Rolling White Dwarf reviews

[isotope99]

There's been a lot of chatter about changing White Dwarf, how it's always full of adverts etc.

For the next six months, I'm going to keep a running track of what's in the White Dwarf and whether it's really changing or not so I can make a decision about whether to keep subscribing at the end of the year.

July: 7
August: 8
September: 4
October:5
November:4
December:[TBC]

Running average: 5.6

Obviously this is all subjective so a little about me:
UK based, mostly interested in 40K (major armies: Daemons, Orks, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar) with some dabbling in fantasy, more of a modeller than a player.

July 2011

Days late on delivery: 2
Pages of content (editorials, battle reports, hobby articles etc.): 65
Pages of semi-content (puff pieces with nothing new, sprue pics, sample armies that make no sense, new unit previews etc.): 33
Pages of straight up adverts (including all that stuff at the back): 24

Key content features:

Storm of magic summaries and development discussions - Still very puffy but I got a decent feel for Storm of Magic from it.
Major SoM battle report Chaos vs Dark Elves - Pretty good, not too much hyperbole
Minor Cities of Death battle report Space Wolves vs Chaos - Not bad, some nice terrain but hard to follow without maps
Hobby on dark eldar - Could have done more with this, vritually no conversions, but a decent guide to painting wrack skin I suppose
New Cities of Death race-specific stratagems and a few new missions - Rarely play pure CoD anymore but some effort has gone into them although my instinct is to say that there is serious potential for unbalancing the game with some (dark eldar can treat a whole building as a gigantic webway portal that can be used by vehicles, for example).
Jervis waffles about finecast, he's in favour (shocker there!:eek:)


Overall I felt that this white dwarf was meatier than some of the previous issues and despite its obvious focus on fantasy, I'm reasonably pleased with it. Disappointed they didn't have the battle report on the new purple daemon cave scenery thing they've made, but mostly I'm positive, I give it a 7.

August 2011

Days late on delivery: 1 (get it to me on time next month and get a cookie)
Pages of content (editorials, battle reports, hobby articles etc.): 67 (+2)
Pages of semi-content (puff pieces with nothing new, sprue pics, sample armies that make no sense, new unit previews etc.): 30 (-3)
Pages of straight up adverts (including all that stuff at the back): 25 (+1)

Key content features:

Vampire counts, some standard designers notes and some pages of new rules (3 units total) to match some new models. Not a VC player so I can't say if they're any good but they're there so be happy
Garden of morr hobby article. I was hoping to see more interesting modelling with this, but it's really just a puff piece. Want those roses for my dark eldar.
Another SoM battle report Vampires vs Chaos & Daemons - Loses points for feeling a lot like the last one. We only have one batrep this month to make way for the sisters.
LOTR cavalry thing I didn't read that closely, sorry
Hobby on monsters- some painting examples short on detasils of how they were achieved, a kind of pointless assembly guide and a painting guide for the black dragon
The first half of the sisters codex is here. Other threads have the details, but here are the facts:
No new units, no new models pictured yet, acts of faith specific to each unit and rationed D6 per turn, no wargear or points values yet. I'm going to defer judgement as to whether this is a useful stop-gap or just a steaming pile of cruddace until next month but I feel that the true test is whether feedback gets incorporated into a new sisters book within the next 18 months.
Jervis waffles about game design, its some sort of justification as to why the GW rules are constantly getting bashed on forums (not really but that's the message I got). Basically fluff comes first, ties quite well to the sisters rage.

There are a lot of rules in this issue and, if for nothing other than novelty, that's a good thing. Will this be the start of a WD rennaisance? or just a sop to try and shut the internet types (i.e. us) up for a while?

Overall, I'm reasonably pleased I give this issue a solid 8. September needs to consolidate this so my wishlist is:


Spice up the batreps.
Deliver some good wargear for sisters so that they don't get discarded
Let's see some more modelling/conversion work


September 2011

Days late on delivery: 6 (I'm taking off points for this, that's almost a week late)
Pages of content (editorials, battle reports, hobby articles etc.): 69 (+2)
Pages of semi-content (puff pieces with nothing new, sprue pics, sample armies that make no sense, new unit previews etc.): 28(-2)
Pages of straight up adverts (including all that stuff at the back): 25 (-)

Key content features:

Ogre kingdoms: Designers notes actualy pretty good but a lot of filler with many pages of unit pics.
Battle report vs Tomb Kings: Solid but unspectacular, the scenario special rules seemed to have zero impact on the battle.
Arcane fulcrum hobby article: Obvious kitbashes but I like to see terrain that I don't have storage room to make myself.
LOTR monster thing that I'm sure I've seen before.
The other half of the sisters codex is here: I still maintain that it was right to wait for this issue but I honestly can't see the point of this codex. If it had been me I would have just swapped out the relevant rules coming from the new GK codex, henchmen, hereticus inquisitors etc. and left everything else alone until we get a new book.
There's a scond Batrep here with sisters vs tyranids but it feels rushed.
Shiphammer is announced at the back but as usual it tells us nothing and shows us nothing. If they want WD to be the news frontline at least put some news in it :mad:


This issue is pretty average:


Loses points for lateness, SOB codex lameness and not revealing anything in their shiphammer back page (only not on the back page for some reason).
Gains points for ogres being cool and having two batreps in the first place.


