I wrote this over on Tale of Painters, it's quite interesting. It might just win over some rage-quitters before they leave the hobby, or it might push them further over the edge.
Check it out and let me know if you prefer old or new.
I'm wondering why you didn't value the freebie Necron warrior in that issue as anything. Greanted, feelies like it were rare even then, but I don't think you can underestimate the cool value of it. The free Terminator I got with WD when Assault on Black Reach was released is still doing sterling service among my First Company, too.
EDIT: Ach, I see you mention it at the very end. I was expecting it to show up first, since it's right there on the cover. :-)
Agamemnon2 wrote: I'm wondering why you didn't value the freebie Necron warrior in that issue as anything. Greanted, feelies like it were rare even then, but I don't think you can underestimate the cool value of it. The free Terminator I got with WD when Assault on Black Reach was released is still doing sterling service among my First Company, too.
EDIT: Ach, I see you mention it at the very end. I was expecting it to show up first, since it's right there on the cover. :-)
I'm wondering why he valued a bunch of short opinion articles from people over RULES FOR AN ENTIRELY NEW WH40K Army.
It's like comparing comic books by the letters from the bullpen section.
I know a lot of people like to talk about how great it was "back in the day". It's good to be able to really see what was really happening then as it certainly puts things into much clearer perspective, at least for me.
New issue beats the old issue hands down for general hobby content.
(...)
New issue wins this round because the old issue isn't an article it's an advert.
(...)
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.
(...)
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.
Funny how you missed that the pages are smaller, have more white borders, and that there are 10-14 pages in each issue listing every friggin GW stockist in the whole world with telephone number and all!
A single-issue review can hardly encompass the differences between old and new. Additionally, the author places a high value on aspects of the magazine, such as the new model photographs, which simply did not exist 'back then'.
The reality is that White Dwarf started as an all-hobby magazine (Yes, it was even mentioned by name in the first AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide right next to 'Dragon Magazine').
It became a GW-only magazine, filled with interesting content and ideas.
Now, it is a monthly product catalog. A very well done catalog.
Each phase has it's advantages and disadvantages.
tl;dr:
Original WD: Promote all hobbies.
Mid-WD: Promote Games Workshop's wide variety of games and Citadel models.
Now: Sell Models.
I'm not sure I agree with your article. The way you've done weightings of the various sections seems off to me, since many of the sections which the old issue won are by far the most important sections in the mag imho!
Most importantly the sections with rules add huge value to a mag, since you can use them over and over. Not having rules in the new WD's is one of the main reasons they are currently worthless. Likewise, the converting sections used to come up with new and inventive ways to make things. Often they'd use non-GW bits, they'd suggest using sprue or ways to make your models go further. Now, the converting articles all revolve around buying more stuff from GW. Similarly with the terrain; I feel it is unfair to judge on the quality of the terrain, when the article actually has suggestions on how to build your own terrain, very cheaply and quickly. The new mag focuses on finished and fancy looking pieces chockablock with GW bits but doesn't really state how to make them or how you might achieve such an effect yourself.
This for me is what makes the biggest difference between old WD and new WD. Old WD used to have minimal and not very important new-product sections. With a larger proportion of the mag going towards converting, painting and building terrain, often with a focus on saving money. E.g. using sprue, cardboard terrain, scratchbuilding vehicles.
When people say the new WD is a big advert all the way through, they don't mean that there are lots of advert-pages, or product feature pages. They're referring to the constant tone of the 'hobby' content, which newly always prioritizes kitbashing (where both kits are GW produced) and utilization of GW terrain rather than home made terrain.
I still remember the high point for my white-dwarf-reading was issue 222, with the "Last Stand at Glazer's Creek" battle report between the Fat Bloke and the Grand Warlord. It was a fun variant scenario with irregular forces, and it had a strong backstory to it. I think this was also the issue that had a big IG photo gallery and a tactics article in it (This was before digital cameras were big, so even if there was Internet sites, photos of hobbyist armies were few and far between). I wasnt even an IG collector back then, but I loved poring over those photos, practically with a magnifying glass, since army shots in the old WDs often contained old Rogue Trader stuff you could see nowhere else.
It would be nice to mention that the reviewer has a clear pro bias towards the recent White Dwarfs. He did have his army featured in one...
Anyhow. Personally I don't think that the issues from that period are of as high a quality as later ones (as in 2000). Saying however that the old models aren't worth as much as the new ones are is totally ignoring the context that they were worth the money at the time. Its like saying there's no point in buying an antiquated piece of kit when you could buy a new one. The old thing cost you a pound when it came out, the new one's a fiver. Bringing up the price when its the magazine that's being review just detracts from it. That kind of sums up my take on the review. Its comparing the technology and state of the industry to today's standards and assuming that the older magazine should be able to compete the newer one's shininess.
Review an issue from the Storm of Chaos Warriors of Chaos release instead, at least then it had a better production value.
I suspect that the decision on which magazine would be best was predetermined long before the article was started. OP needs to take his own advice and remove the rose colored goggles that praise battle reports with minimal text and filler pics showing templates held over units while downplaying things like free models and rules to a single by the way mention. The new white dwarf is pretty but has less meaningful content despite the added pagecount.
You seem to be intent on comparing the two directly together with zero regard for the technology and hobby practices that were available during the time the earlier magazine came out. Dinging the old magazine pics for not having fancy digitally added and modified backgrounds whereas the new one does? They didn't simply decide not to use them but rather that the technology didn't exist in a usable form. Terrain in the old magazine downgraded because it was mainly scratch built and not from CAD design plastic kits? Every piece of terrain back then except for the occasional minimal detail cloned ruin wall was scratch built. Any comparison of the two issue should take into account the relative quality that the issue had compared with the available magazines/competition at the time as well. Do the pictures and printing look better in the new ones? Sure, but the technology has improved in the intervening 15 years to allow it. You might as well compare a 67 mustang to the 2013 model and ding the old one for not having air conditioning, power seats, and GPS as available options.Then you poo poo the importance of the things that haven't changed or don't mention them at all like meaningful content in the battle report or a free figure with the issue. Can you imagine how happy people would be if they got a finecast figure with the chaos issue? I'm sure if that were the case for the RECENT magazine and the metal fig wasn't in the old one that you would have put that front and center in the blog article. There is probably double or more wordcount on the old battlereport compared with the new one and you don't seem to mention that despite dinging the old magazine for having less articles.
In early 2000 I took holiday in Nottingham.
Was US military stationed in Italy and had saved up for a couple of years.
I was an RPG fan and had never played a wargame.
I wander into a GW. A demo game later I walk out with 3rd edition + BFG starter plus a couple of old WDs the mgr gave me.
Necron warriors were attached to the WDs and I liked them.
I came back and bought every blister of Necron stuff they had on the pegs (I had saved up a couple of years for vacation).
The manager goes back in the back and brings me every copy of WD with the Necron warriors attached and throws them in my bag----gratis!
He also dug through and found the WD that had the Necron rules in them----this was LONG before they had a codex.
That edition reminds me of all the cool stuff about the Hobby. The manager saw somebody enthused in the game and he nicely helped me out.
Is the OP's avatar a coincidence, tongue-in-cheek, or genuine
That would explain a lot of this to me . That said, I think it's a cool idea to compare old and new WDs from the same month, I wish others would do this, too!
Briancj wrote: The fact that the author does not state his bias up front (having been published in the magazine he's reviewing) really sinks this 'review'.
Ah, there you go, everything he said just made sense. I didnt think anyone could say the new WD is better then the old ones with a straight face. I remember getting them and being inspired and reading them cover to cover, now I cant even stomach the lies and misdirection.
Biased article if I've ever read one. Exactly the same kind of article could be written in favour of the '98 issue. Except that article would actually have some good points.
I must say, even after reading the article I think the older one wins. Here's why:
Take a look at the painting guides. Yes, I think the old one suffers from the choice of pictures - they show you a whole mass of miniatures rather than singling out just one, and that can be confusing. However, the captions actually do have some description of how and why you should use those particular paints. Not brimming with detail, sure, but better than what we get now (i.e. a list of paints with no actual guidance). Ideally I'd want t see a combination the modern close-up step-by-step pictures and the old captions.
The new converting article has some text to describe how the work was done, so that's good. But it loses out in terms of creativity and what that text is actually telling you.The old one wins for me by having some outside the box thinking - such as using Terminator backplates to make speaker grilles and making a mine layer from Fantasy shields and a storm bolter. In fact, I even thinking of using some of the ideas from the old issue, whereas the modern one shows the kind of kitbashes anyone can do with enough bits and a tiny bit of extra work (i.e. reposing the Tau battlesuit legs).
I think the old Battle Report wins hands down - much more detailed. There are loads of places elsewhere in the magazine to show pictures of miniatures on a tabletop, and with a batrep (where you actually want to know about the mechanics of the game, why the players made their decisions etc) maps are clearer. To be fair, the article is in favour of maps.
There are four double-page scans of adverts from the old issue - but in three of these images the ad is on one page and there's a tactics/rules/converting article on the other.
And of course the old issue was giving away a free model - I think the very idea would give GW execs palpitations now!
SO overall that's how I see it. Sure, the old issue isn't exactly a tome of knowledge, there is room for improvement in several areas, but I still think that overall I can look at it and find it more interesting. When I have a look at new WDs I generally just end up skimming through - the ratio of pictures to text is pretty high anyway. When I look at this old issue, I can imagine it would be worth sitting down to have a proper read of it.
I prefer the old issues, not jsut because i like the 70s-80s art style for such material, or that i love books that are used or damaged, but because if i were to go to HPB or any used bookstore, and find a copy of the White Dwarf from before i was born, i would easily lose 15 minutes without regret, if i found one more recent, i would thumb through it for 40 seconds, then move on to finding the books on my list. Why? Because older white Dwarf magazines are hobby magazines, even when they focused more on GW products, the later ones are catalogs.
My own opinion, but i prefer the older models. Quality may very well have risen since they were produced, but the sculpt design did not.
Yeah... before reading the article itself, the idea of the article seemed to be a great idea.
But after a few sentences, it became pretty obvious that you weighted some things just ... wrong :(
JUST LOOK AT THE COVERS
the new one is horrbly bland and borring while the old one is a masterpiece of what Warhammer used to look like in the 90. Massive over the top battles portraied in a semi-fun, yet serious way.
Seems to be a bit of bs written here. He bends over backwards to sing the praises of the new issue having 46 pages of new product reviews whereas the old one has 6, which is then criticised for not having much detail. The new one of course has more detail, well one would hope so given they use nearly eight times as many pages. Then he later criticises the old issue for having more adverts. He jests surely?
I don't think #217 was a stand out issue for the time, but it did come with a free Necron and rules, background and a scenario for the new army. This would be the equivalent of GW giving you a finecast Demiurg or something on the cover and then some rules for a very simple army inside. Would that happen today?
He also takes the price lists into account for the review, but the prices of the models are neither here nor there regarding the quality of the magazine. Obviously I prefer the older magazine but the models being cheaper is not something I would mention. He does but then 'balances' that by saying the new models are better. Models 'being better' is also a reason given to give the previously mentioned 'new products' section a boost in the review. I just don't see how it's fair to take the model quality being sold as a reason to mark down the older magazine.
