Official November 2012 White Dwarf Feedback Thread

[Avatar_exADV]

I'm... not sure what some of you guys are expecting from the magazine.

Is it 150 pages of nothing but useful articles geared precisely toward the armies I play? Naw, there's not a lot of 40K in this one and even less for an Ork player.

Is it the same as the magazines from a year ago, which regularly had NO hobby content whatsoever, and were 50% comprised of "articles" that boiled down to "we have released models from this army, they're all awesome and you should buy them now!" Not hardly.

I do think a lot of people are dinging it because the models aren't that great this go-around. I'm not really... lemme rephrase that. I'm impressed by the technical quality of the paint job on the blue Warshrine, but from an artistic standpoint I'm not in love with the result at all. I think if they'd used the flesh-colored one that you see in some of the pictures instead, it would have looked a lot better. I also wonder if this isn't one of the models that will end up better on the table than it does in WD... everyone remember the first impressions of the Dreadknight? That turned out better than it might have.

I'll take Parade Ground, Kit Bash, and Paint Splatter over the ten pages we used to get on this month's army, telling us things like "Nurgle is the god of plague" and "Genestealers are a great assault unit!"

Finally, what's the point in complaining about the army composition of the armies in the battle reports? GW isn't interested in building a competitive army, it's interested in showing off as many different types of models as possible. It's ALSO limited in that they only have so many of (x) painted up, so spam lists are basically right out. Do we really need every army report to be "here's this month's army against the latest GK/Necron combo we found off the net!"?

Decent, with room for improvement, but also very much improved over last year's offerings.

(also, I recently came across a cache of old White Dwarf magazines and went through them. Yes, granted, there was some zany scenario content in there, and I'd like to see some of that again. But the old painting guides were... or more like, the old painting STYLE was damned basic, no? I mean, I don't consider myself a good painter but even the orks I bodge out are better than the three-color-and-done guides from back then! And there's plenty of pages devoted to catalog numbers and prices of models. I think that some people may be wearing the rose-tinted goggles in their memories of how it used to be...)

[Herzlos]

I must say, though, Australians missing out on the Chaos update was a bit of a let-down. The bloke in the store didn't mention it, and magazine is still in a plastic wrap, so I assumed it was in there. Getting a "Gift Guide" wasn't quite as useful, I'm afraid! I'm assuming we'll see it next month?

The plastic wrap is an interesting point; with the new subscription model (pick up any 12 over 2 years) forcing people into store, with a sealed magazine they are leaving it up to the cover to establish if it's worth buying. If I went in for that model I'd want to have a quick flick through at least the contents page so I could see if there's anything worth while. But then I guess I probably wouldn't bother with any of them

From what I've seen of it so far my view is that the actual articles contain almost no content; JJ's mentioned some force restrictions but never actually detailed them, or explained what things might be bad or why or anything like that. The entire article could be condensed down to the bold paragraph without any real loss. The other article about the guy travelling seemed equally void of content; he mentions travelling to stores to play games (is that somehow interesting?) and either he or JJ mentioned an in Canada which had custom scenarios for each table / match up which I was interested by, but there was no detail. The article seemed to just stop as if he'd run out of space.


What do I expect from the magazine? Something to help me enhance my gaming experience (scenarios I can use, useful tips, heads up on events) in a magazine that doesn't feel like a thinly veiled catalog. Detailing the new stuff and using it in a game is fine, but that shouldn't be the core of the content. If you currently take the advertising and filler content out, you're not left with much of a magazine at all. I want something written by hobbyists and not a marketing department.

[duffybear1988]

I'm... not sure what some of you guys are expecting from the magazine.

Is it 150 pages of nothing but useful articles geared precisely toward the armies I play? Naw, there's not a lot of 40K in this one and even less for an Ork player.

Is it the same as the magazines from a year ago, which regularly had NO hobby content whatsoever, and were 50% comprised of "articles" that boiled down to "we have released models from this army, they're all awesome and you should buy them now!" Not hardly.

(also, I recently came across a cache of old White Dwarf magazines and went through them. Yes, granted, there was some zany scenario content in there, and I'd like to see some of that again. But the old painting guides were... or more like, the old painting STYLE was damned basic, no? I mean, I don't consider myself a good painter but even the orks I bodge out are better than the three-color-and-done guides from back then! And there's plenty of pages devoted to catalog numbers and prices of models. I think that some people may be wearing the rose-tinted goggles in their memories of how it used to be...)

Hahahahahahahaha... come on... really... you thought that the older WD mags had poor painting guides? You obviously didn't go back far enough. Try looking for some magazines from around the time that the Lord of the Rings first came out. Now compare that to what we have now.

Also we have 50 pages at the front telling us to buy buy buy warriors of chaos. How is that much different from the WD's from a year ago which were churning the same kind of rubbish out?

[Lornak Bloodgreed]

I'm so glad I dont buy White Dwarves anymore. Judging from what I've seen in this thread, they aren't worth a penny, or whatever your lowest form of coin currency is.

[zoggin-eck]

Hahahahahahahaha... come on... really... you thought that the older WD mags had poor painting guides? You obviously didn't go back far enough. Try looking for some magazines from around the time that the Lord of the Rings first came out. Now compare that to what we have now.

This I totally agree with you on. Those issue from when the Lotr game came out had some great painting advice. This was also around the time Inquisitor came out, with some great articles (I must admit, it was the first time I'd seen three different sheens of varnish used depending on what real-world "material" was painted underneath).

There were plenty of other periods which beat the life out of what we have now. Issue 90-100 odd had some great Blanche articles on using inks, glazes and washes (better than when they later released the modern washes and the still fairly recent previous ones, even if I love the new washes). The Blanche articles on useful subjects like shields, bases and banners are still so relevant today. Even in the early days of 2nd edition 40k/4th edition WHFB, despite being the "red period" they had some useful stuff around the time they released the 40k and Fantasy painting guides.

(also, I recently came across a cache of old White Dwarf magazines and went through them. Yes, granted, there was some zany scenario content in there, and I'd like to see some of that again. But the old painting guides were... or more like, the old painting STYLE was damned basic, no? I mean, I don't consider myself a good painter but even the orks I bodge out are better than the three-color-and-done guides from back then! And there's plenty of pages devoted to catalog numbers and prices of models. I think that some people may be wearing the rose-tinted goggles in their memories of how it used to be...)

"Old" is a pretty useless term. When are they from? Just like when people say "I like the old demon models better" they may mean one version ago, or several.

Accusing people of rose-tinted spectacles is one of those clever sounding arguments you see every day, but what about those people who actually mean it? I've recently pulled out some issues from the 80's for someone who is new to the painting side of the hobby, but confident enough art-wise to try something beyond the current White Dwarfs, and we're glad I did. I very nearly bought her the new painting guide, but instead she approaches models using the new paints with tricks from WD over the years. Plenty of people dismiss "red period" models of being three colours, too. Take a look at Mike Mcvey's article on painting eyes. The detail and thought put into orc or human eye sockets, then the eyes, of models that were usually photographed from a distance, later to be accused of being boring, is amazing.

Same for terrain. It's no rose-tinted glasses that made me hunt for issues around 150 to make some human houses. I won't be looking for this issue on how to add skulls to a board and buy multiple towers (I own and quite like the tower of sorcery, by the way, and am still fed up with seeing them in WD).

This is all getting a bit too "WD general feedback thread" though, which I guess this thread each month often ends up

Perhaps back on topic, I kind of like the simpler battle reports. I think a fairly light-hearted one like this month's Fantasy one, with another, in-depth one each month would be nice. I found it enjoyable enough without needing to know every detail. The argument as to why the Ogres had a giant or two mournfangs is a bit silly. It's a personal army, not the studio one. Perhaps he simply doesn't own a larger unit, quite likes giants or doesn't own one of the new monsters. A white Dwarf battle is hardly meant to be 100% competitive, particularly when that's not even how they advertise the game.