I give this issue a 4, 5 if you ignore the delivery delay.

October 2011

Days late on delivery: 4 (plus the extended release date)
Pages of content (editorials, battle reports, hobby articles etc.): 73 (+4)
Pages of semi-content (puff pieces with nothing new, sprue pics, sample armies that make no sense, new unit previews etc.): 16(-12)
Pages of straight up adverts (including all that stuff at the back): 33 (+8) dreadfleet content is up but there are a lot of pointless advertising spreads.

Key content features:
DREADFLEET: To the almost total exclusion of everything else, 2 battle reports, massive painting guide, tactica and other fluff pieces.
Some minor ogre kingdoms hobby and some new SOM scrolls for the new beasties (good to see this continued support)
A few battle missions for SOB that look OK but no plastic, no sisters for me !
Standard bearer talking up the benefits of big club projects.

This issue concentrates on dreadfleet to the exclusion of everything else, I don't mind a focus on the new release but this is silly and recycles the ship pictures we've already seen so many times. They really should have had at least one fantasy/40K batrep IMHO. Also annoyed by no back page announcement, you can't say you want WD to be the frontline for hobby news and then put no new news in it.

Loses points for extreme dreadfleet focus and lack of any news
Gains points for maintaining support for SOM.

I give this issue a 5 as the dreadfleet content is interesting but I wouldn't have bought it on its own.

Rolling average is now down to 6. Moving closer to just buying the ones I actually want.

November 2011

Days late on delivery: 6 (almost a week again)
Pages of content (editorials, battle reports, hobby articles etc.): 67 (-7)
Pages of semi-content (puff pieces with nothing new, sprue pics, sample armies that make no sense, new unit previews etc.): 26(+10)
Pages of straight up adverts (including all that stuff at the back): 30 (-3)

Content down in exchange for loads of pages showing the new model variants

Key content features:
Necrons: The usual fare, designers notes, eavy metal sample colour schemes (these are actually pretty interesting) and a big 4,000 point battle versus SM and Eldar showcasing the new units.
Also some tactica on LOTR infantry (these feel pretty lame but I don't know LOTR) and ogres
How to use skullvane manse in your games
Some sample non-studio staff armies for orks and sisters
Standard bearer encourages us not to be sore losers

The battle report is the main reason to get the issue I suppose. The alliance of eldar and SM is quite fun but the scenery is very average planetstrike fare (would have much preferred a necron tomb world or something).
The report does a good job of showcasing the 2 new SC mpdels and their special rules but 4,000 points makes it hard to tell what's going on for some of the other units.

Loses points for single batrep which is pretty confudsing and rubbish delivery delay
Gains points for necrons being pretty cool (not that WD deserves the credit for this).

I give this issue a 4, I just didn't get much out of it not already available online.

Rolling average is now down to 5.6. Should just drag itself over 5 but not holding out much hopes for next months reject issue with no new releases.

[Thornblood]

Im impressed with the CoD article. Just that it is there at all, not that it is particularly amazing.

I enjoyed WD the most back in the 'Fat Bloke' days when it had really random stuff in it; supporting armies with no new releases for years and none on the horizon. Like CoD.

Whilst Im not expecting a Necron hobby focus, a Brettonian tactica, or an even vaguely relevant LotR article. The CoD article managed to support all races in 40k (not well, but still some), so I think it deserves a small medal (just a small one).

Also, as everything else was tied into new releases, the just released or, if chaos rumors are to be believed even beginning to generate hype for the future, this was the only thing in the entire magazine that didnt count as an advert in my mind.

Not that article-based (including battle report based) adverts are not entertaining.

Also, for the record, in this case Jervis does not count as an unsupported race (whilst true, he was talking about finecast, which disqualifies him).


Its a great idea Isotope and I think quite helpful for us all!

[Verilance]

Speaking of Fat Bloke I loved his "Path to Glory" articles where he took a limited budget and built up a Warriors of Chaos Army. I used this approach to build my son's vampire count army and my Orcs and Goblins. I can't say I am a wizard at painting but I was pleased with the result of the converted Bretonian Damsel I used as my son's necromancer (see avatar) If White Dwarf goes even a smidgen towards those days I would be as pleased as punch.

Going to buy the issue tomorrow after seeing your comments

[scadugenga]

Speaking of Fat Bloke I loved his "Path to Glory" articles where he took a limited budget and built up a Warriors of Chaos Army. I used this approach to build my son's vampire count army and my Orc and Goblins. I can't say I am a wizard at painting but I was pleased with the result of the converted Bretonian Damsel I used as my son's necromancer (see avatar) If White Dwarf goes even a smidgen towards those days I would be as pleased as punch.