If he was reviewing issue #117 against the new he'd criticise it for not having enough photos, being mostly in black and white, and the 20+ year old models not looking as good as the current range.
He's got his models appearing in the magazine on a regular basis. I guess he thinks its good press to be praising it in the typical in no way biased GW approach. If he were to offer an opinion otherwise then that'd be counterproductive to this I suspect.
But, if anything, it does provide an insight into what the current WD mindset is, if it is only from the viewpoint of a guy who wrote a short article. =P
Just look at the front of the new style magazine. It tells you next to nothing and the new art style is so frustratingly bad... If GW needed to change one thing it wasn't the bloody cover design - That was iconic!
Does a photo of painted miniatures even qualify as a cover? I'd take full-blown artwork over that any day, regardless of quality, and GW artwork has always been decent, that's one of the few things that hasn't changed to this day. That Chaos Lord is great, and the logo has character, as opposed to the bland, flat logo of today. The old one scream a fantasy hobby magazine, the new one is awfully generic. You could slap any title on there, change the background picture to something appropriate to the content, retain the fonts and text placement, and it would fit. It's not what I expect from a wargaming magazine.
As for the "review", it's pure spin all the way through. You should apply for a job in GW's marketing department, you'd fit right in. This bit especially made me chuckle.
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.
It's like comparing two models and determining which one is better based on their size only. Bigger = better, regardless of actual sculpt quality. More pages, even if each page is smaller and holds less and not as juicy content = better.
Yeah pretty poor blog really - you need to do a more thorough comparison with more issues.
I gave the 'New Look' WD a try but wasn't impressed enough to keep buying.
Personally, I much prefer the older WDs, much more interesting content. Having said that, I prefer to read the P&M section on Dakka if I want to see tuorials, kit bashes, conversions, painting guides, etc...
I love the "the new one has a higher page count therefore it wins!". You realise that the first 50 pages of each new WD is just endless giant pictures (and fold-outs) of new releases right? It's 50 pages of advertising for the current month's release. The new WD has no worth.
I also love the how the old issues had their photos always on green tables with the same terrain. Look over any issue from that era and you'll see a wide variety of terrain, virtually all of it scratch built. Look at an issue today. Every shot takes place on a Realm of Battle Board. All terrain is available in stores. Nothing scratch built. No variety. Just one stamped out production official piece of terrain after another (and of course this goes back to the "when's the last time we had a terrain building article in WD?" question).
It only gets more laughable when you realise that the issue you're comparing it to came with a free model.
"Models are better now because they are plastic instead of metal, and "so much bigger".
"Terrain is better now because it is plastic instead of cardboard."
What do either of those things have to do with the article quality of the magazine?
Note that the older article gives some basic homebrew terrain advice as well, such as making a gaming board out of chipboard and making buildings from balsa wood and card, it presents both options (homebrew and buying from GW) as equally viable options. The new terrain "article" is just a giant image, nothing else. Boring.
Also, the painting tutorial in the old WD (while being one of the worser ones) is actually quite achievable for beginners painting their first models everything you need from start to finish, with some basics like drybrushing, the new one takes a whole page to focus on forsaken skin.
The old one tells you everything you need to paint a regiment from start to finish, like the guides on your Tale of Painters website do. It wasn't very long ago that GW stopped doing proper painting tutorials in their magazine, I recall an excellent guide to painting orks when Black Reach was released.
Article completely misses the fact that new WD has almost no wordcount at all, there's nothing to read. It's all whitespace, GIANT FONTS and 2-page images. Count the actual words in the magazine, compare them, and see which has the most content. Old one win hands down despite having fewer pages.
Wyrmalla wrote: He's got his models appearing in the magazine on a regular basis. I guess he thinks its good press to be praising it in the typical in no way biased GW approach. If he were to offer an opinion otherwise then that'd be counterproductive to this I suspect.
But, if anything, it does provide an insight into what the current WD mindset is, if it is only from the viewpoint of a guy who wrote a short article. =P
Talk to any of their employees these days, its like they have a bomb strapped to their logic and morality centers of their brain.
I love the "the new one has a higher page count therefore it wins!". You realise that the first 50 pages of each new WD is just endless giant pictures (and fold-outs) of new releases right? It's 50 pages of advertising for the current month's release. The new WD has no worth.
I also love the how the old issues had their photos always on green tables with the same terrain. Look over any issue from that era and you'll see a wide variety of terrain, virtually all of it scratch built. Look at an issue today. Every shot takes place on a Realm of Battle Board. All terrain is available in stores. Nothing scratch built. No variety. Just one stamped out production official piece of terrain after another (and of course this goes back to the "when's the last time we had a terrain building article in WD?" question).
It only gets more laughable when you realise that the issue you're comparing it to came with a free model.
And more laughable when you realize the guy writing the review is published in the new one.
^Hmm, in that case I'm starting to wonder if the OP is intended as a deliberate troll post.
The phrasing of "win over some rage quitters before they leave the hobby for good" is suspect.
"Rage-quitters" implies that everyone losing interest in GW is some kind of angry nerd throwing a hissy fit. Quite far from reality.
"Leave the hobby" implies that no other wargames other than Games Workshop games exist, when the reality is that most people not playing much in the way of GW anymore are instead playing a whole bunch of other stuff.
Couple it with the avatar and it's a little bit suspect.
Another thing I noticed - The article goes to great lengths about "things are so much better now" by highlighting plastic terrain and minis, but then convieniently ignores the fact that a whole 4 different specialist games are either advertised or have articles for them in the old WD.
Terrible biased review. I have never been a WD subscriber, but that's one of the few White Dwarves I own and I've gone back and read parts of it several times over the years. In fact I own 2 of the Necron Warriors that came free with it, it was an excellent model. Things like the more detailed battle reports were why I could spend a lot of time reading it.
scarletsquig wrote: The phrasing of "win over some rage quitters before they leave the hobby for good" is suspect.
It's not suspect at all. It's far easier to simply attack your opponent than attack any particular points they raise. "You're just a hater" is the Internet equivalent of "You're a racist!". Once you've said it you don't have to come up with a cogent (or even a coherent) thought. It's a get out of jail free cards for people who cannot think for themselves.
Funny, I post a thread about objectively comparing WDs and then this appears, which attempts to do that but with a bias, I think I may have started something [pumps up ego and feeling of self importance].
Remember, the older mags had more words per inch than the new.
Personally the older ones were a better read, as I was collating the numbers I found myself reading and being very intrested in the article in the older mags while so far I have found about 15 mins of reading pleasure in the most recent "new look" mags.
I just realised - this issue introduced a whole new race to 40K, and apparently we're nothing but 'haters' looking back at it with rose tinted glasses compared to the 'better' new WD?
Firstly 'I'm getting all glassy-eyed from nostalgia, as the Jan 1998 issue was my first ever WD (and the impetus that got me into wargaming).
It's a shame really, as despite the revamp, I still find myself unable to sit down and actually read a WD, just because the whole thing is a picture-fest that distracts me from reading what little actual text is there. Still, I've decided to cancel my subscription from february, as I'm finding that even as 'on the golden throne' reading it's severely lacking in anything to keep me hooked for longer than 30 seconds...
scarletsquig wrote: Another thing I noticed - The article goes to great lengths about "things are so much better now" by highlighting plastic terrain and minis, but then convieniently ignores the fact that a whole 4 different specialist games are either advertised or have articles for them in the old WD.
Hey, the old issue deserves a ton of bonus points for acknowledging that specialist games exist.
I find myself increasingly interested in trying stuff like Gorkamorka and I think it's a shame that they're kept in relative obscurity today (outside of fan communities).
I don't know if people remember my review of White Dwarf a few months back, but the OP pretty much posted the same comment attacking anybody that disliked WD as "rage quitters."
There ought to be a picture of his avatar in the dictionary under the word 'bias.'
I remember that issue of WD from 1998 and I didn't think it was up to much at the time, but it was a damn sight better than the fare they serve up these days.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't know if people remember my review of White Dwarf a few months back, but the OP pretty much posted the same comment attacking anybody that disliked WD as "rage quitters."
There ought to be a picture of his avatar in the dictionary under the word 'bias.'
I remember that issue of WD from 1998 and I didn't think it was up to much at the time, but it was a damn sight better than the fare they serve up these days.
To be exact he said your review was amateurish, then plugged himself by sending you a link to a review on his own site... Afterwards he said that he was justified in that he was defending his own article (I just found his responses to be rude).
Gareth wrote: I love a lot of the people in here slating WD haven't even bought it this month.
I for one love it, but then I have 2 whole pages of my models photographed by me in a global magazine bought by thousands.
Head over to Tale of Painters for a proper review by Stahly
I used to like Gareth's work, and I do visit Tale of Painters now and then, but I don't think I can take that kind of egotistical crap. So a "proper" review is full of pro-GW bias and eventually ends with "New WD is better because new models are better and look prettier in pictures!"? And we can't argue with him on any point because he was featured in the magazine and thousands of people bought it just to see his work? I was happy for the guy when I first found out about him being featured, but he is clearly letting that gak get to his head and needs to come back down a few pegs.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems to be a bit of bs written here. He bends over backwards to sing the praises of the new issue having 46 pages of new product reviews whereas the old one has 6, which is then criticised for not having much detail. The new one of course has more detail, well one would hope so given they use nearly eight times as many pages. Then he later criticises the old issue for having more adverts. He jests surely?
I don't think he realizes that the 46 pages of product review he mentions are nothing but an advertisement.
Or that "pretty pictures" is pretty pointless considering I don't need a White Dwarf to see them. By the time the WD hits shelves the models are already up for advance order with clear, high-res pictures and 360 degree views of each to look at. And sometimes the mood-lighting and crap is actually detrimental, makes it harder to see detail that way when every one of the new models is bathed in some god-awful red light because CHAOS.
Sidstyler wrote: Or that "pretty pictures" is pretty pointless considering I don't need a White Dwarf to see them. By the time the WD hits shelves the models are already up for advance order with clear, high-res pictures and 360 degree views of each to look at.
You know they're going to start charging for this via a pay wall or some such, right
Beyond all the things mentioned, the article shows complete disregard on how technology has progressed between the years, one may freely disregard the bridges of the ancient world as been short and simple in comparison with today's massive steel bridges, but back then it was a pinnacle of technology.
Back then GW models were some of the best you could find, now not really, back then they covered more gaming systems so they needed to devote more pages in their catalog, now just 3, while at it back then the catalog had a use, mail ordering parts was useful, now its just plain advertisement.
For me the WD follows a linear decline the further back you go the better it is, sad but also true.
Funnily enough, WD217 was one of the last ones I bought. Even back then I saw it becoming more catalogue and less hobby. I think a lot of the nostalgia comes from far earlier issues, such as the early late 80's and early 90's where you'd see guides for scratch-building tanks, or support for more than 1 game in each setting.
I'd be interested to see a comparison with an issue from 20 years ago. Although not by the OP of course, that review was terrible. Better quality models count toward the quality of the magazine written to sell them - really?
