Just finished looking at my first issue of Warhammer Visions.
I really wanted it to be good.
The entire thing is full page photos of miniatures in miniature environments.
One short descriptive paragraph is on each page, in three languages.
Sample: "Gandalf is an old and powerful wizard"
It took a second look to notice the battle report.
It is certainly not the battle report format I am used to.
I will be canceling my subscription tomorrow.
On a brighter note the new weekly WD was interesting. But maybe thats because I play Dwarves.
I guess GW is doubling down on the "target audience 12 and below" strategy. By the sounds of it, their biggest competitor is now Highlights and Ranger Rick.
The whole thing is photos.
No I will not re-post them here.
But a few looked almost exactly like the ones from the last month's WD Definatly the LOTR stuff.
Oh dear this is what I was fearing it would be, I'll wait and see my own copy first of course when it arrives, but this doesn't sound good. I might cancel my subscription and just by 3-4 of the weekly WDs (digital) at this rate...
So pretty much GW figured out that it's much cheaper to just have a photographer spend an hour or two with the catalog models than to write a full magazine?
What....how........why? Just, why? I mean seriously, are the entire management staff at GW suffering oxygen deprivation-induced brain damage from brown-nosing Kirby's backside for too long? Who could possibly think this was a good idea?
So let me get this straight - 4 issues of WD Weekly are the equivalent of one WD Monthly, only twice as expensive and you cannot subscribe it nor is it available outside game stores, while half of Warhammer Visions is pictures of studio models already available on the GW page, only staged, and it's more expensive than WD Monthly despite a smaller format.
... This sucks. I was looking forward to WH Visions, but only if it were to be A4 and with few to no HM paintjobs I already know inside-out from both WD and the webpage. And they even have the nerve to waste a good deal of the magazine on those worthless store listings everybody has been complaining about for years! They simply shifted it from WD to WHV! You can stuff it, GW!
-DE- wrote: So let me get this straight - 4 issues of WD Weekly are the equivalent of one WD Monthly, only twice as expensive and you cannot subscribe it nor is it available outside game stores, while half of Warhammer Visions is pictures of studio models already available on the GW page, only staged, and it's more expensive than WD Monthly despite a smaller format.
... This sucks. I was looking forward to WH Visions, but only if it were to be A4 and with few to no HM paintjobs I already know inside-out from both WD and the webpage. And they even have the nerve to waste a good deal of the magazine on those worthless store listings everybody has been complaining about for years! They simply shifted it from WD to WHV! You can stuff it, GW!
-DE- wrote: So let me get this straight - 4 issues of WD Weekly are the equivalent of one WD Monthly, only twice as expensive and you cannot subscribe it nor is it available outside game stores, while half of Warhammer Visions is pictures of studio models already available on the GW page, only staged, and it's more expensive than WD Monthly despite a smaller format.
... This sucks. I was looking forward to WH Visions, but only if it were to be A4 and with few to no HM paintjobs I already know inside-out from both WD and the webpage. And they even have the nerve to waste a good deal of the magazine on those worthless store listings everybody has been complaining about for years! They simply shifted it from WD to WHV! You can stuff it, GW!
I give it a year. Max.
They're obviously aware of the new generation of British short-run mags, of Japanese Magalogues and of high-end customer publications. Then decided they can do it with a bunch of photos left from an earlier shoot, laid out by the work experience.
What I meant it's 50% Heavy Metal models and 50% reader-submitted models. If it were 10% 0f the former and 90% of the latter, it'd be fine with it. But paying to "marvel" at the exact same Tyranid paintjobs I can get for free on the GW website at higher resolution and with rotating pictures...? Why would I want that?
It seems to be aimed at kids and the portion of the player base who have ADD - and I can't imagine many hobbyists have that disorder due to the nature of the hobby in general. So what the hell, man . . .
I'm sure as hell not buying that crappy weekly brochure (an obvious attempt at increasing foot traffic in their retail locations - which simply won't work, the magazines aren't nearly interesting enough, and at twice the price now? LOL), and visions is definitely not something I plan to bother with. Can't wait to go in to a GW again and hear the staff pitching the NEW AMAZING FORMATS to people. Should be a good laugh.
What....how........why? Just, why? I mean seriously, are the entire management staff at GW suffering oxygen deprivation-induced brain damage from brown-nosing Kirby's backside for too long? Who could possibly think this was a good idea?
At least the Store Finder is still in there! But I bet that no one would ever guess that that would be the largest amount of text that the new "magazine" would contain!
So for gamers it's the internet without the opinion, porn and trolls and done poorly.
This is Great News!
I've seen mags like this before at a Magazine warehouse I worked at 15 years ago. They were ridiculously expensive High Fashion mags (£80-100 each) that sold about 50 across the whole of London. I don't expect pick up for W:V to be much better. At least those mags had the occasional topless model, the boobs in W:V would appear to be the editors.
White Dwarf is dead, I'm genuinely disappointed. I had always hoped they would sort it out.
I must admit I'm very disappointed with these reviews. I had really hoped that WH Visions would be something that I could collect to amass a library of inspiration for various painting projects, and hoped it would take advantage of purely focusing on hobbying to bring in more painting/modelling articles, reader-submitted content and to just show something 'different' from the same old studio colour schemes are are literally only 5 clicks away from any computer.