Going to buy the issue tomorrow after seeing your comments

I was a huge fan of Fat Bloke's Path to Glory articles and the original a tale of 4 gamers articles.

The revamp they did a couple years ago was criminal. As a homage to the original, it failed utterly.

[SMC]

Best white dwarf in far too long.

[mikethefish]

Disappointed they didn't have the battle report on the new purple daemon cave scenery thing they've made, but mostly I'm positive, I give it a 7.

I am not disappointed at all. That purple scenery is probably the single worst game board I have ever seen.

[DrLove42]

Have to look at whats to come as well

It mentions in SoM that they'l lrelease more Binding scrolls for monsters in the future

The next issue will include Sister codex part 1 AND new monsters for Vampire Counts?

New rules, more battle reports (usually only get 1). WD is doing what everyones said they want from it

[miteyheroes]

I find battle reports completely pointless.

I love the sprue pics though, a wonderful way of seeing precisely what conversion parts you can get in a kit.

But yes, good WD this time. SoM was well explained, I like hearing minature designer's thoughts, and an update for CoD was good. Also nice to see other people's armies (although it looked so similar to the Studio army it wasn't all that interesting).

[eldargal]

Excellent idea, particularly with the rumoured return of WD as a hobby magazine.



I disagree, it isn't pretty but it says 'magical underground cavern' pretty damn well in my opinion.


I am not disappointed at all. That purple scenery is probably the single worst game board I have ever seen.

[wittdooley]

I find battle reports completely pointless.

I love the sprue pics though, a wonderful way of seeing precisely what conversion parts you can get in a kit.

But yes, good WD this time. SoM was well explained, I like hearing minature designer's thoughts, and an update for CoD was good. Also nice to see other people's armies (although it looked so similar to the Studio army it wasn't all that interesting).

I tend to skip over the battle reports also, but you can't dispute that they do fall under the purview of "quality content." Further, the battle report is something that is detailed in the other hobby magazines I read (No Quarter, Wargames Illustrated) so there is certainly some merit in them.

I'm more interested in hobby/fluff articles myself. As far as that has been going, No Quarter is clearly the one to beat, what with the additional cards/scenarios for their leagues, the best painting articles presently printed, and the high quality fluff additions in each issue. Sadly, the best representation of what a hobby mag should be (Rackham's Cry Havoc!) is long since defunct.

All that said, I was plesantly surprised by the CoD article. I may actually do a comparison of the most recent NQ to this month's WD as a complimentary piece to this so we can add that to the fold.

[Psychosplodge]

A battle report is quality content when not just centred around "look at the shiny new all kill-y unit we made...."

[wittdooley]

By that reasoning, none of the Battle Reports in any of the Magazines I mentioned are "quality content." They all focus their battle reports on how the new stuff works in a game.

FWIW, the Chaos army in the Battle Report in the new WD only uses one new monster model.

[HsojVvad]

isn't the WD battle reports fake? They are not actually really played?

[Psychosplodge]

They used to be more "real"

[Verilance]

bought it and read it,

I enjoyed it, it isn't WD issues 1-50 by a long shot but sadly for me those days are long gone.

[eldargal]

They play two or three games and pick the most interesting one for the battle report.


isn't the WD battle reports fake? They are not actually really played?

[Deadlift]

They play two or three games and pick the most interesting one for the battle report.

What you mean to say is they play 2 or 3 games and they pick the one that shows the new army winning :D

[eldargal]

Nope, new armies lose sometimes. I think either OnG or Skaven did most recently for Fantasy, I forget which for 40k.

[Grailkeeper]

I'll keep an eye on this thread, What ever happened to Paul Sawyer when he left? He droppped off the face of the GW planet. What ever happened to Space McQuirk? I just remember him for the silly name.


Hopefully they'll ditch the LoTR bit. It lanquishes unloved and unread at the back of every white dwarf I ever bought, pretty much the same as the sports bit in any newspaper I buy.

[BrokenWing]

Please GW, get rid of Lotr. Get rid of the game, get rid of the license, get rid of the White Dwarf section. Spend resources on a new, more interesting, more played game, or even just on the two you already have.

[Unzuul the Lascivious]

There have been no decent painting articles in EVER. It wasn't a bad issue, but the painting articles are grossly insufficient....

[Grailkeeper]

I disagree- I often found the painting articles helpful altough I may have been more of a beginner needing help with basics when I read them than you. That said painting articles that only show the finished model are of no help whatsoever.

[Deadlift]

Nope, new armies lose sometimes. I think either OnG or Skaven did most recently for Fantasy, I forget which for 40k.

Granted with fantasy, but I just can't recall a new 40k army losing in the past 4 years since I started playing. Obviously the battle reports are a means to an end, to promote and therefor sell more product (and why not) but to me it's the transparency of it that grates a little. I want to not just see more tactics for an army, but against too.