"Rage-quitters" implies that everyone losing interest in GW is some kind of angry nerd throwing a hissy fit. Quite far from reality.
No not really.
I think Gareth's article was at odds with the facts, WD sucks and GW is currently too expensive and ran by clueless suits, but he is entitled to his opinion without being personally attacked by.. you guessed it, angry nerds throwing hissy fits.
I'm one of the people that doesn't take the actions of Kirby et al personally. Its merely suits trying to wring all the money out of a company, it neither perplexes nor enrages me, its just the way of the world, and I have resigned myself to spending next to feth all on their products. No need to throw a wobbler.
Considering an enormous amount of people on the internet ARE angry nerds throwing hissy fits, its not far from reality at all though is it?
xttz wrote: Funnily enough, WD217 was one of the last ones I bought. Even back then I saw it becoming more catalogue and less hobby. I think a lot of the nostalgia comes from far earlier issues, such as the early late 80's and early 90's where you'd see guides for scratch-building tanks, or support for more than 1 game in each setting.
Exact same story here. 217 was around the time I gave on WD as well.
My WD collection starts at issue 17 and goes on without fail to 199. About half of the 200's are there, and only three of the 300's, so you can see when I started to give up on the magazine.
These new ones are just so shoddy and lacklustre in every way - even the text is slightly larger so that, combined with the larger areas of blank paper, less words can be fitted on any given page. How lazy is that? Where are the interesting articles (Chapter Approved?), the little bits of fiction, the artwork - remember how good some of the artwork was? Kevin Walkers Orcs, or the early Adrian Smith work?
Having been reading WD for over 30 years I can safely say that this is the lowest point in quality and content that it has ever reached....
Flicked through it at the station today. Seriously, it gets emptier with every edition.
The one bit I like is army of the month, though I wish they'd devote more than two pages to it.
Hall of Fame has also started to promote suspiciously recent models of late. This month was Sternguard which are hardly standouts across the entire range.
Hall of Fame has also started to promote suspiciously recent models of late. This month was Sternguard which are hardly standouts across the entire range.
Since every article on every page is geared towards selling you models via the White Dwarf catalog, it behooves them (with that motivation in mind) to highlight models that they still actually sell as opposed to plugging stuff they don't anymore despite that route being the more common sense approach to a "hall of fame" series of articles.
Hall of Fame has also started to promote suspiciously recent models of late. This month was Sternguard which are hardly standouts across the entire range.
Since every article on every page is geared towards selling you models via the White Dwarf catalog, it behooves them (with that motivation in mind) to highlight models that they still actually sell as opposed to plugging stuff they don't anymore despite that route being the more common sense approach to a "hall of fame" series of articles.
Indeed, but Hall of Fame models have nearly always been for general sale, it's just recently I've noticed that a) the models chosen aren't particularly outstanding and b) aren't "classics" in that they are less than a few years old. I feel sculpts need to time mature so you can appreciate them properly. The one exception being when they selected the new Deathmaster Snikch which while less than a year old at the time, truly was an amazing model and well worthy of inclusion. Sternguard though? I mean come on, they're just Space Marines with funny bolters. I've long suspected that Sternguard don't sell well, because anyone with a brain will just use normal Space Marine models, so this felt like a blatant sales push to me (which as you note, it probably was).
xttz wrote: Funnily enough, WD217 was one of the last ones I bought. Even back then I saw it becoming more catalogue and less hobby. I think a lot of the nostalgia comes from far earlier issues, such as the early late 80's and early 90's where you'd see guides for scratch-building tanks, or support for more than 1 game in each setting.
Exact same story here. 217 was around the time I gave on WD as well.
Same here too. 217 was literally the last white dwarf I bought. I only got it because GW were having a sale that day and it was 50p (with the free Necron). For me WD always tended to be better at times when GW had specialist games out. It was always cool to get new scenarios for Space Hulk and Man O'War, Necoromunda etc... 134 is invaluable For Space Crusade and Hero Quest. It has new hive ship board sections for Advanced Space Crusade too. Though if you aren't into those games there isn't much else. They didn't have regular battle reports then (which is actually fine by me). That was the thing about old white dwarfs: the focus moved around. Sometimes there was something awesome that you were really stoked about; other times there might be nothing for you, but maybe something for someone else.
I think a much better comparison would be to compare a year in white dwarfs, like 2012-2013 with 1990-1991. That way you can see the range and diversity of articles over a whole year.
However I don't even know if that would prove much. Sometimes things change in ways that are hard to explain, but we still notice the change. I think it is important to remember that white dwarf might not have changed that much at all. Maybe page for page it's better than ever now. But magazines as a medium have changed. In the 1990s owning the latest magazine meant you were on the leading edge of news etc... That is not the case any more. We can just check the latest on the internet. The old white dwarfs might have adverts, and store maps, and mail order catalogue pages. But you have to bear in mind: those things weren't necessarily the spammy waste of space that we consider them now. It was important information that was only available in that magazine. I remember checking the store map loads of times in backs of magazines. Before the internet and sat-nav it was useful information.
Twenty years later all that stuff is available free on the internet, plus a whole lot more like photos and articles. We can also just come to dakka and see great armies and projects done by other collectors. So, we expect something different from the magazine now. That is why people crave original content like modelling articles, card push outs, official rules etc... They are things we can't find elsewhere. If the magazine just keeps delivering us the same old stuff that it did 20 years ago then it becomes superfluous, even if it does it better.
I still have the articles from my previous White Dwarf (early 2000s) all kept in separate plastic sheets, for both systems (I got rid of LOTR, since I didn'T play and knew no one who did).