Instead, we get recycled images of the models we've all seen already, underwhelming and uninspiring studio colour schemes and paintjobs from 'Eavy Metal, and generally a lack of content. The only bit that looks remotely like what I wanted and expected was the Golden Demon winners, and I'm not paying £7,50 for those few pages.
It seems that the best place to see truly inspiring, quality painting and conversion remains to be online, which is annoying as it's often difficult to find certain stuff or have it available at the painting desk. I had hoped to collect a library of inspiration I could keep with my painting stuff, instead I have the option of an overpriced collection of not-that-pretty pictures or a weekly cash-grab that's shorter than a newspaper.
notprop wrote: So for gamers it's the internet without the opinion, porn and trolls and done poorly.
This is Great News!
I've seen mags like this before at a Magazine warehouse I worked at 15 years ago. They were ridiculously expensive High Fashion mags (£80-100 each) that sold about 50 across the whole of London. I don't expect pick up for W:V to be much better. At least those mags had the occasional topless model, the boobs in W:V would appear to be the editors.
White Dwarf is dead, I'm genuinely disappointed. I had always hoped they would sort it out.
Those magazines all had hefty ad revenues - that's why you see so many photo-heavy mags on the news-stands in Wardour Street.
The numbers won't stack up on this publication. That's why I give it a year. And those saying that we're paying merely for 'Eavy Metal paintjobs forgot to point out that Heavy Metal paintjobs ain't what they used to be. These are all point and click applications of the paint, nothing aspirational about them at all. Compare it to the issue I was using recently, number 351, with a fantastic painjob on the AOBR warboss that showed some real individuality, and it's like comparing a horsemeat fastfood burger to a lovingly-crafted steak.
I'm not going to lie. I really didn't expect much from the new WD or the new monthly magazine. But this.... Just unbelievable. GW really had the chance to reinvent themselves with these publications. Yet we get that. Whatever that is. What an epic failure of a launch. Management should all be sacked.
Got my copy today. WH Smiths still have it under the normal code for White Dwarf, so it was still £5.50 instead of £7.50. I dont really have anything to add except thank god I bought Wargames Illustrated to actually have some content to enjoy!
The magazine is shrink wrapped and tied in a paper seal to make it impossible to preview in the store (with good reason - I would have not bothered buying it!)
Just wait until GW gives their rules a similar 'upgrade' There will be a picture of space marines shooting tyranids. Roll dice, remove models. Then there will be a picture with no Tyranids.
spaceelf wrote: Just wait until GW gives their rules a similar 'upgrade' There will be a picture of space marines shooting tyranids. Roll dice, remove models. Then there will be a picture with no Tyranids.
It means that, in 18 months time, GW can proudly announce that "we're merging our two immensely popular Magazines, White Dwarf Weekly and Warhammer Monthly, into one brilliant magazine with a brand new name! ANDREX"
legoburner wrote: Got my copy today. WH Smiths still have it under the normal code for White Dwarf, so it was still £5.50 instead of £7.50. I dont really have anything to add except thank god I bought Wargames Illustrated to actually have some content to enjoy!
The magazine is shrink wrapped and tied in a paper seal to make it impossible to preview in the store (with good reason - I would have not bothered buying it!)
Did they even throw in a free poster to justify having it sealed?
legoburner wrote: Got my copy today. WH Smiths still have it under the normal code for White Dwarf, so it was still £5.50 instead of £7.50. I dont really have anything to add except thank god I bought Wargames Illustrated to actually have some content to enjoy!
The magazine is shrink wrapped and tied in a paper seal to make it impossible to preview in the store (with good reason - I would have not bothered buying it!)
Did they even throw in a free poster to justify having it sealed?
There are a few inconvenient fold out pages so that you can see images on A4 scale, just like the days of old... last month.
All things said, at least the magazine doesnt feel too cheap. When I first saw it I thought it would be a crappy catalogue style print to save them cash, but the print quality is decent and the paper heavy enough so it has that going for it at least.
They've had fold-out pages before (as has any other mag with fold out pages) without having to seal the magazine. So I'm assuming even they have wanted to keep it sealed to encourage the curious to buy. At least you didn't get ripped off the whole £7.50.
It's a pretty sad day when the only thing going for it is that the print/paper quality is decent.
Shows the contempt and disregard GW have for the hobby and the people. literally an expensive magazine with pictures, and the new white dwarf is just a catologue that you pay for
Maybe management and Kirby are just running a you've been punked prank for the past 10 odd years on customers and they just cant end it
Hot damn, that Visions is pure trash. Am I the only one for cracked up laughing when watching the youtube review? Sorry for you guys who are subbed. Just wow.
Very disappointing to see what the magazine has become... I have fond memories of the old days where it actually had good advice and insight to how normal players built/modeled/painted/themed/played armies, how to scratch-build terrain, etc.
This is just outright trying to squeeze more money out of people for less content.
I give it until March. Seriously. I reckon the volume of subscriptions that will be cancelled this month will be huge. By March they'll try doing something different.
Dear lord, this looks appalling, why are Tyranids featured in the Visions "New releases" section, they were January's releases?
I figure my copy will arrive today or tomorrow, but if I don't like it in person I'm cancelling and buying the occasional WD Weekly. This genuinely makes me sad, the potential was there...
redbristles wrote: Dear lord, this looks appalling, why are Tyranids featured in the Visions "New releases" section, they were January's releases?
I figure my copy will arrive today or tomorrow, but if I don't like it in person I'm cancelling and buying the occasional WD Weekly. This genuinely makes me sad, the potential was there...
WDW has the job of promoting new releases, Visions can't as it appears at the start of the month, before most releases have been announced, making it even more redundant.
Additionally, it appears those hoping for an even further accelerated release schedule due to the weekly nature of WD are going to be disappointed, as it just looks like we'll just get the same volume of product, just spread over a few more weekends.
I took a look at a copy last night. Nothing but picks, and they were all paint schemes I've seen before, your generic Hive Fleet Leviathan and Behemoth colored Tyranids. Not worth the money.
redbristles wrote: Dear lord, this looks appalling, why are Tyranids featured in the Visions "New releases" section, they were January's releases?
I figure my copy will arrive today or tomorrow, but if I don't like it in person I'm cancelling and buying the occasional WD Weekly. This genuinely makes me sad, the potential was there...
WDW has the job of promoting new releases, Visions can't as it appears at the start of the month, before most releases have been announced, making it even more redundant.
Additionally, it appears those hoping for an even further accelerated release schedule due to the weekly nature of WD are going to be disappointed, as it just looks like we'll just get the same volume of product, just spread over a few more weekends.
Yeah Visions just seems completely pointless, this is literally re-printing all the pictures from last month's WD, I can't believe they actually have the cheek to do this!
Thanks for posting! When GW announced the new WHV and WDW I didn't understand what the real difference would be (aside from availability). Looks like WHV is aimed at someone walking into a GW store for the first time: "Here are your models, paint, tools, oh yeah, you should get a subscription for WHV! It shows you painted miniatures, how to convert them, and a battle report!" Little does the unsuspecting noob know that all this information is freely available on the net, and in fact WDW is looking like the better buy.
Still really pissed off about this, I remember back in the day getting my monthly WDs and loving them, reading them from front to back, even articles that weren't really relevant to my armies because the content was so good.
The GW website is down: they're obviously removing all the product shots of models.
From tomorrow, if kids walk into a GW store and ask to see what the stuff they wanna buy looks like, they'll be told they have to pay £7.50 for Warhammer Visions to find out.
All I can think is that Warhammer Visions is not the gaming magazine equivilent of GQ. Lot of style and zero substance. The first 70 or so pages are just images taken directly from the January issue of White Dwarf. First strike. Almost zero text, with the "battle report" giving zero details of the battle, except more tiny blurbs, and Blanchitsu having even LESS text that it previously did. Second Strike. No actual content beyond pretty pictures, with the except of the bit on painting tyranids and offering up different hive fleet color variations and details. Third Strike. Still has the listing of all the GW stores around the world, though. Need to know where to give them more money. Fourth Striker. VERY pretty book, but completely useless as a gaming magazine which is what I was subscribed for.
Meanwhile the first weekly White Dwarf wasn't actually that bad. It had content, only minimal "new releases" pages and even had UNIT RULES in it. On the negative side it will now cost nearly twice as much to buy each month and cannot show up in my mailbox. So the weekly is not bad, though fits into GW's make it all more expensive scheme. I might have considered the weekly if I could get a subscription for it, and no I don't want it on an e-reader. I want the mag itself. I especially don't want it on an ereader for the same exact price.
Having been a regular White Dwarf reader since around issue 15 or so I know that the mag today was not as good as it had been in its past, but I still found it entertaining and diverting so kept up my subscription.
Way more fail here than success. I will be contacting customer service at GW today to cancel my subscription because Warhammer visions is useless. Pretty, yes, but still useless.
narkuk wrote: Yeah - not impressed - this seems to nail it:
That is an excellent review, thanks!
Seems the weekly publication is still decent (at least, about on par with what What Dwarf was in recent times, just much shorter due to being weekly). But the monthly Visions publication, the only one you can actually subscribe to... wow . That looks absolutely terrible. It's a copy/paste picture book with almost no formatting and almost no text.
I wish I could see a graph of white dwarf subscription cancellations after this is put out... this is why markets work, assuming people do cancel. It shows the company that their product is not what the consumers want and, if enough change their purchasing behavior, forces the company to adjust if they want to stay profitable.
Can't believe anyone would think this was a good idea. The way GW is being run reminds me of The Producers - i.e. a big scam to write off tax losses or something.
Wasn't there a rumor a while back that GW would be releasing models based on Blanche's artwork?
This Warhammer Visions has a section that showcases exactly that, but without any new models. The models are well-done and look unique. I guess we could lay that rumor to rest.
Sent in my message to customer service and already have my refund. Guess I can put it to that 'script for Wargames Illustrated I've been putting off renewing, since that magazine actually has articles and information about gaming and not just a bunch of pictures. Hahahaha
I'll pass. I don't need any GW porn. What a ridiculous idea. I wonder what the board room meeting was like when this was hatched. Slow clap..., palm face..., tears of joy...?
Can't believe anyone would think this was a good idea. The way GW is being run reminds me of The Producers - i.e. a big scam to write off tax losses or something.
What gets me is that producing content isn't exactly hard. I could click on any Dakka Painting and Modelling blog at random and usually be assured of a good read. And these are by enthusiastic amateurs.
EDIT - Check out the article in my signature by way of an example.
Well, somehow, somewhere the brains at GW decided that their customers just like looking at pretty pictures. I wonder if WHV is aimed at the painter/modelers and WDW is aimed at the players.
This also makes me wonder when/if the supposed "new" website will happen. We've heard March, but if I was at GW and making money by selling you articles on painting, modeling, and battle reports...why would I then offer it for free?
Byte wrote: I'll pass. I don't need any GW porn. What a ridiculous idea. I wonder what the board room meeting was like when this was hatched. Slow clap..., palm face..., tears of joy...?
I don't understand why everyone is being so negative about the mag. Much like how GW don't write their rules to be competitive or coherent, they don't run their business to be competitive either. It's about forging a narrative.
Seriously though if they could loosen their corporate sphincter a little bit they could do something really innovative like farm WD out to a 3rd party like WoTC did with Paizo and Dragon/Dungeon magazine. Allow them to talk about other company's stuff as long as it all supported warhammer/40k. Let them write about cool tables, bases, etc. just leave out competing miniatures and games.
Flashman wrote: What gets me is that producing content isn't exactly hard. I could click on any Dakka Painting and Modelling blog at random and usually be assured of a good read. And these are by enthusiastic amateurs.
EDIT - Check out the article in my signature by way of an example.
No kidding, people do better for free every day just for love of the hobby. BTW, that hill article is really awesome.
I mean, it's not glitzy or anything, but at least there's...
- a painted mini showcase
- a tactics article,
- painting guide,
- kitbash articles for a dwarf airplane
- scratchbuilding an orc hut article
- some fiction
It's insane that such a massive organization can't even produce something more genuinely interesting than an amateur fanzine for a minor wargames company.
WD Visions only has the first one on that list, and a list of GW stores which is the largest body of text in the entire thing,
Just emailed them hoping to cancel my iPad subscription and get a refund on the rest of the year, this product is clearly substantially different from the product I subscribed to - it's pointless from a gaming perspective
That's actually sad. When I think of how much I read in old White Dwarfs from the late 80s and early 90s. And now it barely has words. It's not even art and interesting things, it's mostly miniatures pulled from the studio and arranged together. I can't believe it's £7.50. Whose concept was this? They should be ashamed.
The battle report made me laugh out loud on the train. Wtf was that? A few pages of photos and a tiny paragraph of text on each? Did they really play a game?
The three languages is just pathetic. Even with each paragraph effectively printed three times there's white space left over. And an awful lot of photos, in fact nearly only photos filling every page. They're nice photos, but you need content to give context. I find the huge use of GD photos cynical. Certainly you expect them to photograph winners, but having you models used to fill at least 2 pages in the magazine is a bit much and is a cheap move by GW. I can't wait for them to mine all the user submissions to their website and flickr for free material. That's why I've never given them anything, in case they claim to 'own' my photos.
Who is going to buy this? I like books of painted miniatures such as they produced by GW in the distant past. But not a magazine every month, and it's repetitive. It's like they took the opportunity of reinventing the magazine to reduce it entire to a collection of pretty pictures. White Dwarf has been going this way a long time but this is taking it to it's extreme conclusion. I'm stunned it's a first issue. It's like they wanted to launch a new magazine but forgot they needed content, so padded it entirely full of photos until they can think of something.
Right, having watched that "review" all i can say is that he was a bit dumb. Rotations! They were zoomed in pics of the same images to get a better view and different perspective of those images. It's an old trick done by EVERY magazine company and GW for YEARS! I see that it was a bit poor to begin with, but what it seems to be is a magazine that shows the previous month's releases in better detail. It also by the look gives more pages over to other models not done by GW staff. Yes the storefinder is there, but it looks reduced. Again, this is the first one. Perhaps it is really bad, to lure us into a false sense of insecurity and think its always crap, so when it's brilliant, everyone will start buying it again. I'm not going to cancel my sub for a few months to actually see what it may turn into. I'm patient, not someone who jumps when things change.
Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote: Right, having watched that "review" all i can say is that he was a bit dumb. Rotations! They were zoomed in pics of the same images to get a better view and different perspective of those images. It's an old trick done by EVERY magazine company and GW for YEARS! I see that it was a bit poor to begin with, but what it seems to be is a magazine that shows the previous month's releases in better detail. It also by the look gives more pages over to other models not done by GW staff. Yes the storefinder is there, but it looks reduced. Again, this is the first one. Perhaps it is really bad, to lure us into a false sense of insecurity and think its always crap, so when it's brilliant, everyone will start buying it again. I'm not going to cancel my sub for a few months to actually see what it may turn into. I'm patient, not someone who jumps when things change.
Ah yes, that old marketing technique of making something gak on purpose just to surprise and delight your eight remaining customers when they're least expecting it.
Pah, that won't stop me... or it wouldn't if I hadn't watched the review video showing the magazine in all its crapness. Seriously, not even worth a flick through in W.H. Smiths
It'll be interesting to see if this survives long. If it doesn't sell then WHSmiths will pull it (again) which will greatly reduce the number of shops across the country selling it, as Smiths is a distributor as well as their own shops. That would kill Warhammer Visions.
I mean, it's not glitzy or anything, but at least there's...
- a painted mini showcase
- a tactics article,
- painting guide,
- kitbash articles for a dwarf airplane
- scratchbuilding an orc hut article
- some fiction
It's insane that such a massive organization can't even produce something more genuinely interesting than an amateur fanzine for a minor wargames company.
WD Visions only has the first one on that list, and a list of GW stores which is the largest body of text in the entire thing,
Well, now that you made it public how long before the cease and desist letter...
Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote: Right, having watched that "review" all i can say is that he was a bit dumb. Rotations! They were zoomed in pics of the same images to get a better view and different perspective of those images. It's an old trick done by EVERY magazine company and GW for YEARS! I see that it was a bit poor to begin with, but what it seems to be is a magazine that shows the previous month's releases in better detail. It also by the look gives more pages over to other models not done by GW staff. Yes the storefinder is there, but it looks reduced. Again, this is the first one. Perhaps it is really bad, to lure us into a false sense of insecurity and think its always crap, so when it's brilliant, everyone will start buying it again. I'm not going to cancel my sub for a few months to actually see what it may turn into. I'm patient, not someone who jumps when things change.
Wait, you're not serious are you?
Oh no, it looks like you are. How is making something gak a good way to get people to buy it again?
Absolutely shocking. They can't even sell it as a painting inspiration mag when there are plenty of sites all over the net with that content. Guess it's time to cancel the sub I've had for most of my adult life :(
To be honest White Dwarf (no matter what incarnation) has been as good as it was in the late 90s where it was actually a hobby magazine. I will never understand why they got rid of that format and have now decided to give us this.
I also miss The Warhammer Journal and was kinda hoping that they were going back to this but alas we got given this (words honestly escape me)
Warhammer: Visions....because someone at GW smoked some crack, hallucinated, and thought this was a good idea.
I'm all for nice photography of well-painted models, but I don't need 300 pages of it every month. Readers have a chance to provide some immediate (and hopefully meaningful) feedback if they actually DO cancel their existing subscriptions, rather than just rabble rouse about it. That kind of instant-hit loss of customers should send a clear picture to GW that this is the wrong direction for White Dwarf.
redbristles wrote: Dear lord, this looks appalling, why are Tyranids featured in the Visions "New releases" section, they were January's
Keeping upcoming releases a secret has been so good for sales, that GW are now moving to not revealing new releases until the month after they have been released.
This mag makes me sad. Just when it seemed like GW were finally starting to get a handle on this whole internet thing, they do something like this to prove that they're still quite firmly rooted in the nineties, when people would have actually been interested in this sort of publication.
People should cancel subscriptions if they aren't happy because there wasn't any warning they were changing the magazine in this manner and the replacement product bares no resemblance to what was paid for.
I find it interesting that any news or text content has been put into their weekly magazine, which averages out at £10+ a month and on which they won't do subscriptions and sell only through their own shops. While Warhammer Visions is just a glossy picture book that will be palmed off onto independent traders and subscription holders in place of the old White Dwarf. That's a classy stunt they've pulled there.
Anyone surprised by this doesn't understand GW very well. Obvious this would be the case from the very start. This entire split is a scam to squeeze more money from the customer. And I don't exaggerate with scam. It's a literal trick to get at least some money before people cancel said scam.
That youtube vid is hilarious. I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics you have to have to think this is a quality product worth buying.
Well, I suppose at least its stopped the pretence of being anything other than an over-priced catalogue.
+1 Internets to the first person to do a drawing of the cartoon-ised former editors of WD going back over the past 30 years, stood around and caps in hand while the coffin holding the White Dwarf is lowered into the ground.
Seems the magazine is exactly as bad, lazy and pointless as I feared.
Who can Tom Kirby fire this time for his stupid decisions?
snurl wrote:Imagine a battle report with no tactical diagrams and brief, single paragraph (single sentence) descriptions.
(duplicate description in Spanish)
(duplicate description in German)
Well, it's the special kind of Spanish spoken in France
scarletsquig wrote:WD Visions only has the first one on that list, and a list of GW stores which is the largest body of text in the entire thing,
Wait, they still have that list of all GW stores in the mag? How many pages? Still 11?
Time to figure out how to cancel a digital subscription, bye bye only thing I was still buying from GW... and on top of it WD was already on the knifes edge of cancellation as it was.
Same here. This is the tipping point.
I am going to see if i can swap my remaining subscription for the weekly magazine. If not, then Dakka and Warseer are my only source of info.
What happened to WD over the years is a classic example of someone fixing something that isnt broken.
azreal13 wrote: WDW has the job of promoting new releases, Visions can't as it appears at the start of the month, before most releases have been announced, making it even more redundant.
A showcase magazine meant to display new releases in the best possible light that can't actually show new releases because the company producing it is mortally afraid of ever showing things ahead of time.
I dunno... 'pathetic' just seems like too higher praise.
Nvision wrote: Warhammer: Visions....because someone at GW smoked some crack, hallucinated, and thought this was a good idea.
I'm all for nice photography of well-painted models, but I don't need 300 pages of it every month. Readers have a chance to provide some immediate (and hopefully meaningful) feedback if they actually DO cancel their existing subscriptions, rather than just rabble rouse about it. That kind of instant-hit loss of customers should send a clear picture to GW that this is the wrong direction for White Dwarf.
That's it, of course, why didn't we see it sooner! GW's new Director of Marketing and Publishing is none other than Toronto Mayor Rob Ford!
I heard from an insider source ( a second cousin of the friend of the lady that cleans Kirby's Throne Room) that Visions is Kirby's brainchild after realizing how much money he was paying to all those sneaky publishers that send him Ferrari Visions, Porche Visions, Tropical Island Visions... at 50$ a pop.
If he is eager to pay that amount each month why not us?
So you heard it from the source, so now shut up and continue with your favorite part of the HOOOBBY buy more miniatures.
Wow, I watched that video review after work. Good lord, GW. You do something right (Tyranid box set), and you follow it up with something so AWFUL! Warhammer Visions is one of the biggest jokes you've played on your customers. Two steps forward, 15 steps back. Bad job.
MajorTom11 wrote: Rob Ford would do a better job... he just ruins his own life, he actually wasn't that bad at running the city lol...
Gunna have to agree with that....everyone loves him and he did some good stuff for T.O.....except you know getting rid of the crack problem (he took that into his own hands a little to much)
I think I am still gunna buy a copy of warhammer visions and the first weekly white dwarf. I mean for $15 bucks thats ALL I WILL EVER BUY!
I'll get a WD to flip through some pictures while taking a dump....ooops I mean....uhhhh....Nevermind
Nvision wrote: Warhammer: Visions....because someone at GW smoked some crack, hallucinated, and thought this was a good idea.
I'm all for nice photography of well-painted models, but I don't need 300 pages of it every month. Readers have a chance to provide some immediate (and hopefully meaningful) feedback if they actually DO cancel their existing subscriptions, rather than just rabble rouse about it. That kind of instant-hit loss of customers should send a clear picture to GW that this is the wrong direction for White Dwarf.
That's it, of course, why didn't we see it sooner! GW's new Director of Marketing and Publishing is none other than Toronto Mayor Rob Ford!
This issue of White dwarf with a free block of crack and an article on how to eat at home!
On the bright side, while in some of my weaker moments I bought the older White Dwarf magazine for a read, now there is no question that I will save my money.
A B4 book (halfway between A3 and A4) on a single theme - this month, make it either Tyranids or Dwarves. Make it ~80 pages.
Each double page spread would consist of a full page photograph or artwork on one page, with the other devoted to associated content - additional angles, WIPs for conversions, colour schemes, or a blurb about the artist.
In other words, make it a monthly coffee table book, each on a different part of the line. This can't last forever, but it doesn't have to.
To be fair, the current Warhammer Visions format can't last forever either. At the rate they chewed through Golden Demon models in the first issue, I'd expect that they'll be raiding the late 90s for content by the end of the year.
I would enjoy flipping through Warhammer Visions with my wife. She's not into warhams, but back when I had WD, we'd sometimes flip through it and look at the pictures together. If someone got a copy and didn't like it, I would buy it off you. US only.
I'd never subscribe to this unless it was super cheap, though. $1 or $2 an issue tops.
Laughing Man wrote: To be fair, the current Warhammer Visions format can't last forever either. At the rate they chewed through Golden Demon models in the first issue, I'd expect that they'll be raiding the late 90s for content by the end of the year.
Ahh, but heres where they drastically cut costs you see.
The terms for submissions for the daily dwarf column on the website and all the recent 'send in your army pics' competitions give them the right to publish any submitted work without acknowledgment of the owner or any recompense.
They have been building a library for this - free of charge- for about 3 years.
Wow, so many people going "immah cancel muh subscription!"
Again?
Every time we have a thread on WD it's full of people saying they're going to cancel their subscription but lo behold, there's still plenty of subscribers left to claim the same in the next thread. If you have a subscription at this moment, it means you willingly gave GW money for WD sometime within the last year. In advance, no less. You're part of the problem.
But we are talking about this poor substitute for WD called Warhammer Visions that GW has seen fit to stick all of us subscribers with this month. Whoops, I am now an Ex-subscriber.
lord_blackfang wrote: Every time we have a thread on WD it's full of people saying they're going to cancel their subscription but lo behold, there's still plenty of subscribers left to claim the same in the next thread.
Well yes... if a lot of people were subscribers, and some of them cancelled their subscriptions, that means that some of them also still have subscriptions... It's not quite as strange as you seem to be trying to make it out to be.
aclive wrote: Well, somehow, somewhere the brains at GW decided that their customers just like looking at pretty pictures. I wonder if WHV is aimed at the painter/modelers and WDW is aimed at the players.
This also makes me wonder when/if the supposed "new" website will happen. We've heard March, but if I was at GW and making money by selling you articles on painting, modeling, and battle reports...why would I then offer it for free?
Some people do want to look at pretty pictures, but the new format of WH Visions is an absolutely terrible way to present them. The pages are too small. The spine is too thick so you can't do double-page spreads. If people crack the spine to get a good look at the full width of each page, the book will probably start to come unglued.
Something like a Japanese "Mook" is the way to go.
A B4 book (halfway between A3 and A4) on a single theme - this month, make it either Tyranids or Dwarves. Make it ~80 pages.
Each double page spread would consist of a full page photograph or artwork on one page, with the other devoted to associated content - additional angles, WIPs for conversions, colour schemes, or a blurb about the artist.
In other words, make it a monthly coffee table book, each on a different part of the line. This can't last forever, but it doesn't have to.
Yes, that is what a Japanese "Mook" (magazine-book) is like. Cheaper than a hardback book and more durable and collectable than a regular magazine. High production values and lots of good content.
lord_blackfang wrote: Every time we have a thread on WD it's full of people saying they're going to cancel their subscription but lo behold, there's still plenty of subscribers left to claim the same in the next thread.
