concept work on Mortarian really hit sales of Plague Marines or Plaguebearers that hard? Would the hype outweigh the hit?

    Official background material ought to find its place in White Dwarf again. The Ultimate Guide articles are a poor replacement for the background articles of old.
    The Mortal Realms and Dark Imperium offer a vast range of opportunities to create background which ‘fills in the gaps’. Background articles can be partnered with conversion & painting articles, terrain building, battle reports, and new rules allowing for linked content – Have an article on Blood Ravens, then some rules for characters from the Dawn of War games, and a conversion guide for a drop turret etc.

    Temporal Distort – rather than just being a double page illustrating how much better old issues were than current – should be an opportunity to republish old articles. Primarily I’d have these as some of the best background articles from past years, but ‘Eavy Metal guides and even battle reports would be obvious contenders for space.

    Battle reports ought to be producible to a consistently excellent quality – with maps, decent amounts of text describing in reasonable detail what’s happening each turn (and why!), accompanying background, etc.
    Variation in the size of games being played for battle reports would also be good. Smaller games would allow for more detail on specific actions (for example the deliberate positioning of individual models in assaults), and potentially allow for more in-depth discussion of tactics by the players.
    It would be good to have the players describe the battle as it progresses, describing their evolving plans etc.
    Detail, maps, and tactical discussion do not conflict with narrative.

    There have been some new rules in recent White Dwarf, but these have been primarily for specialist games (which is fine – don’t remove that!). New rules content for 40K and Age of Sigmar would provide a selling point.
    There’s loads of stuff which could have rules – new missions etc., updated rules for models which no longer have tabletop representation, rules for units from computer games which haven’t already been translated to the tabletop, new special characters.
    New rules could easily be tied in with campaign rules and conversion articles.
    I’m not a huge fan of having loads of variant army lists though like we got for 3rd/4th ed. 40K (most of them were trash rules-wise anyway, and thematic armies are better served by actual background than the odd rules tweak to let Savlar officers take 0-1 archeotech or whatever).
    The rules released over the course of a year could be edited together and released as compendiums annually so that people don’t miss out (but buying the White Dwarf with the rules in it gets you them sooner/cheaper so there’s still incentive to buy the magazine).

    Bring back conversion articles (Dok Butcher’s Conversion Clinic). Make the conversions reasonably achievable – It’s all very well having a converted model requiring £50 worth of parts to make, but that’s not very useful to most.
    There would be opportunity here for White Dwarf bundles to return, with the parts/sprues needed to make the featured conversion(s) bundles together and sold Direct Only for a couple of months after publication.

    Reintroduce terrain articles which aren’t just masses of GW plastic terrain. Jungle plants made from ping-pong balls and cocktail sticks, or ruins made from foamboard might not shift terrain sets, but they can be used to create interest in jungle and city battles, and models to fight in them, and so indirectly increase sales.

    Painting guides and army showcases are generally ok – good as they are. Previously there would be showcases of multiple armies from tournaments/events which provided a good way of showing lots of armies loosely themed and from people more distanced from GW. Every so often when there’s an event on at Warhammer World they could go down and harvest a few of the participating armies to quickly photograph on the day. Get the owners to email in a few sentences of wordy-bits, and there’s some interesting content.

    If there’s a large New Releases section, the vast majority of double-page ads are redundant. Maybe have some ad pages for products related to specific articles (have an article of Ork tribes in the Realm of Death, then have a page with some Ork kits).

    Bring back issue numbers.

    [/ramble]
    Could you please forward this post to whoever hires the incompetents who run white dwarf, Lord Damocles?

    Or just somehow take over management of the magazine yourself?

  19. #1639
    Chapter Master Lost Egg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wandering in the wilderness...
    Posts
    2,095

    Re: General White Dwarf Feedback Thread

    Lord Damocles I think your spot on sir! I'd love it if they made White Dwarf good again.

Page 82 of 82 FirstFirst ... 32 72 80 81 82

Similar Threads

  1. UK WD 314 Feedback thread
    By Grimtuff in forum Games Workshop General Discussion
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 14-02-2006, 12:53
  2. UK WD 310 Feedback thread
    By Lab Monkey in forum Games Workshop General Discussion
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 21-10-2005, 10:29
  3. UK WD 309 feedback thread
    By Lady's Champion in forum Games Workshop General Discussion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 03-09-2005, 13:01
  4. UK White Dwarf 307 feedback
    By Pertinax in forum Games Workshop General Discussion
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 23-07-2005, 04:50
  5. Need some Chaos Dwarf Army Feedback (Yes or No)
    By Alric in forum Games Workshop General Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-06-2005, 02:29

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •