Sunday, 27 January 2013

Review: White Dwarf February 2013 VS January 1998


In this review, instead of comparing the new White Dwarf to the issue from last month, I thought I'd raid my White Dwarf archive and see how the new White Dwarf copes when compared to an issue from January 1998. Read on to find out which one wins.
I haven't randomly chosen an old issue, I've chosen the old issue when Realm of Chaos was released, so we can see a direct comparison to the new Warriors of Chaos issue. I'll compare like for like to start with and then at the end before the conclusion I'll talk briefly about the differences.

All images on the left are the 2013 issue, images on the right are the 1998 issue unless otherwise stated. 

New Releases



Useful information or just pages advertising the latest releases? I think it's both.

The new release section of the 2013 issue is 46 pages long. It's only 6 pages long in it's 1998 rival. The old magazine doesn't really give you much in the way of detail though, where as the new issue has handy descriptors and information about the new releases. I usually find out something I didn't know by reading the new release section. In this case I didn't know the Forge World's new master of signals model is based on a 1990s metal model or the fact that Vilitch the Curseling is the model growth coming out of the shoulder of the model and not the chaos warrior who is actually Vilitch's host brother. Really interesting fluff can be derived from these 46 pages.

 

New and Old Dragon Ogres.

To get this kind of information from the old White Dwarf you have to move out of the news section into the next section about the Realm of Chaos release which is 15 pages long. Dragon Ogres in the old issue get a single paragraph where the new issue boasts 4 whole pages with close up details. 

When you compare the models, the quality of the new models really stand out. The old models all seem so small on their tiny bases. All of the releases in the old issue are metal. That's right, no plastic box sets at all. The new issue is predominately plastic with 8 plastic boxsets and only 6 Finecasts releases. In total the old issue has 25 releases but they're mostly blisters. The new issue has 29 but that includes Black Library books, Forgeworld models and any licensed games.
New White Dwarf wins this round because it has more information and better models. 

Price lists


 

Useful pages listing the prices.

Inflation happens. We have to live with it. So it would be wrong to directly compare the old prices against the new ones... but I will. The old issue is all blisters so lets take two of the blisters Pink Horrors and a Chaos Sorcerer. The Pink Horrors are two models for £4 so £2 each. Lets compare them to the new Forsaken regiment which are 10 models for £30. That's £3 each. That extra £1 is getting you model diversity, lots of extras and options and plastic instead of metal. Now lets take the single one piece metal Sorcerer model and compare it to Vilitch the Cursling. The Sorcerer is £5 and Vilitch is triple his price at £15 but I think Vilitch is worth it because of the sculpt is so much better. I wouldn't pay £5 for the old Sorcerer, it's a terrible model. 

One last thing to say about the price lists. The new issue only deals with current releases, the old issue has the prices for all the games it produces which is kinda cool. This round is a draw. Old prices are awesome but the new models are so much better.

Painting Guides 


 

If you thought the new painting tutorials were bad, check out the old one on the right!

I think the tutorials in the new White Dwarf are for absolute beginners. They list the brush and colour you need and show a close up area. They tend to focus on a single area like how to paint faces or armour. They tend to be 2 or 3 steps, but the new White Dwarf has a few which are 5 steps long and there are a total of 22 areas explained from horses to beards. A vast improvement on previous months... but I'm getting away from the point, I'm here to compare it to 1998. There is only a single tutorial in the whole issue and it makes the new issue look like Golden Demon quality. The old issue's tutorial is truly basic. Click on the link above if you want to know how to paint 12 Chaos Warriors in just 10 steps. New issue wins this round hands down.

General Hobby 

 

 

Old White Dwarf wasn't afraid to put rules and fluff in the magazine, it was afraid of putting more then two articles in a magazine though.

The old issue has some cool fluff and rules for the Necrons, it also features some tactica to gaming with Epic Imperials but that's it! Just two articles. The new issue has army of the month, Jervais Johnson's column, Blanchitsu, Hall of Fame, Parade Ground, Jeremy Vetock's column and big section at the back called 'this month in' which explains what the White Dwarf crew have been up to and talks to the designers and writers of this months releases.
New issue beats the old issue hands down for general hobby content.