Well yes... if a lot of people were subscribers, and some of them cancelled their subscriptions, that means that some of them also still have subscriptions... It's not quite as strange as you seem to be trying to make it out to be.
I'm not saying it's strange or that people just claim they will cancel but don't.
I'm saying that the people who are cancelling now only have themselves to blame for sticking to a magazine that has been crap for a decade.
lord_blackfang wrote: I'm saying that the people who are cancelling now only have themselves to blame for sticking to a magazine that has been crap for a decade.
Meh, People have different standards. Someone who liked the previous format is no less entitled to dislike the new picturebook than someone who stopped buying the magazine a decade ago.
I'm one of the current subscribers and have been for several years now. Even after the recent reboot, WD was a light enough read, good for passing half an hour or an hour. I never expected much from it and to be honest, WD never exceeded my expectations but my subscription costs me £3 per issue, £9 every 3 months on Direct Debit, so I don't pay anything in advance. If I really, really want, I can continue subbing to get Visions for £3 an issue but going on what has been disclosed, it isn't even worth that.
WD even in it's nadir, was still a decent enough way to while away some time for a relatively low cost (for what it's worth, I also get several other monthly wargaming mags and they all have their pros and cons) but this new format has removed the last remaining prop of my support.
Aye considering I pick up Xbox Magazine and Gamesmaster and at the end of the day they are telling me stuff I tend to already know with the odd picture, White Dwarf was doing okay by me. I have a crate full of them in the bathroom as reading material.
However Visions, blegh, I like to read, and it seems all the remaining good stuff went with the weekly mag that I can only get from a GW store which requires a Hour and twenty minute turn around by car to get. Not worth it at all and that would be before factoring in the value of the actual mag for its size.
I'm letting the first issue come to the shop, but if it is as bad as it sounds I can see me cancelling it, no point stocking it as the current mag barely sold as it was. For £8.50 it has zero chance at that scale, maybe if it had been Hello sized.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: Aye considering I pick up Xbox Magazine and Gamesmaster and at the end of the day they are telling me stuff I tend to already know with the odd picture, White Dwarf was doing okay by me. I have a crate full of them in the bathroom as reading material.
However Visions, blegh, I like to read, and it seems all the remaining good stuff went with the weekly mag that I can only get from a GW store which requires a Hour and twenty minute turn around by car to get. Not worth it at all and that would be before factoring in the value of the actual mag for its size.
I'm letting the first issue come to the shop, but if it is as bad as it sounds I can see me cancelling it, no point stocking it as the current mag barely sold as it was. For £8.50 it has zero chance at that scale, maybe if it had been Hello sized.
When did you become a MOD? Fine choice I say
And also... you have a shop now? When did this happen?
Year and bit now, Sep 12' they kidnapped me and forced me to do their bidding Oh and the shop is a family supermarket/newsagents we are just clearing the edge of a black hole at the moment, the tail end of the previous year almost took us out. Seems to be good now... *touches wood*
On topic, watching the video really makes you wonder what is going on up there in the lofty tower. It won't arrive here till Wens anyway, but I can't see it being much to look at, especially with it mostly covering last months releases the previous Dwarf already covered.
I think we just passed another threshold. This Warhammer Visions is the proof that the non-gaming managers who make the decisions have lost complete contact to the staff familiar with the products. No staff warned them that this doesn't work, no staff put much effort to actually try. They just did their job then sat back watching the train wreck.
Good thing this desaster hurts Tom Kirby, the man responsible for all this, as his shares skydive.
snurl wrote: I am going to see if i can swap my remaining subscription for the weekly magazine.
Just for the record: The weekly WD can't be subscribed nor bought at a newspaper store.
Tbh if the rumoured tactic of 'make them come to the GW store, they might spend some more money' is the real reason for this change, then some one needs to send Kirby to Tesco because he's in the wrong area of retail.
Those kind of tactics work in a convience/food store like ours where 50p sweets sit in front of the tills, not so much when kits costs £30 a pop.
Tbh if the rumoured tactic of 'make them come to the GW store, they might spend some more money' is the real reason for this change, then some one needs to send Kirby to Tesco because he's in the wrong area of retail.
Those kind of tactics work in a convience/food store like ours where 50p sweets sit in front of the tills, not so much when kits costs £30 a pop.
Ah, that's why I'm skint then, damn plastic candy can't walk past without spending something
I think this caters to their market. I can see little boys sitting in the playground at school looking at space marines. ETC Having spent the whole weeks dinner money on it. Why learn to read, when you can have pretty pictures.
Kroothawk wrote: I think we just passed another threshold. This Warhammer Visions is the proof that the non-gaming managers who make the decisions have lost complete contact to the staff familiar with the products. No staff warned them that this doesn't work, no staff put much effort to actually try. They just did their job then sat back watching the train wreck.
Good thing this desaster hurts Tom Kirby, the man responsible for all this, as his shares skydive.
snurl wrote: I am going to see if i can swap my remaining subscription for the weekly magazine.
Just for the record: The weekly WD can't be subscribed nor bought at a newspaper store.
Would even a non-gaming management consider a magazine full of pictures but no text something they can sell? I don't really see many magazines in the newsstand that follow that particular format.
Every time we have a thread on WD it's full of people saying they're going to cancel their subscription but lo behold, there's still plenty of subscribers left to claim the same in the next thread. If you have a subscription at this moment, it means you willingly gave GW money for WD sometime within the last year. In advance, no less. You're part of the problem.