On the topic of transparency, The modelmaterial write up by Jervis was an obvious "finecast is new so please be nice to us" with the references on how plastic wasn't great at 1st but look at it now theme. I would rather that was just said instead of beating round the bush over 2 pages.

I have to say the new WFB monsters look nice, but I would have liked to have seen race specific monsters, a giant stone golem would have been cool for dwarves.

[wittdooley]

Hehe, I like the Black Dragon and the Cockatrice okay.

Sadly, I've seen the Raging Heroes Manticore and own the Bane Legions Chimera. They make the GW versions of those beasts look....well....not great.

I think their painting articles are pretty decent, actually. The model masterclass that they occasionally have do a really nice job of going through an outline of the steps. The problem with painting tutorials is that there are always more steps than you can reasonably print.

[Unzuul the Lascivious]

That's what I mean though - when was the last Masterclass? Last one I can remember was an Elf I think, which was good - I want more of them rather than tiny little snippets, however useful they are. I liked the Masterclass articles because they give techniques applicable to lots of models. When was the last Masterclass? One of those a month (wishlisting, I know I know!) would be great!

I'm in agreement on the monsters Wittdooley - not so big a fan there. And seriously, the Lammasau? That thing is clown shoes looks-wise

[Psychosplodge]

I'll keep an eye on this thread, What ever happened to Paul Sawyer when he left? He droppped off the face of the GW planet. What ever happened to Space McQuirk? I just remember him for the silly name.


Hopefully they'll ditch the LoTR bit. It lanquishes unloved and unread at the back of every white dwarf I ever bought, pretty much the same as the sports bit in any newspaper I buy.

I think I saw paul sawyer mentioned on a web page for a miniatures company based in Nottingham when I was looking for scenic bases, I could be wrong though.

[HsojVvad]

Please GW, get rid of Lotr. Get rid of the game, get rid of the license, get rid of the White Dwarf section. Spend resources on a new, more interesting, more played game, or even just on the two you already have.

It has been said, Once, it has been said many times, if it wasn't for the LotR liscence, there could be a very strong chance there would be no 40K and Fanatasy. For a time there, LotR was GW bread and butter, Yes even outselling the Marines. And with that money, GW used it for 40K and Fantasy.

There is a saying, "better watch out, for what you wish for, you may just get it", and if there was no LotR, GW may as well have folded a few years ago in the begining of the 2000s.

That could be another reason why we are having such frequent price increases now. GW is so use to the money, it had, that once LotR ran it's corse and 40K and Fantasy wasn't making as much money, GW kept increasing the prices all the time.

Also, it was LotR that had the best articles in WD, there for a while, what was in 40K articles just blew and stunk alot of times.

[HsojVvad]

Speaking of New armies loosing, didn't the 5th edtion Tyranids loose in the battle report of WD?

[miteyheroes]

And seriously, the Lammasau? That thing is clown shoes looks-wise

It's also a very very old sculpt. And hey, it fit in with the old Chaos Dwarfs.

[stebloke]

Used to love battle reports, but only when they were written in the style of a story. That's what I always try and do if I write a report of any kind.

[Dreadnought]

I may have to resubscribe to WD. I bought the June version and was relatively happy with it. Keep in mind the last WD I read was middle of 2007... theres a good chance I'm just clueless.

[wittdooley]

No, I think you're in good shape if you just pretend like 2008-2010 didn't happen for the magazine :D

[BuFFo]

no, i think you're in good shape if you just pretend like 1998 - 2011 didn't happen for the magazine :d

:p :p

3rd edition is when GW changed its WD model from a hobby mag to an advertising rag.

To the OP, good luck with the project!

[wittdooley]

It hasn't been that bad for that long, has it? I have some issues from 2006-2007ish that were pretty decent.

[BuFFo]

It hasn't been that bad for that long, has it? I have some issues from 2006-2007ish that were pretty decent.

Well, I am sorry if I came off as empirical. It is just my opinion and personal preference as to when WD went down in the dumpster.

[Psychosplodge]

He's probably right actually, lol,
it's just the slow decline meant it never was obvious until too late,
3rd edition halved the points costs as well more or less so was the start of the massive 1500 point armies...

[Dreadnought]

so 'nothing' has changed in the amount of time I quit and came back.... great! hey look even the necron models haven't changed! :rolleyes: Its like I never left!

I guess I should finish reading June before I buy July/subscribe for eternity.

[Psychosplodge]

so 'nothing' has changed in the amount of time I quit and came back.... great! hey look even the necron models haven't changed! :rolleyes: Its like I never left!

I guess I should finish reading June before I buy July/subscribe for eternity.

There's probably less LOTR:)

[isotope99]

August 2011

Days late on delivery: 1 (get it to me on time next month and get a cookie)
Pages of content (editorials, battle reports, hobby articles etc.): 67 (+2)
Pages of semi-content (puff pieces with nothing new, sprue pics, sample armies that make no sense, new unit previews etc.): 30 (-3)
Pages of straight up adverts (including all that stuff at the back): 25 (+1)

Key content features:

Vampire counts, some standard designers notes and some pages of new rules (3 units total) to match some new models. Not a VC player so I can't say if they're any good but they're there so be happy
Garden of morr hobby article. I was hoping to see more interesting modelling with this, but it's really just a puff piece. Want those roses for my dark eldar.
Another SoM battle report Vampires vs Chaos & Daemons - Loses points for feeling a lot like the last one. We only have one batrep this month to make way for the sisters.
LOTR cavalry thing I didn't read that closely, sorry
Hobby on monsters- some painting examples short on detasils of how they were achieved, a kind of pointless assembly guide and a painting guide for the black dragon
The first half of the sisters codex is here. Other threads have the details, but here are the facts:
No new units, no new models pictured yet, acts of faith specific to each unit and rationed D6 per turn, no wargear or points values yet. I'm going to defer judgement as to whether this is a useful stop-gap or just a steaming pile of cruddace until next month but I feel that the true test is whether feedback gets incorporated into a new sisters book within the next 18 months.
Jervis waffles about game design, its some sort of justification as to why the GW rules are constantly getting bashed on forums (not really but that's the message I got). Basically fluff comes first, ties quite well to the sisters rage.

There are a lot of rules in this issue and, if for nothing other than novelty, that's a good thing. Will this be the start of a WD rennaisance? or just a sop to try and shut the internet types (i.e. us) up for a while?

Overall, I'm reasonably pleased I give this issue a solid 8. September needs to consolidate this so my wishlist is:


Spice up the batreps.
Deliver some good wargear for sisters so that they don't get discarded
Let's see some more modelling/conversion work

[DrLove42]

This issues wierd for me. As a read I don't think it was anywhere near as good as last issue, but it delivered a lot more hobby content than they have for a while. 3 new units and the first half of a codex?

But at the same time it seems a bit dry. I agree with you on the battlereoprt feeling very samey from last month.

Sisters codex is incomplete so can't really review anything yet.

And if you get yours delivered by subscriber you'll never get it on time again. Just remember that....

[Wildeybeast]

My hopes for next month? They hire a sub editor to actually proof read the whole magazine before they put it into print. I have noticed over number of months that grammatical errors are creeping in and it's really annoying. I find it a bit much that a national, professional publication can't go beyond a simple spell checking of words, to actually having someone proof read it properly to check for grammatical errors which aren't picked up by Microsoft word.

Chief offences include but are not limited to:
not pluralising words corrrectly;
using correctly spelled words in an incorrect way (e.g. p46 able instead of ably);
and (my favourite for comedy effect) missing out whole words (e.g. p68 "the grave guard proved they could stand up bloodcrushers and slew one." I wasn't aware bloodcrushers had balance problems, but you learn something new every day.

Now I know that proof reading you own work is difficult and you always miss something, which is why I always had someone else read my essays before submitting them at uni. From my limited understanding of the world of publishing, this job ultimately falls to the editor. Now clearly he will often miss something, which is why most magazines and newspapers have sub editors/editorial assistants/typo monkeys or whatever else you want to call them, to check things before they get to the editor. Yet WD has no such person credited in their magazine. I leave others to speculate on why, but if my quarterly magazine from Campaign for Real Ale feels it necessary to employ two sub editors, I don't understand why WD does not have at least one. For me, how you write something is as important as what you write, and to consistently put out a publication with such basic errors displays a lack of pride in you work and reflects badly on the folks who I am sure put a lot of effort into making WD.

[Deadlift]

I still haven't got my WD subscription copy though the post so I cant comment on this months issue. fartbags.

[DrLove42]

GW publications could use proofreaders. Full Stop.

The codexes, WD even the FW rule books are full of errors.

[Wildeybeast]

Even some of the BL novels have errors, though they are admittedly rare. I guess as a proper publishing company, they have proper proof readers. WD and the codexes/army/rule books are all checked in the studio, hence the errors. WD seems to be the proving ground, with people usually progressing from there into the design studio and then sometimes onto writing books. GW head honchos seem to have the idea that WD is still the old fashioned fanzine it was 20 odd years, written by fans for fans, rather than a proper publication that warrants things like sub editors.