Terrain 


 

Plastic vs Cardboard terrain.

The old issue has a section on Tabletop terrain, but it's all the terrain that GW sell. The terrain back then was awful. It was plastic bulkheads with cardboard sheets for platforms. If you wanted to buy a gaming table from GW they would sell you a painted green board and a cloth. Things have moved on luckily and this issue rather then ramming an advert down your throat they show off some of the inspirational armies on parade boards. These all feature terrain GW sell but it goes unspoken. It's subtle and much nicer for the reader. The old issue says look at what we sell, the new issue says look what you can create if you apply yourself. At the back of the issue in the This month in Forgeworld feature there is a snapshot of the WIP Necron Realm of Battle tile. Nice to see an exclusive in White Dwarf which isn't on the internet.
New issue wins this round because the old issue isn't an article it's an advert. New issue inspires me to want to try building my Armies on Parade board.

Converting


 

Should head and weapon swaps be classed as converting?

The new issue features Kit Bash every month and each month they look at a different area. This month they look at command Squads. In theory this is a great idea because you can see ideas from different armies however this month it fell short because it was mainly space marine HQs and Matt Hutson's Imperial Fists are barely converted and shouldn't even be in the article. Most of the conversions are basic head and weapon swaps. Really uninspiring. Dan Harden's tau battlesuits are awesome though with an ingenious head swap using seeker missiles. The old issue isn't much better to be honest. one single article and that's for Gorka Morka vehicles and I feel that's only there because one of the releases is a GorkaMorka vehicle upgrade. The conversions are clever though in the old issue. 
I'm going to say the old issue wins this round because it's actually converting solutions rather then swapping bits and pieces round. 

Battle Reports 


 

Bring back the old maps.

Weirdly both of these articles are 16 pages long. Both feature army lists, but the old issue gives points values for each unit. The new issue features a lot of pictures featuring actual game action, some pictures are really small and you have to read the annotated notes that go with each picture to understand what is going on. The old issue has a simpler solution and uses maps and arrows to show what is going. It has less pictures but the text goes into more detail. I would actually like to see the new issue use maps to show what is going on. Maybe if they mounted a camera above the battlefield and took turn by turn pictures that would save time having to draw them all. 
Old issue wins this round because it was a clearer read.  

Subscriptions


 

Still trying to dangle that carrot to get you to sign up.

Not much to say about this round. New issue has two deals. Subscribe for 12 pay for 8 (saving £22) but you have to pick up from store or get it delivered and get 12 issues for the price of 10 (£11 saving). Old issue doesn't have cash savings but has a choice of 3 freebies: 1. A limited edition T Shirt, 2. 1998 Citadel Annual free (rrp £6 at the time) or 3. Any £5 box of models free.
New issue wins this for the potential of saving £22 a year. 

Adverts 




All four of these pictures are adverts from the old issue.

People make the mistake of saying the new issue is one big advert, this isn't the case. It has loads of GW product in it which you can buy but it doesn't make it an advert or catalogue. The above pages are from the old issue and they're actually adverts. They advertise a Catalogue, Warhammer campaign packs, Digganob supplement and Inferno magazine... they're not even trying to be articles and these same adverts will be in the next month's issue and then the next months and so and so on. Some of these older magazines (not this one funnily enough) would have  double page spreads of a boxed game as an advert, but they would have 3 or 4 of these throughout the magazine advertising each of their games. 
Thankfully the new issue doesn't have to rely on this and you won't see these kind of adverts in the new issue, so for this reason new issue wins this round. 

Differences


I wanted to pick up on a few things that weren't so easy to fit into the above categories.

Photography: The photography in the old issue mainly uses photos from the publications the Design Studio produces. All the photos tend to be on green grassy fields with the same terrain in the background. The new issue uses coloured lightning, backdrops and different boards and terrain. New issue is far more visually appealing. New issue wins.
Page Layouts: The old issue uses art from other publications. So the Realm of Chaos section had borders taken from the Realm of Chaos supplement. The new issue has a cleaner layout which it uses throughout the whole magazine. Doesn't feel as bespoke as the old one but it is nice to see it separating itself from the Design Studio and doing it's own thing. Page layouts is a draw. 
Free stuff: The old issue gave away a free metal Necron model (and the rules for it) the new issue had no freebie. In the past couple of months we have received posters in which collectors can tick off what models they own. Not great. White Dwarf hasn't given away a model in years, but they use to once every two years or so. Old issue wins.
Page count: Old issue is a measly 100 pages, new issue is a massive 156. When you think the old issue  has all those adverts and 17 of those yellow catalogue pages showing parts and model numbers at the back you start to think the old issue is all filler while the new issue is all killer. New issue wins. 

Conclusion


Overall the new issue wins (11 - 5, draws count as 1 point each). The diehard old White Dwarf fans should really take off the rose tinted spectacles. Generally, it's terrible when compared to the new issue. The most impressive thing  is when you work out how much the old vs the new is on cost. Old is £3.50, new is £5.50, however if you look at the best subscription offers, old is £2.83 and new is £3.66  an issue over 12 months, that's only an increase of 83p in 15 years and you're getting 56 more pages and no (actual) adverts.

I will say this though, we can learn a couple of things from the old issues like free models, battle report maps and more detailed converting guides. Maybe in the next 15 years White Dwarf content will include very detailed painting guides and free models.

Do you like our tutorials and reviews? Here is what you can do to support us: Check out the websites of our sponsors, place your next orders at Wayland Games by clicking here or on the banner on the right. Thank you very much, we appreciate any help to keep us going!

40 Comments

  1. nice review dude! getting mine now :D but oh god. "behave or burn"? as a dread decal!? alright mum!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The guy that painted them is a Teacher that runs painting and gaming workshops at school. I'd imagine it's his own little joke! :)

      Delete
  2. This was a great review, and not something I have ever seen done before.

    It was really good to see an objective look, and as you say, remove the rose
    tinted glasses. White dwarf will always bea GW content only, and in that regard can always be considered to be a giant ad. But the content of those ads has improved, is changing and as long as its interesting and improves either my understanding of the game, or the models available for me to buy and convert I'll still buy it.

    I should say that I have a subscription to the electronics version on my iPad, and I would never go back to the print version. The bonus content, and ability to 360 degree view the new release models is just too big an improvement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. God, I remember buying that issue and absolutely loving all the new chaos models! I was a massive beastmen fan and would pore over the Realm of Chaos book for hours just wishing I had some of the miniatures. Funnily enough I never actually bought any tough....go figure.

    Nice comparison though man. Good to see an actual step by step walkthrough.

    Cheers,
    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  4. I spent a lot of time over Christmas re-reading old WDs at my parents' place - including this one - and actually found I enjoyed them more.

    I think you do them a dis-service on several points, as I actually found them to have more articles and rules. The Gorkamorka conversions, for instance - weren't they extra Gubbinz that you could use in the game, rather than simply 'here's how we converted ours'?

    "17 of those yellow catalogue pages showing parts and model numbers at the back" isn't - or at least wasn't - just filler, because it gave you a close up look at the new release, chance to see which parts were separate (handy for conversions) and you could order these bits separately.

    You're certainly right that the new models and terrain are, in general, much better, but I wouldn't count that in favour of the new WD. I can get the new models without having to buy WD!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Ben - I gave the converting round to Old White Dwarf and I said in my conclusion we can learn a few things from the old issue like more detailed converting guides. So I agree with you.

      Personally I'm pleased those yellow catalogue pages are gone, they truly made White Dwarf a catalogue. I would much rather see inspirational hobby from the community like the Armies on Parade and Readers on Parade to be inspired to convert and paint then looking at bare metal catalogue pages. Maybe I'm a bit mean calling it filler, because back then you could order individual parts, so I guess those pages were a necessity for ordering bits because it was pre-website. Still pleased they're gone though.

      Delete
    2. Clever and interesting article, Garfy. :) Some of the points may be debatable but that's always the cause with stuff which isn't properly quantifyable but even for that I think you did a good analysis without bias towards either of the product showing.