I also enjoyed JJ and Jeremy Vetock's articles, light as they are. Perhaps loose the big scary faces and let them write a bit more I think it's more the lack of other, "real" articles in the last two issues that make them stand out so bad. With the amount of wasted space, I think there's plenty of room for both.

[The bearded one]

The plastic wrap is an interesting point; with the new subscription model (pick up any 12 over 2 years) forcing people into store, with a sealed magazine they are leaving it up to the cover to establish if it's worth buying. If I went in for that model I'd want to have a quick flick through at least the contents page so I could see if there's anything worth while. But then I guess I probably wouldn't bother with any of them

My local GW had an open copy wandering about, which you were allowed to look through, including the chaos booklet.

[Jericho]

Not as good as last month's, there's still some lingering concerns about the format being a little less than ideal (mood lighting) but I still think there's more meat on the bones than we're used to seeing.

6 from me.

I might actually get the subscription voucher thingy going, as it's not a terrible deal anymore and I want the movie director subscription model. I find it quite hilarious, given the marketing division's insistence on calling 40k "Cinematic" at every possible opportunity

[Herzlos]

I might actually get the subscription voucher thingy going, as it's not a terrible deal anymore and I want the movie director subscription model. I find it quite hilarious, given the marketing division's insistence on calling 40k "Cinematic" at every possible opportunity

I don't believe you actually need to be a subscriber to get the figure any more. It's up in the new releases section of the mag with no mention of being subscriber only. It is £18 though ($25?).

[Daniel36]

Not as good as last month's but I still think there's more meat on the bones than we're used to seeing.

I agree on that wholeheartedly.

[MiyamatoMusashi]

I will divide my review into high points and low points.

Low: Discovering that the first 50 pages after the editorial are adverts for new releases.
Low: Discovering there's fewer pages in total than last month, too...
Low: ...but the price rise stays!...
Low: ...and they still found room for ten pages of shop listings!
Low: No photos of what you get in any of the basing sets, which might have been interesting...
Low: ...were it not for the price, which is ridiculous (once I found it, hidden on another page).
Low: Glowing book reviews from the publisher of the book are an insult to my intelligence.
High: I really liked the Empire army. It was different, with loads of cool ideas, and I loved the Advanced Heroquest inspiration.
Low: Jervis waffling for two pages about comp, without giving any examples.
High: Battle report featured non-studio armies...
Low: ...but was another uninteresting "test"...
Low: ...including "testing" the Warshrine, as if no-one had ever converted their own before the official model was released...
Low: ...and including "testing" Jugger riders to see if they're the best MC in the game, without taking an equivalent unit of the current best MC (Mournfangs) on the other side as a comparison...
Low: ...and then the report itself was only four pages and over in four turns anyway...
Low: ...still without maps...
High: ...though it was at least easier to follow than some previous reports...
High: ...and the tactical analysis at the end was fairly interesting...
Low: ...but the "tests" weren't.
High: Blanchitsu featured some really cool ideas and inspiration.
Low: A couple of rubbish "articles" in a row (Hall of Fame, tank feature).
High: Despite being mostly rubbish, "Kit Bash" had some really cool conversions (which is not the same as kit bashing, aargh).
Low: Six pages on how to make the most expensive gaming table in the world. One double-page spread would have sufficed.
High: The salt-rust technique is pretty cool, I'd like to see more tips like this...
Low: ...but the rest of the article was just a list of paints to buy.
High: Somewhat against my expectations, I found Vetock's waffling mildly amusing and quite interesting. Not very, mind.
High: I don't really care much about what the WD team are doing, but it was just about interesting enough to count as a "High", generously.
High: Actual designer's notes about the Warshrine!!! I mean, the model's utter crap, but the thought process behind it is fascinating.
High: Work in progress shots of the trench system! I'd have liked to have seen more, say concepts and designs that didn't make it (and I thought they did all their plastics on computer nowadays, why was this different?), but this sort of thing is really interesting.
High: Work in progress shots of Forge World stuff. Again though, I'd like to know more (why they're doing it that way, not just what they're doing).
High: Really interesting Black Library author interviews. Interesting stuff, and a hundred times more likely to make me want to buy the book than the fake "reviews" in the new release section.
Low: contractually-obligated one page sop to New Line Cinema - "see, we are pimping the Hobbit!"
Low: Still no painting Masterclass. Nothing about tactics or army collecting.

So, somewhat strangely, most of the good stuff was tucked away in the back, as if they're ashamed of it. I mean, it still counts - it's still there - but by the time I reached it I was pissed off with the lack of meaningful content in the rest of the magazine. To be honest, if they just expanded that section (with that style of article, though more of it and in more depth) to, say, the size of the whole magazine, this would be a really good publication.

The "in the back" section saved it from a rating of 2 (utterly terrible) to 5 instead (not great, but with some redeeming features).

[Memnon]

As an educator, I often feel that when someone makes an effort to improve, you praise that improvement, in the hopes it will spur on greater achievement. Even if the improvement is only marginal, that praise is important, and in that spirit, I feel white dwarf is coming along nicely.

Last month I may have gone a bit overboard on the praise with an 8, but with a point of comparison now, I'm settling more towards a seven this month. I'll go through the sections one by one, in the hope of giving a reasonable stab at a review.

We start with the first 50 pages. Seems to be a big gripe for most but I'm ok with GW showing me nice pictures of the new models that I may want to buy. Admittedly the blurb around it is unashamedly positive (I'm sick of the word "crisp"), but I've never read a magazine that isn't promoting some product or other for a good chunk of its page count. It's here to stay either way, deal with it in your own way people.

Army of the Month is a great feature, I love seeing other people's armies and felt WD has missed this feature for far too long. A great looking army, nice ideas, plenty of inspiration.

Jervis... I just can't see the point. This could be a window into GW HQ, insight into design or the future of GW, instead it's an article about "gamer life" in one form or another. Dull.

Battle report; are these the staff armies? If so I'm all for it, nice to see a real battle with real armies rather than the old photoshopped rubbish. Bit short though; the army lists take up as much room as the battle!

Blanchitsu; nice to see close ups from last months article, nice to feel I have something in common with John, I convert much like he does!

Hall of fame; ok, always a nice mini design review.

Parade Ground: again, nice to see real gamer models, some nice tanks in there.

Kit Bash; a wonderful article IMHO, Dan Hardens colonel is superb, the Autarch is stunning as is the Archon. I really like it a lot.

Battle Ground; a nice look at terrain, though I'll never replicate it, it's nice to know how it's done

Paint Splatter; a step up from last month, the salt weathering is brilliant, I'll be using that in future.

Vetock; is this not just Jervis MkII? I don't see the difference

Then there's store guide bumpf, nothing thrilling here.

Then This Month in;
I like this, a brief glimpse into GW HQ, it's much like the old Fat Bloke era editorials where you could follow what everyone was upto each month. Not groundbreaking but a nice touch.

Design studio notes on the warshrine are ok, nice to read, if brief.

Forge World kind of shoot themselves in the foot by showing us stuff that WD won't show for 2-3 months.

I liked the Black Library interview. Again when it was on the BL blog some weeks ago... Although Dan Abnett on Eisenhorn was a fun read, perhaps specialist games aren't dead and buried?

All in all, I enjoyed reading it. I'm still paying £9 a quarter direct debit subscription so whether I will feel that way once the price goes up I don't know. As with WD itself, time will tell...

Memnon

[Daniel36]

Good review, Mennon. I agree with many of your points.
I wasn't as positive as I was last month, even though this one was more Fantasy than 40K, but I stil enjoyed it. Army of the Month is a fun feature for which I am very glad but I do hope they will expand their articles to include things like additional background info and army list variations / Chapter Approved stuff. I do really miss that stuff right now. I don't even mind the lack of Specialist stuff any more, but just give me some additional cool and fun rules.