[isotope99]

September 2011

Days late on delivery: 6 (I'm taking off points for this, that's almost a week late)
Pages of content (editorials, battle reports, hobby articles etc.): 69 (+2)
Pages of semi-content (puff pieces with nothing new, sprue pics, sample armies that make no sense, new unit previews etc.): 28(-2)
Pages of straight up adverts (including all that stuff at the back): 25 (-)

Key content features:

Ogre kingdoms: Designers notes actualy pretty good but a lot of filler with many pages of unit pics.
Battle report vs Tomb Kings: Solid but unspectacular, the scenario special rules seemed to have zero impact on the battle.
Arcane fulcrum hobby article: Obvious kitbashes but I like to see terrain that I don't have storage room to make myself.
LOTR monster thing that I'm sure I've seen before.
The other half of the sisters codex is here: I still maintain that it was right to wait for this issue but I honestly can't see the point of this codex. If it had been me I would have just swapped out the relevant rules coming from the new GK codex, henchmen, hereticus inquisitors etc. and left everything else alone until we get a new book.
There's a scond Batrep here with sisters vs tyranids but it feels rushed.
Shiphammer is announced at the back but as usual it tells us nothing and shows us nothing. If they want WD to be the news frontline at least put some news in it :mad:


This issue is pretty average:


Loses points for lateness, SOB codex lameness and not revealing anything in their shiphammer back page (only not on the back page for some reason).
Gains points for ogres being cool and having two batreps in the first place.


I give this issue a 4, 5 if you ignore the delivery delay.

Rolling average is 6.33, still above cancellation level of 5 but I'm not all that optimistic about next month's shiphammer issue or December so November best have some great necron releases and articles.

[energongoodie]

Keep up the good work.

[DrLove42]

Have you taken into account there was a bank holiday and no post on one of those days it was late? Doesn't help much, but thats out of GW control there

But generally I agree. For some reason this issue just felt flat. I love the Ogres, 2 battlereps is great and some hobby stuff as well. Thought it was wierd the preview wans't on the back page

[eldargal]

I actually enjoyed this issue more than I expected. The Ogre stuff was surprisingly interesting, I read it all isntead of skimming it as I thought I would. The arena of death was amusing, not a bad idea for a two page spread. The battle reports were nice as well, I really enjoyed the SoB one. The SoB codex while poor is a good sign in the sense of more content in WD so I can't rate it down for that. The Court of the Archon article was dissapointing, unlike the earlier articles on Wych Cults, Kabals and Covens there was no new background, no stories nothing but rehashes of the codex entries and a brief bit of commentary.

I'd give it an 8, despite the poor SoB codex I think it is a damned good sign of things to come for WD.

[Unzuul the Lascivious]

Despite being annoyed at the piss poor painting articles, I actually used one of the techniques shown on part of a Forgeworld model I'm painting and it looks great, so it's sort of job done for me. Still miss the Masterclass articles on 'How To Paint' xyz miniature. SoB Codex is sheeeyte. Never mind Matt Ward's cruddy fluff, Cruddy's cruddy rulesets are the new-old-new hate object... as per other posts, if this makes no sense, I have been drinking fine wines...

[eldargal]

Actually Wards SoB fluff was quite good, not over the top, it got rod of the Inquisition and it increased the numbers of SoB without going overboard on that either.

[Wildeybeast]

WD released on Sat 29th and (assumedly) posted on the same day. Lets assume it isn't picked up and sorted for delivery until Tuesday 30th due to the weekend and bank holiday. Even with 2nd class post, I still should have had it by Thursday 1st, not Friday 2nd when it eventually arrived. Even the UK postal system isn't that sh1t. So my guess is that GW did not post it out on Saturday and given they won't have worked Sunday or Monday, it didn't get posted until Tuesday. Way to reward your loyal customers GW. Price rises I can (just about) understand and stomach, but this serves no purpose at all. The only reason I haven't cancelled my subscription is because it works out cheaper and I would have to take a half hour round trip to go and pick up a copy.

[rickyard]

Please GW, get rid of Lotr. Get rid of the game, get rid of the license, get rid of the White Dwarf section. Spend resources on a new, more interesting, more played game, or even just on the two you already have.

Lotr should be a different game, one of squirmish, as it begun, with ten heroes against a horde of soldiers. And then they started to make stupid things like making themed armies of Mordor, Dol Guldur, Black Gate... wait a minute they were the same army and now i can't use a Gondor soldier in the same army as an Elf??? Or use my mumakil with wargs as i have to include haradrim cavalry? They began to make cavalry for EVERY piece of army, (before that there were wargs and rohan, enough) then heavy infantry for everyone (that's what the uruks and the dwarves did...) AND then appeared that stupid war of the ring thing that made lotr a wfb with different minis. Lotr shouldn't dissapear, it was a great idea, and it should have been kept as it was. Hope they return to the basic hero squirmish system with The Hobbit

[eldargal]

The October issue is very heavy on Dreadfleet, but I enjoyed the articles and the painting tutorials. Particularly the sea bases, painting sea has always been a blind spot for me. Haing said that, if you weren't interested in Dreadfleet there wasn't a whole lot else. The SoB missions were good, I enjoyed Standard Bearer which is seldom as bad as people make out and the odd bits of WFB stuff was a welcome relief if not particularly scintillating.

6/10.

[Psychosplodge]

"Very dreadfleet heavy?" understatement of the month.