      Of course the context of WD changed MASSIVELY over the past 15 years. While I never subscribed to WD and bought more sporadically than anything else I probably got the most complete magazine collection from around that time (1996-1997-1998) and back then, with no internet connection, no organized GW gaming or any GW stores around, this was pure information gold and to be devoured.

      Nowadays we get the new releases as leaked pictures first, in GW's newsleeter later and then they're out so this aspect of WD falls a bit flat, right along with many other things just because it's all readily available online. All of this in mind, I'm actually surprised that the two WDs you compared are as similar as they are.

      Yesterday was the first time I've had one of them new WD in my hand, leafed through it and it looked very solid. Lotsa pretty pictures, interesting Golden Daemon stuff and that "armies on parade" thing was nice as well. Personally I don't feel that it's worth the price for me but I can definately see why people would want to get WD.

      1998, despite being long ago by now, isn't really what the people who complain about WD constantly refer to. Then, it was the fully fledged sales magazine it is today already. I mean it's always been that since GW had gotten big enough to fill a whole magazine with their own stuff exclusively. At that, WD was never too bad, people just have to keep in mind to take WD for what it is and don't have unrealistic expectations from it and they'll see that for what it is and for what it's supposed to do, it's really well done. For anything else, please refer to The Internet.

      To be fair, GW can't publish articles on how to make terrain because they want you to buy the terrain they produce. They can't publish "proper" conversion articles because their plastic boxes include everything that is needed "out of the box" nowadays. It's the downside of having everything and probably the fact that counter-culture so often goes along with a DIY approach to things. (to make a rather grandiose leap for a second :P )

      Due to the fact that they can make all this stuff now there's no need to tell readers what they already can do out of the box. Also, again: Internet does it better, no reason to do it in WD.

      Of course GW did everything better back then because it was the time I viewed GW as a positive entity. Sure, moneysucking, but positive overall, giving me all these great miniatures and artwork and gaming worlds. Of course the early 1990s were GW's heyday because there was chaotic diversity. GW are doing well these days (which is a pretty darned impressive achievement in its own right) and what they do works.

      In the end it always comes down to this: If you don't like it (this includes the pricing), don't buy it. Nobody's forcing you. Still buying, knowing that you won't like it and then going online to complain about it is just plain weird. WD is a sales magazine put out by a company that sells plastic miniatures. For what it is, it works and looks nice. But pointing at a chicken and complaining that it's not like a Velicoraptor at all is just a waste of time.

      (The only thing that upsets me about GW these days is the use of the word "hobby". The whole concept of "the GW hobby" is stupid to begin with but there ya go. That aside, "hobby" is NOT a unit of measure, goddamnit! :D Next thing they do it turning it into a verb. "I'm like so gonna hobby the **** out of this *****. Awesome!")

      Delete
  5. Great review! It's nice to see a really positive and carefully considered comparison. The new WD is a dream for gamers, painters and collectors. Have you noticed the Bat-Reps have started using the staff's own armies? I think that is a really nice, personal touch that gives you lots of different viewpoints. The Paintguides are much better and still accessible at entry level I'd say!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Of course the context of WD changed MASSIVELY over the past 15 years. While I never subscribed to WD and bought more sporadically than anything else I probably got the most complete magazine collection from around that time (1996-1997-1998) and back then, with no internet connection, no organized GW gaming or any GW stores around, this was pure information gold and to be devoured"

    Absolute! I remember rushing to my local bookstall at the end of the month to check out if they've got the new WD. The only way to find out what was new that month and what will come the next month.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cool cross comparison, though I think that different eras appeal to different people. That issue was shortly after another reimagining of White Dwarf that began around the release of Gorkamorka and Storm of Vengeance. For me the peak of White Dwarf was during 3rd and 4th Edition 40K, so not until a few years later.

