Official June 2012 White Dwarf (USA 389, UK 390 etc) Feedback Thread

[eldargal]

I voted 7. 4 or so for the new units, 3 for the painting guides and non-eavy metal army showcases.

[Lord Damocles]

Not to interrupt the usual bitching and moaning, but did anyone notice those White Scars were mainly the snap fit Marines and largely not the same White Scars models we've seen in other GW publications for years?

I honestly haven't sat down and read any of it yet, but thumbing through it, I did notice a bunch of the stuff in that White Scars/ Necrons/ Orks campaign thing were newer models. I wasn't under the impression that was a particular staffer's army- did I miss that or has GW suddenly painted up a bunch of White Scars? Probably my generally suspicious nature working overtime, but it does make me wonder if the Scars aren't going to feature in something coming out soon...

They were painted specially using the Black Reach set contents as part of one of the articles.

The studio White Scars do show up in the background though.

[Von Wibble]

I gave it 2 - for the fact there are actually some new rules. No warhammer fantasy articles, no battle report (though the standard of those of late has been poor - a batrep should be a turn by turn description with maps, not done over 1 page), and a lot of pictures of teh same 3 models. Oh, and no prices given for the new models either.

I would have given it 0 had it had no rules in.

[tu33y]

i said a six, just because they DO seem better than their nadir last year.

i think the ultramarine painnt job on the stormtalon is SHOCKING, too dark and very uninspired. the White Scar 'talon looks so much better and actually made me more positive about the model.
LOVEDthe non studio army, with its converted stormraven that looks better than the stock one! and also loved the Chapterhouse but felt out of anyhing that needed MORE pictures- i felt a bit short changed on that!


i just HAVE to add- the difference between old WD's and new ones is just one word- PASSION.

in the new ones its so corporate and vetted and scrutinised to make sure there is nothing contriversial or revealing.

[azhagmorglum]

Didn't used to be like that. I miss the old white dwarf.

Yes I know. I used to buy WD before (on a monthly basis but it was like several years ago, and had even a one year subscription 13+ years ago). Meanwhile the magazine' s slowly tranformed into that uninspired catalogue of monthly releases with mind-overloading pictures. It really is depressing.

And you just know they are going to make a lot of important FAQ or rules changes in 6th ed so that you HAVE to buy WD

That's even more sad. But I don't think I'm going to buy it. Let's see how much the new edition is going to cost first (new codexes going up for sure with the hardback cover treatment, new units more expensive, and the finecast treatment that inflates prices as a secondary effect) and then again, I'm not purchasing it since I haven't been playing 40k for several years now (despite having 2 armies).

[ted1138]

I voted 7. 4 or so for the new units, 3 for the painting guides and non-eavy metal army showcases.

So, 4 out of 10 for the new units and 3 out of 10 for the painting guides = 7 out of ten over all?

[Helbrass]

There seemed very little of substance in this WD.
On the positive side: rules for fliers. I may use these if I ever scratch build something - I am unlikely to ever buy any of the GW models.

Negative: As always what's new this month (OK I suppose), but then lots of thinly disguised adverts for the same new models
and "How to paint the new models".
One rather poor story, and no battle report.

I gave it 3, but perhaps that was generous.

[Commissar Merces]

I want to know who gave it a ten...

[shelfunit.]

I want to know who gave it a ten...

Click on "view poll results" - in fairness to him he did later post that he voted that out of "spite" for all the "1" votes and in reality it would have been a "7".

[-Skink-]

Well I've given it a 3. For background I've been reading since #217 and there is just something lacking from the newer issues that just doesn't hold as much sway as earlier issues did. It's like it's missing just that little bit of extra passion from a few contributors to just bring it back up to a 'worthy' standard. A few more design articles on the new flyers, a proper battle report with the old 2D style maps and it's back on the way to being a must have each month. Some of it is still a decent read, just not enough.

[footofgork]

2 for me, other than pictures of the new fliers and rules for the new fliers there wasn't really any other content. I don't know of one other comapny that asks the customer to pay for their advertising as at the moment WD is nothing more than advertising as can bee seen clearly by the shear amount of flier pictures contained. The sad thing is GW should realise the people that bought this crap "magazine" are more than likely already into the hobby and would prefer some actual content rather than 100s of pictures and double page spread of the latest model, isn't the advertising what the stores and the website is for???? sure get some adverts in WD but at least TRY and put some content in too!