[duffybear1988]

Is it not false advertising to display Lord of the Rings on the cover of the mag and then have 1 picture (taken from the new film) as the only actual LoTR thing inside?

I would have been more than miffed if I had bought it expecting some nice LoTR figures, only to find a movie advert in the back.

I mean come on - it's not even a picture of something they are selling...

[Greyshadow]

I did enjoy reading it and I don't mind the new layout but they need to do more to support the hobbyist.

Paint Splatter needs to become one of the biggest features of the magazine. I really feel that the current way of presenting painting articles with very little to nothing in the way of explanatory notes is a huge mistake. You don't need huge amounts of exposition, the Dreadfleet painting guide from White Dwarf last year was an example of a great painting guide. Each month, new releases should be accompanied by an associated in depth painting guide to give good results quickly (Chris Peach is great at doing this). Painting some of these huge and incredible kits that are coming out would be a whole lot less daunting if they did this. (I also would like to see the return of 'Eavy Metal Masterclass like everyone else).

I have really enjoyed the articles on real players armies. How cool was Ben Curry's Skaven last month and I thought the Empire army was fantastic. Although the Battle Report this month was a non-event, I do like the panel of experts review of the game at the end.

Overall, I did enjoy it and did think it was well written and interesting (despite GW not getting the Warriors Update to the Australian printers in time!) I gave it a 6, (magazine has got a bit of a way to go yet.)

[Herzlos]

We start with the first 50 pages. Seems to be a big gripe for most but I'm ok with GW showing me nice pictures of the new models that I may want to buy. Admittedly the blurb around it is unashamedly positive (I'm sick of the word "crisp"), but I've never read a magazine that isn't promoting some product or other for a good chunk of its page count. It's here to stay either way, deal with it in your own way people.

It's the only magazine I've read that seems to be spending the bulk of it's content on self advertising (roughly half by page count, nearer two thirds by content), and I regularly get 3 different wargaming magazines, though this is the only one exclusively about the parent companies products. The others, even though owned by gaming companies, come across much more balanced.

[Nogginthenog]

I gave a 6.

Which I would class as just above average.

Some really nice articles in there, the salt weathering one, although instruction on that can be found for free on any plastic modelling forum on the net, represents something not seen for a very long time where dwarf is concerned, its not selling a GW product and not a slave to the 'eavy metal style, which I always think is comepletely out of character for the world anyway. Grim Dark, death and constant war, dows not leave you with immaculate clean soldiers, Forgeworlds style is much more in keeping with what 40K is supposed to be, I'd take their painting over the studio any day.

Other than that, I thought the battle report was OK, I like that they are now having non studio armies involved in the mag, the kit bash was another half decent article, and on the whole I found plenty of actual reading in the mag, which hasnt been the case for a while, last months excepted.

I like the new direction of the book, its still got a way to go, but the signs are it could become a decent magazine again are there, I hope it isnt a 2 or 3 edition try and go back to the old ways they have done before really.

As an aside, the one thing I dont really get is all the criticism of the pages of new models and the store listings.

Even back in its heyday, dwarf had those, not a fan of this months models , but the photography has improved no end in this new version.

I do think picking the worst model of the lot for the back cover was a mistake, the bright red paintjob probably makes it look worse than it actually is, I would have picked be'lakor for that spot.

[Commissar Merces]

i am curious to see Lord D.'s review. Seems like most of the responses for this month are negative.

[ftayl5]

I give it a 4
Not good, not too bad.

The first 50 pages is new or re-released products. I guess if you're into chaos or spending over 500 dollars on paint that'd be okay.
Nice pictures of the new defence network, might actually get that.
The Empire army was nice and should have had another page, the steam tank and giant looked good.
Johnsons article was pointless.
Battle report was as usual, hard to follow and hard to get into.
The rivals section was interesting, I actually liked that bit.