    Personally I've enjoyed the content of the last few WD's I've purchased. My biggest and really only complaint is that I'm a terrain guy, and with every new issue I'd flip through and look at the pictures first to see what cool new stuff their terrain staff had come up withfor the last codex or army book, or what cool Warhammer World board made it into a battle report. With their expansive line of terrain now all of the board shots have become homogenized and boring for the most part. Long gone are the days of the Chaos Tree gracing the cover and then the "how to" article inside. That was what? Around 2002?

    Something like that. But WD has seesawed back and forth for years. And 1998 wasn't a peak. Haha.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A few people have mentioned the yellow catalogue pages in the old Whites Dawrfs. Yes, these were explicitly catalogue pages but they dis have a very important purpose. You must remember that even in the late '90s not many people had home internet connections and so the only way that you could see models/prices etc was in White Dwarf. I fondly remember spending many an hour pouring over these back pages, writing down product codes and then phoning up the GW 'Trolls' (as their mail order team were known back then). Obviously now-a-days that online store means that these pages are no longer necessary.

    Great review though and good to see someone taking a more objective look of the old WDs. Although I am very fond of these old issue the new ones blow them out of the water.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This review is genius. Is the grass greener on the other side. It never is, thanks for reminding us Garfy. rev

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shouldn't it be pointed out that said old White Dwarf came with a free Necron miniature?

    Remember when GW would do that every so often? :p

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did point that out. Did you not read it all?

      Delete
    2. I noticed now tacked away at the end. How is that even comparable to one point?

      That single Necron is worth more than Jervis Johnson and Jeremy Vetock's waffle combined.

      The Chaos release not only showed the old models, but suggested forces built around a retinue system for Chaos Warriors, Chaos Daemons and Beastmen, in less pages than the latest White Dwarf used to show oversized pictures of the latest models - which you can already see online.

      The UK WD of the old issue, included a basic painting guide for the Necron on the back also, where as the new WD just uses more embossed, simple pics of their product.

      Your review is biased and questionable at best.

      Delete
  11. I believe Garfy does mention that at the end of the article.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I enjoyed reading it, thanks Garfy
    And you worded it correctly with "free models, battle report maps and more detailed converting guides"
    but those were actually the only content I was interested in.
    Like you I am in need of a sometimes "confused time out" during a battle report nowadays.
    again: nice read and thank you

    ReplyDelete
  13. Very interesting comparison, though part of it is based purely on personal opinion ("i'd never buy the old model") than anything else (I'd rather scrape my skin with industrial sandpaper than touch any of the new chaos models, they all feel like something out of lego).

    One thing is clear from the comparison- both old and new WD can only hold attention of children and easily amused people, we only think it was any good because we were children back then.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Awfully written biased review, last of your articles I'll ever read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awfully written biased comment, last of your opinions I'll ever read

      Lol.

      Delete
  15. I didn't realise there was a comment section (I'm new to this blog!).

    Great read, nice to see a positive take on white dwarf for a change! I hope you don't mind but I posted a link to this article over on warseer to save me writing basically the same thing! Naturally positive opinions are being chewed up by the haters but I'm staying positive!

    Keep it up

    Memnon

    ReplyDelete
  16. You have got to dig the old cardboard scenery :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. You didn't go back far enough if you ask me. It would be interesting to see if I have rose tinted glasses about the issues I remember from the 80s

    ReplyDelete
  18. Years ago, when issue 200 came out I posted a comparison to my copy of 100. It was almost pathetic to see how far the magazine had sunk into a catalog status. IIRC the old issue was something like 2/3 content to 1/3 ads while 200 had essentially reversed that ration. Id was part of my deciding factor to end my subscription. It is nice to see that WD is reversing that trend somewhat.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I enjoyed that review. A refreahing spin on a White Dwarf review and entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Interesting review/comparison.

    I have done a similar exercise in the past - with differing results however I could not disagree with your findings.

    Once again thank you for a thought provoking review.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  21. that's a very nice interesting article, and allows us to see how much our hobby has changed, to the better.

    I do agree with the suggested changes to the battle report; I really liked when the reports included maps, you could really make yourself and idea of what was going on.I really liked the old reports, where every turn was a page, with maps of all the movements, and you could follow the battle step by step; it also helped to understand all the tactics much better.