It was literally £4.00 of adverts and £0.50 of content...

[eldargal]

Depends on your point of view, I enjoy hearing from Phil Kelly so that article was fine, the rules overview and whatnot were all useful in bringing it together in my head after reading the rulebook and the painting articles were useful. They were more than adverts to me, though I agree it wasn't a stellar issue.

Oh I forgot the SoM scrolls of binding, I liked those a lot. Looking forward to having one of the big critters in my Empire army with a little War Wagon type box on.

[Psychosplodge]

You're right of course it is subjective,
I just felt that the painting guide was too long or more suited to bundling with the game.

I still bought it though, so who's the real idiot? lol

[isotope99]

Ninja'd in my own thread :(

October 2011

Days late on delivery: 4 (plus the extended release date)
Pages of content (editorials, battle reports, hobby articles etc.): 73 (+4)
Pages of semi-content (puff pieces with nothing new, sprue pics, sample armies that make no sense, new unit previews etc.): 16(-12)
Pages of straight up adverts (including all that stuff at the back): 33 (+8) dreadfleet content is up but there are a lot of pointless advertising spreads.

Key content features:

DREADFLEET: To the almost total exclusion of everything else, 2 battle reports, massive painting guide, tactica and other fluff pieces.
Some minor ogre kingdoms hobby and some new SOM scrolls for the new beasties (good to see this continued support)
A few battle missions for SOB that look OK but no plastic, no sisters for me !
Standard bearer talking up the benefits of big club projects.


This issue concentrates on dreadfleet to the exclusion of everything else, I don't mind a focus on the new release but this is silly and recycles the ship pictures we've already seen so many times. They really should have had at least one fantasy/40K batrep IMHO. Also annoyed by no back page announcement, you can't say you want WD to be the frontline for hobby news and then put no new news in it.

Loses points for extreme dreadfleet focus and lack of any news
Gains points for maintaining support for SOM.

I give this issue a 5 as the dreadfleet content is interesting, but I wouldn't have bought it on its own.

Rolling average is now down to 6. Moving closer to just buying the ones I actually want.

[Deadlift]

October 2011
Rolling average is now down to 6. Moving closer to just buying the ones I actually want.

This last statement hits the nail on the head, since 2007 I have bought every single issue. I used to find that there was always something for everyone, even on months there were big releases. GW said the WD format was changing and at 1st I thought that could be for the better. Not anymore, more than any issue I can remember this one has been (in my view) shame less in its promotion of one product.
I appreciate that its to aid sales for Dreadfleet, hell I even bought a copy of the game myself, but I do enjoy a bit of variety in WD . They have so many cool products and models across their ranges to show off which this months was sadly lacking, despite the SoB bits.
I dont mind the "adverts" in WD, in fact I used to like them when it was for advance orders but I don't really like 33 odd pages of the same product no matter how cool it is.
As strange as it sounds its actually put me off the game a little and I am considering stashing it away unopened for ebay maybe next year.

[isotope99]

As an addendum to this, I came across the Space Hulk equivalent WD when tidying up. As well as all the Space Hulk content (designer's notes, great battle report, painting guide) it had:


40K campaign report
WFB doubles tournament review
A second battle report (orcs vs. dark elves) between external tournament players
An ultramarines army spotlight
Catachan heroes tactica
Battlefield challenge mission
Azhag chatracter spotlight

No contest when compared to October's issue

[Wildeybeast]

This months copy delievered on Tuesday, rather than Friday, so +1 point for that improvement! A lot of Dreadfleet which I like, but given that it is a limited release game which many GW gamers won't get, it seems odd to devote the majority of the magazine to it. I can only assume this was done so that regular WD readers would see how cool it is and be encouraged to pick up one of them remaining copies. Also, given that the rules and background for the Ogre mammoths were printed in last months issue, then it has to be minus points for basically printing the same thing two months in a row!

[eldargal]

My brothers and I used to have 7 subscriptions between us to stop fights over who got to read it first (I usually won), now we share one though we sometimes buy extras individually if there is an issue that appeals.

[isotope99]

November 2011

Days late on delivery: 6 (almost a week again:mad:)
Pages of content (editorials, battle reports, hobby articles etc.): 67 (-7)
Pages of semi-content (puff pieces with nothing new, sprue pics, sample armies that make no sense, new unit previews etc.): 26(+10)
Pages of straight up adverts (including all that stuff at the back): 30 (-3)

Content down in exchange for loads of pages showing the new model variants

Key content features:

Necrons: The usual fare, designers notes, eavy metal sample colour schemes (these are actually pretty interesting) and a big 4,000 point battle versus SM and Eldar showcasing the new units.
Also some tactica on LOTR infantry (these feel pretty lame but I don't know LOTR) and ogres
How to use skullvane manse in your games
Some sample non-studio staff armies for orks and sisters
Standard bearer encourages us not to be sore losers


The battle report is the main reason to get the issue I suppose. The alliance of eldar and SM is quite fun but the scenery is very average planetstrike fare (would have much preferred a necron tomb world or something).
The report does a good job of showcasing the 2 new SC models and their special rules but 4,000 points makes it hard to tell what's going on for some of the other units.