The kitbash section was pretty good. The conversions were nice and they actually had grey pictures as well told you were most of the bits were from.

Everything after that was fairly uninteresting.

[Lord Damocles]

My copy arrived today (Wednesday), which was nice.


The Skullcrusher champion on the cover looks like he'd rather be anywhere but on the cover of White Dwarf...


Opening Salvo - Waste of space, taking effectively two pages. Chaos releases are awesome. Buy them.
Contents is still grossly excessive. I'm sure it's great if you get hyperlinks or something, but tapping the pictures does nothing with an analogue copy but make you look demented.
Poor

New Releases - There's like a bajillion pages, or something. After least month made some small progress with not showing multiple pictures of every new release, this issue jumps right back to old habits. Four pages for the Skullcrushers, whole pages with double pictures for most other [re-]releases.

The photography is a little better than last month - the terrible dark red lighting is largely gone (although remains in the 'secondary' pictures of each model), but is replaced by perculiar snowy backgrounds when all the models have brown/grass bases, which looks a little odd.

The Forge World pages are still stupidly dark, and the models aren't that new now, are they? Is the Fire Elemental's staff bent?

Despite the huge amounts of space devoted to the new releases, they still managed not to show what you get in the basing sets (are they Fantasy/40K specific? - the badlands (just call it a damn desert! ) kit looks to have a resin Tomb Kings shield which wouldn't really fit with Marines, for example); or to say whether you get random Cultists or just the five pictured.

The book review... things... again don't really need to exist (a whole page each for Pariah and Angel Exterminatus when they're featured again near the back?) The write up for Angel Exterminatus fails to even hint at what the 'weapon of unimaginable power' being sought is, which is about all I might have wanted to know.
As last month, these read as though GW are trying to pretend that they're not reviewing their own products (they're great - who'd a thunk it?)

Double pages for prices (put them with the pictires..?) and them online store (hurr... me no think use internets...)

52 Pages before we can extricate ourselves from adverts for about two dozen releases.
Poor

Army of the Month (Empire) - Non studio army good (it wouldn't kill anyone to put two or three in each issue). Are the Greatswords unit-fillered to the max, or are they supposed to be in loose formation?
Good

Jervis Johnson - Comp is good so long as it's good comp and not bad comp. Comp is house rules, and house rules are good. Like removing 0-1 or FOC limits. But they were added for balance and versimilitude. So comp which removes the FOC is good? Despite that being monstrously broken. And comp was added for balance. So comp should be used for balance? So house rules which harm balance are bad comp? So we shouldn't remove the restrictions? But we were told to remove the restrictions. So is that good comp or bad comp? If we can't tell, should we even do it? Is custom terrain/scenarios even comp?
*asplodes*

'Jervis Johnson... has had a hand in the design of most of our classic games'. Yeah, it shows.

I don't really see the point; if I understand Jervis right, he's basically saying 'do whatever', which is cool and all, but, so what?
Poor

Battle Report (Ogres vs. Chaos Warriors) - Big armies, no maps, only four turns, rules outdated since Fantasy FAQs published prior to this issue.
The post battle reviews read kind of like 'the ogres did well and all, but they were always going to get steamrollered by the awesome new Chaos models without luck on their side'.
Poor

Blanchitsu - Yes, lets continue using two out of four pages for titles
The models are badly photographed again (ever so slightly better than last month). I can see why they're in front of Blanche's artwork, but the colours blend in rather, and they could do with a bit more light.
It still amazes me that somebody got this so wrong.
OK

Hall of Fame (Mangler Squigs) - Meh. No comparison pictures with other squig models, and I notice no reference to the Warhammer Online squig with a goblin in its mouth.
Poor

Parade Ground - This month tanks. Only one non-Imperial vehicle (converted from a Leman Russ...) is a little disappointing. The Praetor looks a little plain, with no markings, I wonder if it's there to promote Forge World?
Painting and conversion guides should really be included here, plus simply more models.
OK

Kit Bash - 'I glued different arms on my Tyrant!' Good for you, champ.
If you're not going to provide step-by-step conversion guides, then show more models - the 'in progress' images do nothing but show unpainted plastic, and the completed pictures should illustrate the point(s) (TOO DARK! )
The Blood Angels Captain is a Sanguinary Guard with a different backpack. Ooh.
Poor (it's OK in theory, but half the models... who really cares?)