    The battle reports in this new WD are better than they were a year ago, at least you have more pictures and you can follow the battle a bit better. However, bring the maps back!!!

    I do like that the armies are the player's own armies and not the Studio's; it's clear that the players know their armies better and that can be appreciated in the battle report. It's also nice to see different armies and not the same armies studio again and again.

    I do love the army on the month section, I really like seeing a different army from a real player. I also like the Parade Ground part, this month's motivated me for an army on parade project.

    The Jeremy Vetock's and Blanchitsu sections are terrible. I just skip them every month. I look at the pictures on Blanchitsu, but after some months they have already become boring, they are always the same with the same painting style over and over.

    I miss some tactics articles. And I like the "this month in" part.

    Great article, Garfy :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Even if you gave the free miniature 3 points (which doesn't seem right since a single Necron is less than £1 these days?) it's still a win for the new WD.

    What I really miss in new WD is the summary of the rules for new miniatures. I don't have any idea of the stats or abilities of the new big monsters (even from the battle rep) only that they look cool.

    Would be nice to see something of - "here's what you can build in an army with the new models". The BR doesn't even have points per side so struggling to visualise how effecetive these things actually are on the table top.

    Over-riding thing is that I had forgotten how old WD was actually not that good. I guess it was just good in the context of a "no internet" age.

    How does new WD fit in now there is a whole world of hobby out there for free?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Great review, thanks! I have fond memories about that 1998 issue, in the Spanish version of course. "Reino del Caos" was my first approach to Warhammer!

    BTW, I desagree with the final score, the old White Dwarf deserves a plus of at least 30 or 40 points. Why? Beacause has Gorkamorka contents in it, that's why!!

    GORKA! MORKA! GORKA! MORKA! GORKA! MORKA! GORKA! MORKA! GORKA! MORKA! GORKA! MORKA! GORKA! MORKA! GORKA! MORKA!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Is this a review of the magazine or the models? At times it seemed like you were awarding points to the new magazine because the models were better. That's a little unfair as the technology and experience needed to make those models wasn't available back then.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Each to their own of course, but the thing was, the old WD was actually about the games themselves, actually about telling you a story that you where enacting on the table-top - the new issues? They aren't, the new one's are even more of an advert than the older issues are.

    It also shouldn't be counted to give points based on the quality of the models/scenery, times change of course so to say New White Dwarf wins because it has better models by that logic therefore the new Star Wars films where better than the originals because they looked better?

    The thing is, you're trying to compare the impossible, look at the older magazine and try to put yourself back in the position of buying it in 1998. That issue was the first WD I ever bought, purely out of curiosity and the free Necron - where I in the same situation these days, I wouldn't get involved with the hobby from reading the new WD, it just doesn't feature anything at all to get the juices flowing (so to speak). The old magazine, back in the day, got across that you could have themed battles, that it felt like you where part of something more...now though, it's just a catalogue with tons of photos of the biggest models about because they know people will buy them regardless. It's how it is; WD no longer cares for the soul of the game as the older issues did.

    Yes the photos are crisper, the models and scenery are far more detailed than they where back then; but the new issue just doesn't sell the game and ideals behind the game as well as the old ones does.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Much as the 'Fat Bloke' WD era was pretty strong for capturing the hobby streamlining GW adopted the focus on its 'core games' and newer releases and truly became and advertising rag.

    For some totally different hobby content try checking out some issues from the Robin Dews era of WD (1990 - 1996)which was pretty spectacular. You would find battle reports for things that had been out for years already and also had tactics and rules advice during the report as an example.

    The new mag looks stunning but context is also vital. GW is a different beast, many hobbyists just want shiny pictures of 'stuff' and content like actual reading doesn't actually matter to them. The new mag is therefore perfect.

    I am pretty much a lapse hobbyist to a large degree but since I worked for GW (for 15 years btw) the hobbysists lament has always been 'back in my day'. To be fair the content was so poor back then I would very rarely take my free staff copy at all. Well 'back in your day' they had Chaos Trolls with bellyfaces, they chanted battle cries during instore gaming and gave us Man'O'War. Get over it.