The last 2 WD I got was the rules for flyers, and the Daemon update. The rest of the mag went promptly into the recycling bins. I can't follow the Batreps anymore, they are not precise enough, or too "cinematic" for my taste.
Flashman wrote: Flicked through it at the station today. Seriously, it gets emptier with every edition.
The one bit I like is army of the month, though I wish they'd devote more than two pages to it.
Hall of Fame has also started to promote suspiciously recent models of late. This month was Sternguard which are hardly standouts across the entire range.
Was that before or after you removed the plastic sleeve?
"Rage-quitters" implies that everyone losing interest in GW is some kind of angry nerd throwing a hissy fit. Quite far from reality.
No not really.
I think Gareth's article was at odds with the facts, WD sucks and GW is currently too expensive and ran by clueless suits, but he is entitled to his opinion without being personally attacked by.. you guessed it, angry nerds throwing hissy fits.
I'm one of the people that doesn't take the actions of Kirby et al personally. Its merely suits trying to wring all the money out of a company, it neither perplexes nor enrages me, its just the way of the world, and I have resigned myself to spending next to feth all on their products. No need to throw a wobbler.
Considering an enormous amount of people on the internet ARE angry nerds throwing hissy fits, its not far from reality at all though is it?
The "I'm happy to accept seond best" attitude may have been the norm in the Royal Marines but in the world of nerds and geeks, heaven help the fool who stops your typical GW gamer from getting his night goblins.
Where is this nostalgia for WD 217 coming from? I've got it to hand, and quite frankly it is horse gak! But to be fair, it's a hundred times better than the latest WD, so how bad is that?
Flashman wrote: Flicked through it at the station today. Seriously, it gets emptier with every edition.
The one bit I like is army of the month, though I wish they'd devote more than two pages to it.
Hall of Fame has also started to promote suspiciously recent models of late. This month was Sternguard which are hardly standouts across the entire range.
Was that before or after you removed the plastic sleeve?
No plastic sleeve this month My flicking was totally legitimate
I've been saying for years here that if you go back and reread old WDs, they aren't as good as you remember them to be. *shrug*
The joke is that someone here will label me a "white knight" for saying it's been a somewhat consistently mediocre games magazine for long stretches of its history.
This site has sure gotten negative and semi-ugly again.
gorgon wrote: I've been saying for years here that if you go back and reread old WDs, they aren't as good as you remember them to be. *shrug*
The joke is that someone here will label me a "white knight" for saying it's been a somewhat consistently mediocre games magazine for long stretches of its history.
This site has sure gotten negative and semi-ugly again.
I agree with you, WD was never really that good, and I speak as somebody that bought most of them. Sometimes, this misty eyed nostalgia can get out of hand. But, and it's a but of Jennifer Lopez proportions, at least back then WD tried to be a hobby magazine. You may not have liked it, but nobody doubted the sincerity of the likes of Priestly, Chambers, etc etc.
gorgon wrote: I've been saying for years here that if you go back and reread old WDs, they aren't as good as you remember them to be. *shrug*
The joke is that someone here will label me a "white knight" for saying it's been a somewhat consistently mediocre games magazine for long stretches of its history.
This site has sure gotten negative and semi-ugly again.
Yes you are right - there were periods when the mag was pretty empty (towards the end of 2nd edition 40k, early 3rd I remember particularly). Having said that, there were periods where it was absolutely stonking, and the current recession of quality content without any good periods has been going on for about 5-6 years now.
In fact, I was looking through at what was quite possibly the last decent edition. This back cover will probably be regarded by many as heralding the death of the magazine. Yes it was that issue..
For me at least the old White Dwarfs (160-210ish) had a lot of writing in them and gave more or less in depth tactica's on things, as well as rules, background and army list entries on some new releases - which is pretty major for a games company's magazine. The only magazine I like now is Games tm - which still has well written articles, not only on particular games but even on the nature of games and the industry in general. I'm not saying this is a great comparison, but I know I at least get informative reading out of the magazine, which White Dwarf no longer provides even on a base level.
Yes they've had some rules in them recently, but they are scant compared to the whole codex/army book extracts you used to get - hell they even published rules they were still working on in some cases. The issues where we got to play Battlefleet Gothic and Mordheim before they were complete games says a lot about where GW has gone since. They seem distant and aloof as opposed to friendly and welcoming.
It was reading the background in those WD's as a kid that dragged me into the setting where its lingered like a familiar smell ever since. The newer WD's are a little counter-productive from this point of view. The fact is I don't necessarily believe a picture is worth a thousand words - pictures aren't as necessary as words IMHO. I don't care how pretty something is if it has no substance to it - the new look WD falls into this category. Sure it's nicely designed and looks pretty but it has no depth - at least the old WD's had a kindly sincerity to them.
gorgon wrote: I've been saying for years here that if you go back and reread old WDs, they aren't as good as you remember them to be. *shrug*
The joke is that someone here will label me a "white knight" for saying it's been a somewhat consistently mediocre games magazine for long stretches of its history.
This site has sure gotten negative and semi-ugly again.
I personally like the older ones. Yes it's a touch of nostalgia (guilty as charged) but it's also that they were honest - they even had a seperate box at the bottom of the contents that listed the actual adverts. The least a magazine of a games company can do is give me rules, scenarios and a bit of fiction as the main content - rather than giant repeated and almost self-indulgent photos of models I've already seen.
gorgon wrote: I've been saying for years here that if you go back and reread old WDs, they aren't as good as you remember them to be. *shrug*
The joke is that someone here will label me a "white knight" for saying it's been a somewhat consistently mediocre games magazine for long stretches of its history.
This site has sure gotten negative and semi-ugly again.