Also the painting guides are awful! basically I sprayed this blue, and then splodged silver on an it was done and awesome ready for war! I used to find the old eavy metal guides inspirational and try out new techniques, seems recently all you need is a spray gun and to buy 6 storm talons!!! LOL!!!! I guess they're saving all the eavy metal guides to produce more masterclass books to sell for more £ rather than adding actual worthwhile content to WD.

Poor show (again!).

Foot

[azhagmorglum]

The sad thing is GW should realise the people that bought this crap "magazine" are more than likely already into the hobby and would prefer some actual content

GW may realise this, but "veterans" are clearly not the people GW wants to sell WD to.

[macejase]

This is one of the first White Dwarfs I have picked up since they started going downhill (as well as April & May) just to give the magazine another chance. Ten or so years ago I was a subscriber, and back then I had loads of back issues with interesting content and reports. The last two issues I felt were not so good, but not too bad either... they had some nice articles about how to paint a huge range of models which should cater for many people, even if just ever so slightly. It was also all necron necron necron, but then that was the latest book so I kind of expected that. But this month, with just the three flyers released, I expected a page or two on those and then hopefully plenty of content about the games and a nice battle report (even though they don't make em like they used to). Unfortunately I was very very dissapointed. I think the 3 flyers got more coverage than the whole new necron army did last month?

The magazine read like this (if you can call it reading...) 40k flyers, 40k flyers, 40k flyers, story about 40k flyers, warhammer page, 40k flyers, end.

Where was warhammer fantasy? Where was lord of the rings? Where was the decent gaming content? Where was the battle report?

2/10 - The only thing that saved it from a 1/10 was that the painting guides can be useful if you're interested in buying those new things... which I am not.

I want to know who gave it a ten...

Probably the kid who just started who walked into a GW store to be told how cool the space marines and orks are, was sold the 5th edition started kit, and then told how cool the new flyers would be this month... and fell for it.

Either that or someone trying to be funny.

[EmperorNorton]

GW may realise this, but "veterans" are clearly not the people GW wants to sell WD to.

That may be, but which clientele wants the magazines it buys as devoid of content as possible?

[-DE-]

GW is the only company I know that makes you pay for their monthly catalogue instead of giving it out for free. I'll be frank, I consider this issue to be the worst issue of White Barf Dwarf I've ever read, and I'm the guy who enjoyed the Dreadfleet issue as I was interested in the game, even though I ended up not buying it. A shame and a 1.

[75hastings69]

That may be, but which clientele wants the magazines it buys as devoid of content as possible?

Very true, I'm not sure who GW are targetting with WD these days other than the Hard of Learning

I'd like someone who voted 8 or 9 to describe to me what exactly was so good about this issue? It literally took me under 2 minutes to browse through this steaming pile of cack this month.

[azhagmorglum]

That may be, but which clientele wants the magazines it buys as devoid of content as possible?

The one that has never known of the good ol' time WD magazine (not catalogue) : see below

Probably the kid who just started who walked into a GW store to be told how cool the space marines and orks are, was sold the 5th edition started kit, and then told how cool the new flyers would be this month... and fell for it.

And was forced to buy the new WD that he really needs if he wants to know how reaaaaally cool those new fliers are

[lbecks]

I give this one a 4. Too many similar pictures of the same thing. Too many advertisements filling space. No EM Masterclass.

[Nogginthenog]

I gave it a 6, on the basis that it has rules that are interesting and useful to me, which is not an every month occurance for this magazine.

Other than the flyer rules and painting guides though, its extremely content light it has to be said, had I not been interested in the rules for the fliers, I'd be giving this a 2 or 3 at best.

[Malagate]

Voted a two, which is only because it includes rules for new models.

In my opinion any score above that is either over-generous or similar to a video game magazine review score ("Truly awful, worst game of the year, 6/10" yeah, that's really meaningful...), these days I only enjoy WD because it means I can read Lord Damocles' reaction to it. Even in light of the 2 I gave I do agree with Lord Damocles in that the rules should be included with the models, or even better on the website, but I suppose they have to somehow justify charging, what is it now, almost £5? Ludicrous.