Loses points for single batrep which is pretty confusing and rubbish delivery delay
Gains points for necrons being pretty cool (not that WD deserves the credit for this).

I give this issue a 4, I just didn't get much out of it not already available online.

Rolling average is now down to 5.6. Should just drag itself over the line of 5, but not holding out much hopes for next months reject issue with no new releases.

[Wildeybeast]

Mine was a mere 5 days late :mad:. I don't know whether to plus or minus points for the inclusion of the little Xmas sales booklet. It gets plus points for not wasting valuable WD space with (more) advertising but minus points because it meant WD was sealed up and so I couldn't leaf through a copy when I was in the store last weekend.

[Deadlift]

I dont bother subscribing now, My local model store is kind enough to let me have mine as soon as they get theirs in, Usually quite a few days before.

As for this months WD, well for me it was awesome but then Necrons are my favourite army and I am very happy at the moment, so maybe my judgement is a little clouded.

I really enjoyed the battle report, and not just because it was Necrons. The narrative style of the game made it interesting and it was fun seeing 2 armies fighting against one. Also for once the new army didn't win which is a turn up for the books.

However with all these Necron "leaks" that were about long before the release there was nothing we hadn't seen, but was nice to see how they work.

I am wondering though, have GW actually controlled the Necron leaks ( I think maybe they have) and if this is the case then maybe GW are listening to their fans and relaxing on the rumour shutdown.

[eldargal]

I rather enjoyed this issue despite not being particularly interested in Necrons, the battle report was one of the more interesting in some time. Giving it an 8.

[Wildeybeast]

I dont bother subscribing now, My local model store is kind enough to let me have mine as soon as they get theirs in, Usually quite a few days before.

As for this months WD, well for me it was awesome but then Necrons are my favourite army and I am very happy at the moment, so maybe my judgement is a little clouded.

I really enjoyed the battle report, and not just because it was Necrons. The narrative style of the game made it interesting and it was fun seeing 2 armies fighting against one. Also for once the new army didn't win which is a turn up for the books.

However with all these Necron "leaks" that were about long before the release there was nothing we hadn't seen, but was nice to see how they work.

I am wondering though, have GW actually controlled the Necron leaks ( I think maybe they have) and if this is the case then maybe GW are listening to their fans and relaxing on the rumour shutdown.

GW control all their leaks. Virtually nothing gets out by 'accident', hence why there were no pics ofthe Necrons until very close to release date. The only people who have access to this stuff are those in the design studio and they gain no benefit from leaking stuff behind their employers backs. And depending on what the rumour is, it wouldn't be too hard to work out who has leaked it, which would result in sacking.

[Deadlift]

GW control all their leaks. Virtually nothing gets out by 'accident', hence why there were no pics ofthe Necrons until very close to release date. The only people who have access to this stuff are those in the design studio and they gain no benefit from leaking stuff behind their employers backs. And depending on what the rumour is, it wouldn't be too hard to work out who has leaked it, which would result in sacking.

Which could indicate that GW are listening to their customers and "leaking" stuff earlier than they have been in the past 9 months or so.

As for rating the issue. Well its a 9 for me. If they had left out LOTR and included more Crons it would have been 10 lol

[eldargal]

From what I've heard (whichFrom what I've heard they don't leak anything themselves, they just make information they want leaked accessible to people they know will leak it.

GW control all their leaks. Virtually nothing gets out by 'accident', hence why there were no pics ofthe Necrons until very close to release date. The only people who have access to this stuff are those in the design studio and they gain no benefit from leaking stuff behind their employers backs. And depending on what the rumour is, it wouldn't be too hard to work out who has leaked it, which would result in sacking.

[Wildeybeast]

From what I've heard (whichFrom what I've heard they don't leak anything themselves, they just make information they want leaked accessible to people they know will leak it.

That's how I assumed they were leaking their stuff, I doubt Jervis is anonymously posting leaks on forums himself (though it could happen). From what I hear, they tend to send a lot of it the direction of Warseer users, though I gather that some of the GW staff do read forums from time to time.

[Psychosplodge]

Better than last months.
Was considering re-subscribing but the comments about lateness arriving are really putting me off...

[DrLove42]

The thing that amused me was the day before mine turned up (5 days after release) I got a letter telling me my subscription was due for renewal. It had the usual list of "perks" as to why I should.

One of them was "Get your copy before its available in stores!". Do you think I could sue for breach of contract by not gettting me mine?

OT I think it was a good issue. I even read the LotR stuff cos i got bored.

[Psychosplodge]

You probably could....

[lattd]

Yes you could, and before anyone says im being an arm chair lawyer, i studied contract law during my first year at university.