Battleground - The valley of Skulls - It's like pimp my battlefield, but the only parts available are extra skulls.
Something not so impractical/expensive/encrusted with skulls, please
Poor

Paint Splatter - The salt weathering is somewhat worthwhile. An expanded article on various weathering techniques could have been good.
That GW wants to push How to Paint Citadel Miniatures is evident.
OK

Jeremy Vetock - Wait, Vetock works in the design studio. The design studio is on the same site as Warhammer World. There is a gaming club based at Warhammer World, people playing games in the hall all the damn time, and literally everyone in the studio/offices plays. So he had to drive somewhere to find a game why, exactly?
Oh, it's a subtle advert for GW stores.
Poor

- Followed by a distinctly less subtle advert spread over several pages -

Want the address of an independant stockist in Kazakhstan?

This Month in White Dwarf - There are some Mordor Orcs - LoTR content! Totally worth the cover price!
Just random little paragraphs about anything and everything create largely wasted space - this could have been used for more proper army showcases etc.
Poor

This Month in the Design Studio - The Warshrine seems to have come about by people just going with the first idea presented (which isn't all that surprising, looking at the model...). There must be concept art or early versions of the model which they could have shown.
How do you airdrop in a trench line? Isn't that kind of the point of the Aegis line? Why so many corpses? How did the bunker in the photograph get to be floating in an endless abyss?
Poor

This Month in Forge World - It's stuff we've seen online already (I forget whether it was revealed last month or this). Why not show sample rules/background for the GIANT TANKS OF DOOM?
Poor

This Month in Black Library - These should have been in the new releases section.
OK

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

New Warriors of Chaos rules booklet - They use all that high quality paper for the store listings, and then put their new exclusive rules on something slightly below the quality level of a kebab flyer.

New rules are good, but I do worry that we're sliding back towards the days where White Dwarf is required to use certain units, or keep up with rule changes. that might have been fine and dandy when White Dwarf was more worthwhile for the rest of the content, and the rules wound up online reasonably quickly anyway, but is a little disturbing nowadays.
OK

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

Uh.

In the good old days (no not the actual good old days - like, six months ago) I'd read White Dwarf and be filled with rage/confusion/horror/blind hate etc. - good, wholesome, emotions.
This issue I just got a hollowness.

White Dwarf was bad, and GW had the opportunity to change it and fix it. They changed it, but have done nothing to address, well, any of the problems with it.
To quote myself from last month:

TL;DR: It’s different but not better.

A 2 from me this month (again).

[Thuggrim]

What do I expect from a magazine - content with substance, put simply I don't care what content to an extent but just something worth reading. I can and will recognise a good article even if it is not useful to me, this lacks anything worth reading, it is hollow mind numbingly shallow and just plain lazy. If this is the idea of hobby content in Lenton then GW have truly lost their way.

I too recently went through some old white dwarfs - I threw a lot out, nothing worth keeping now, but there was probably more meaningful content in each article of those I threw than there is in the entirety of this months magazine. Those I kept were an example of what white dwarf should be, and still interesting and worth keeping some 10 years or so on from being published. Not everyone can be a classic, not every article for you, but they can be a worthwhile read. The new format is all polish by someone that kinda has an idea what a hobby magazine should include but isn't allowed or is too lazy to produce an actual hobby magazine.

I would label the newly redone super white dwarf a highly polished ****, but the average **** has far more substance, and probably a lot more meat that this has had it its 2 months to date.