    G-Dubya is a business monster that is unique as it has little competition in its niche to make it hungry and lean although the cottage industry for the miniatures hobby is growing all the time). They produce breathtaking models and try everything they can to showcase them. They have been selling you advertising in the form of WD since the early 90's. Use your consumer option and don't buy it.

    Nice review though!

    ReplyDelete
  27. My comparison of old WD vs new white dwarf: new WD takes a few minutes to look through before getting bored. Old WD can be re-read multiple times. I don't really care about picture quality or how many pictures there are - if I want to see pictures of minis there are pages and pages available in the modelling diaries section on a number of forums. Many are painted to equal standards. Some are painted better. The painting guides in the new white dwarf, as compared to a white dwarf from 15 or so years ago, are of course better as painting techniques have evolved. But what really matters here is the amount of interesting content vs advertising that has free parallels online. New WD has far too much.

    ReplyDelete
  28. far too much advertising*

    ReplyDelete
  29. Interesting review. I agree with you on some things (the better tutorials in newer issues), disagree on others (using comparisons of the models/terrain as a factor). Overrall, I’d probably lean to agreeing with you that the latest issue of WD is superior to that one.

    That said, I’d never consider the issues around that time and after as something I look back on as being particularly great. Free miniatures were definitely a highlight (that Mordheim Elf was superb) but they were only once or twice a year. When I look back for that mythical golden age I’d go with the issues in the 190s. Perhaps there is an element of rose-tinting in that, but it was the time when they started putting card inserts into the magazine for a wide variety of games including space hulk (I’m pretty sure I remember some floorplans) and Warhammer Quest (I definitely remember those floorplans). There were also more articles that would go into the hobby classification of your review, that weren’t necessarily tied to the latest release. There were things like an article dedicated to using bridges in WFB, having story-driven campaigns in 40k 2nd ed, one where someone recorded their tournament progress with a night goblin army (whose models had been out for years), etc. The presentation was also a lot tidier than twenty issues later.

    I’d be interested in seeing a comparison between an issue from that time with one from now, but ultimately there will never be consensus on something like this – when we get down to it it’s all based on personal opinions. So we’re all doomed to argue forever about when White Dwarf was at its best.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Stupid comparisons.
    Would of been more appropriate to compare with the last WoC release a 4 or so years ago.
    It's like concluding the PS3 is better then the PS1 purely on the technical specs.
    Of course the models and print quality are better, and stuff like scenary/kit bashing has evolved massivel;y in the last 15 years.
    But there is less gaming information, less variety and the magazines have moved on from the sense of attainability in the articles to showing off.

    And they quite often photoshop in units in the background, so it's fake in my view.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You know what I want in White Dwarf?
    Detailed sprue diagrams. Remember those?
    New scenarios to play.
    New army lists, like that Kemmler list a few years back.
    A whole new game format, published over several issues. You know, like Kill Team.

    Basically, I want some content, and there isn't any.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I asked myself, does the latest format of WD add anything to the Gaming, or the Hobby/Modelling.
    Is it a mag. that I want at hand that broadens the imagination, and inspires creative & thought provoking original ideas for my monthly enjoyment for my £5.50. Would one not think there would be a monthly 'Hero' story set in Wahammer etc. thats not milked off to Black Lib'y for all rush to pay £30 whilst available. For new products is there an unbiased 'review' and content that adds to whats already on the Website ( like sprue content ).
    Could I live without all those repetitive staff pics in lieu of article content. Does a larger pic of Jervis J. beard, or a Jeremy V article really come across as journalism that is an adult step ahead of a Uni. rag mag.
    Would I miss not being able to find a store world wide repeated every month to fill up pages, when the same space could be a 2nd Battle report x 12 a year.
    Is not my Book Case creaking under the weight of defunct Rule Books, & Codex's that's made someone's marketing method the richer, and me asking - Enough.

    Some times its interesting to be self critical, and see another side to what one wants to believe is good. There are a whole raft of monthly mags that put this WD to shame & not only price. Every Mag has a subscription incentive that adds to the deal, but not to place it at its true value.





    ReplyDelete