Fair enough, I've not collected the magazine since the late 100s. It was getting poorer then, but I simply stopped because my flatmates both ordered it and I could read theirs.
Now early (prior to around 120) it was an amazingly good magazine and prior to the 100s, when it could contain book reviews, CoC adventures, a 40k vs Paranoia scenario and Chapter Approved/Stillmania etc, it was mind blowing and I'd pay a king's ransom for a quality magazine like that again.
Hello,
Coming from 2-3rd edition 40k, I miss the old ones, and perhaps for a strange reason compared to most. I likes the fluff that was story like, and more importantly the art (this is owing to my love of Heavy Metal magazine). I would also like to note, the models were very important iin the old ones because of items like DIY kit bashes (the antiperspirant landspeeder) and creative terrain. Is it still a hobby magazine? Yes, if you are in the hobby of buying just GW stuff and for GW the hobby of over charging you for their drivel, and product catalogs. Regards-Carl
Adam LongWalker wrote: It's kind of sad actually to see so many new white knights of late still trying to defend GW and the Hob-b-b-y.
And they are not even good at it as well.
Well, I do make a point of playing games systems that i dont enjoy, made by companies that I don't like, so it's no surprise that I don't defend GW.
Waitaminute! I DO enjoy Warhammer, and I DO like GW! It all makes sense now!
Meh, ignore the overly negative stuff OP, I thought the idea of comparing the two was pretty cool and well laid out/pictured.
I dont agree fully with your review but do a few more if you can.
Its fun to see the old stuff highlighted again.
Does anyone recall what was in the Space Marine battlefiorce box for £100?
Thats about 120 quid for us € users these days.
Now considering
I enjoyed the review but Im not one to really hate on GW, if I dont like a price of something I dont buy it, and if I flip through a white dwarf and dont enjoy it I dont buy that either.
Im fairly new to the hobby though so it doesnt bother me if someone writes something that ISNT slamming GW,
It's gone from a magazine that provided good hobby article such as how to make terrain, giving templates for a variet of vehicles (including a baneblade) and conversions to... Well a catalogue really, and not a good one at that.
I think it boils down to GW redefining the Hobby away from actually making anything from scratch or using any non-gw product. Modelmaking has never been an insular activity- materials, techniques, components and inspiration have always been drawn from a huge number of places. Future floor polish as a varnish was discovered like this. That coffee shop stirrers are simply an essential in a bits box. That a broken pull-back toy car is a great source of gears. GW now mention this with decreasing frequency, and god forbid they tell you where you might get any of the non-gw stuff they mention.
Is it just me, or did the OP suddenly get an avatar?
As I am fairly late to the wargaming scene, my experience with White Dwarfs has only been a few years. They're pretty terrible compared to what I got out of my subscriptions to Dungeon and Dragon when Piazo was doing D&D stuff. They're pretty bland when compared to my No Quarter subscription. However, when my friend who has been doing GW stuff for quite some time showed me the issue of Calgar's Land Raider and the one with the Gnoblar army, I was excited and interested. Unique meaningful content is void from White Dwarf. I can think of two articles that was interesting or at least useful to me from the recent WDs. Non-metalic metal back when Blood Angels were released and the flyer update. Everything else is a blur. Do you know what a bad track record that is? 2 articles out of over 50 magazines released! The magazine is utterly forgettable.
I don't even know how to address this sarcastic monkey pump that that article became.
I applaude the effort, and if you took your ego out of the writing, the comparison piece wouldn't have had half bad. Your opinionated article lost a lot of steam when you honestly didn't know your audience, and the subject, enough to have to resort to the kindergarten yard gak, " I said so, so it's true..."
If you try it again, stick to objective, and leave the propaganda to GW. Your not a paid hack, so quit with the gobblygook groupspeak. Leave your ego at the door.
We won't even get into the "ragequitters" smack... If anything, you produced a clear impression of why alienation and turning people away from the hobby is a cool thing to do...
Honestly you don't know what your writing about if you think that "Better, because its PLASTIC...." is the basis of the issue.
And for what its worth,
GW has lost touch with thier so called "Target Audience." The old one had" a guy named "Fat Bloke", who every month of his iteration, he would come into the magazine and discuss and actually TRY to be sociable.
Not just spill out the party line.
The mag was what it was, and until they ended up becoming coperate hack, they actually had different content for different games. That other article, about the comparison of Rampage was a vary good anolgy. In fact, if you go back and picked up WD 45-100, you would have a very good comparison to make between WD of those days, and Rampage of today.
If you want to write about a hobby subject, stick to the subject, and don't open up yourself with weak childs writing.
X is X, here is what I thought about it...... Point A, B, and C. I might think this, but I am presenting this opinion.
Y is Y, here is what I thought about it, Here is where I am coming from with my opinion. Point A, B, and C.
Opening up and connecting with the reader. THAT? That stuff was just kool guy blogspeak. !@#$ That. Arrogance without the added aroma of BS. It was even worse when you put in that your models were featured in the "New" mag.
I'd like to see a comaprison of the old models, compared to the NEW painted ones style and paint quality.
A comparison between paints. Reaper, GW, Valajo. etc... I use this, heres why...
Brush work. I use this palet, these brushes, here's what you need to do to get this effect....
Model quality/ conversion. Heres a great way to add in battlefield effects to your base. Heres a way to add character to your models...
Don't quit writing, and take what I said with a grain of salt, but the last thing GW honestly needs is more corperation speak bland gak. They arnt' even a shadow of wat they once were, and are doing everything short of charging you to paint thier models that can be possible to suck people dry of any sort of goodwill, or open a hand to any future customers.
The thIng that's mentioned a lot here is that GW isn't using WD for its target audience, which we seem to think is us, the vets. But GW's target audience will be what GW wants it to be, I.e at this point in history we have gone back to new start push, young lads 12-15 and parents cash.
This is seen by the changes in access to paint tables n gaming tables for just starters only, this happened in about 07 when keytimers were cut, it will come round again as GW remembers now and then that a lot of Vets now have disposable incomes and will want to spend.
This article is a bit keen but I don't blame Garfy for it as WD show his stuff and he has a blog to push.
WD has gone up n down over the years and this iteration will last a couple of years then change again. I think it's a good base but it has to sort out the after the new releases section, they will never do other company comparison as its GW, but showing off top end modelling guides with their own kit and paints would be a start, and as a painting blogger Garfy should have mentioned that.
But it's not worth all the bile that's coming out on here tbh, but I'm just in a good mood today :-)
In early 2000 I took holiday in Nottingham.
Was US military stationed in Italy and had saved up for a couple of years.
I was an RPG fan and had never played a wargame.
I wander into a GW. A demo game later I walk out with 3rd edition + BFG starter plus a couple of old WDs the mgr gave me.
Necron warriors were attached to the WDs and I liked them.
I came back and bought every blister of Necron stuff they had on the pegs (I had saved up a couple of years for vacation).
The manager goes back in the back and brings me every copy of WD with the Necron warriors attached and throws them in my bag----gratis!
He also dug through and found the WD that had the Necron rules in them----this was LONG before they had a codex.
That edition reminds me of all the cool stuff about the Hobby. The manager saw somebody enthused in the game and he nicely helped me out.
yeah back in the day I had a lot of helpful gifts and such like that, and I'd return the favour when I discovered the internet and having a knack for finding neat and old models
now its "no books, you can't play, don't care if you know the rules"
i loathe that store
Automatically Appended Next Post: still find it amusing how he talks like a typical GW employee, using words like "the hobby"
Which I mostly got for the free cardboard bunker. From that point I bought every White Dwarf through this issue:
Though, that was due to subscription reasons. I thought White Dwarf started sucking when Paul Sawyer became the editor back on issue 215 (UK numbering) and never really recovered.
I read the odd article between then and now, typically in stores, and there were things I did enjoy (Mostly rehashes of the original Tale of 4 Gamers, though they didn't generally include the budgetary restrictions, which would have made for an interesting comparison.)
I did buy two US White Dwarfs, 390 & 391, but both as back issues, and both because I wanted rules that they contained that I couldn't discover on GW's sorry excuse for a website. (Chaos Daemon Update and rules for Stormtalon and Orky Flyers) The rest of the magazine wasn't worth reading, and holy crap, I thought the lack of good hobby content when Fat Bloke took over in 1997 was bad, but a (semi-)modern one like 390 is just beyond awful for that. I will take a look at one of these all new ones that are supposed to be the current norm. I would say that for me, the "Golden Age of White Dwarf" was around issue 192 - 210, but it likely helped that I was in my teens then.
I wish I still had my old WDs around, as a more objective review comparing Issues UK169 (My first issue), UK190 (First Issue edited by Jake Thornton), UK215 (First issue edited by Paul Sawyer), US390 (my return to the fold) and the current issue. Also, the new logo? Yikes, taht thing is flat, bland and ugly.
I would have to go back and find the right issue - but did anyone find it odd to compare January to February?
I happen to have had a copy of the November 1997 issue on my desk right now because I was looking back at it for a different reason, and it actually doesn't match up to what he describes. I don't think there was a dramatic change in the WD during that period of time...so if I had to guess, the January issue is really somewhat more of a fluke than an actually representation of the magazine at the time.
November had a new "small" game (Jousting/Tournament rules for WFB) as well as a crap load of hobby articles that aren't meant to sell things. It was the Games Day results issue - so you have a bunch of pages from those (to include the GD galleries).
Had some tear-out card stock terrain for the tournament game, several page spread on building the GD display table, several pages on the design and manufacture of the "new" Eldar Falcon, new rules for Space Marine Scouts, new rules for campaigns in Epic, several battle scenarios (which GW now charges for on the Apple store) and the page count was actually well over the 100 pages in the magazine which he compared the new one to.
Have there always been a lot of advertisements in White Dwarf? Yes - that is typical for magazines in general and isn't limited to White Dwarf. However, the new White Dwarf format doesn't normally show a single item that isn't sold by GW - it is entirely, cover to cover an advertisement/sales brochure. The big GD display table shows scratchbuilding of ork forts and titans - not something GW would dare do now.
Also, the old subscription is actually a base savings off cover price (£3.50 x 12 = £42...Subscription price £40) plus you get the freebie on top of that. The figure price hikes though have exceeded even the price hike of White Dwarf - so those £5 in figures would be worth more now than they are then.
There are two things I would like to see before this thread bites the dust,
1 The OP coming back into it and somehow defend the indefensible
2 Ask him to review any WD from 50 through to around 120 and compare them to the modern WD.
More than ever these were proper hobby magazines, with a lot more than just GW product in - if you can find one on archive the advertisements for various small mini companies, retailers will blow your mind when you consider the "Only GW exists" WD of today.
God knows what he would make of the semi-pro typesetting and graphics, or those early Citadel/marauder castings. Question how much value would he put on a free music single, when GW wanted to corner the market in Gothic Rock - was that D-Rok? answers on a postcard.
I am lucky to be old enough to have been playing "toy soldiers" for far too long, but one thing I did stop years ago was buying the White Dwarf
. That said, I think it's a cool idea to compare old and new 
My flicking was totally legitimate