Er..no. I canceled mine years ago when they quit running Chapter Approved.
ah man, I was looking forward to warhammer visions, purely because I thought it would be something along the lines of 50/50 pretty pictures and the art work the used to cover the old (well now old old) white dwarf. Instead I'm buying a magazine with the same picture zoomed in 4 times on individual units and then a full battlefield shot, errrr no thanks.
But then I got my hopes up! Yeah! My hopes, went up! When watching the review I saw the kit bash section and got all giddy as kit bash, in my eyes, has always been the best part of WD and my favorite bit to read, but then it turns out to be a 10 page section and my hopes came pummeling back down to earth quicker then H.B.M.C's hopes for the new tyranid codex.
Would even a non-gaming management consider a magazine full of pictures but no text something they can sell? I don't really see many magazines in the newsstand that follow that particular format.
As has been said earlier, some Japanese magazines are like this: especially cosplay and collectible figurine magazines. So there's a market for stuff like that.
Sadly no, they tried to reach out to the fanbase, but have the initial reviews are so bad that they have failed on a whole new level
Yes, I'm not convinced that they "tried" at all. As some other people have suggested, this is just a cobbled together photo catalogue to feed the existing subscribers so they can let it die in the next year or so.
Sadly no, they tried to reach out to the fanbase, but have the initial reviews are so bad that they have failed on a whole new level
Yes, I'm not convinced that they "tried" at all. As some other people have suggested, this is just a cobbled together photo catalogue to feed the existing subscribers so they can let it die in the next year or so.
Sadly I agree. I don't think they tried anything other than "How can we do a price hike and cut down on costs even more", coupled with the standard "These fools will buy anything we put out!" mentality that seems to prevalent.
tomball0706 wrote: ah man, I was looking forward to warhammer visions, purely because I thought it would be something along the lines of 50/50 pretty pictures and the art work the used to cover the old (well now old old) white dwarf. Instead I'm buying a magazine with the same picture zoomed in 4 times on individual units and then a full battlefield shot, errrr no thanks.
But then I got my hopes up! Yeah! My hopes, went up! When watching the review I saw the kit bash section and got all giddy as kit bash, in my eyes, has always been the best part of WD and my favorite bit to read, but then it turns out to be a 10 page section and my hopes came pummeling back down to earth quicker then H.B.M.C's hopes for the new tyranid codex.
Da Boss wrote: I know print is dying and all that, but this magazine really shows that the management don't think much of their customers.
I think that's the worst part of all. It's like they pretty much didn't bother to try because they think their customers are so stupid that they'll buy anything that has the Warhammer logo on it. IMO it's just downright insulting to their customers.
Would even a non-gaming management consider a magazine full of pictures but no text something they can sell? I don't really see many magazines in the newsstand that follow that particular format.
As has been said earlier, some Japanese magazines are like this: especially cosplay and collectible figurine magazines. So there's a market for stuff like that.
But definitely not this market.
I'm the kind of saddo who owns (and has written for) a lot of mags like this.
the people who put them together put incredible effort into them; they may well be full of photos, but they have spent time choosing and sourcing the items photographed - and each photo is there for a reason. The only reason for most of the photos in Visions is simply to Fill Up Space.
WayneTheGame wrote: I think that's the worst part of all. It's like they pretty much didn't bother to try because they think their customers are so stupid that they'll buy anything that has the Warhammer logo on it. IMO it's just downright insulting to their customers.
Insulting, but largely correct. This is happening because people do keep giving them money for anything with the Warhammer logo on it. People still buy WD. People buy DLC. People pay double just to have a variant cover on their Codex. Think about that.
WayneTheGame wrote: I think that's the worst part of all. It's like they pretty much didn't bother to try because they think their customers are so stupid that they'll buy anything that has the Warhammer logo on it. IMO it's just downright insulting to their customers.
Insulting, but largely correct. This is happening because people do keep giving them money for anything with the Warhammer logo on it. People still buy WD. People buy DLC. People pay double just to have a variant cover on their Codex. Think about that.
I don't think "special edition" codices are doing so well as of late. I kept track of the Tyranid LE codex, and on release day they said there were only 500 in the world. 3 weeks later the number was down to 424 before it got taken off their website.
WayneTheGame wrote: I think that's the worst part of all. It's like they pretty much didn't bother to try because they think their customers are so stupid that they'll buy anything that has the Warhammer logo on it. IMO it's just downright insulting to their customers.
Insulting, but largely correct. This is happening because people do keep giving them money for anything with the Warhammer logo on it. People still buy WD. People buy DLC. People pay double just to have a variant cover on their Codex. Think about that.
Some people do.
The real question is whether a lot more people would pay to have a cracking good magazine. The evidence of history is that they would.
To make it better, the digital Visions seems to be broken. It tells you that it's designed to be viewed in landscape format and won't allow you to read the mag while in portrait mode...but the White Dwarf newsstand app forces the device into portrait mode. There is literally no way to read the 300MB mag I just downloaded.
Edit: never mind, I didn't realise the app needed an update. You need to download the update manually from the newsstand store.
loki old fart wrote: I think this caters to their market. I can see little boys sitting in the playground at school looking at space marines. ETC Having spent the whole weeks dinner money on it. Why learn to read, when you can have pretty pictures.
'
Sure if this was still 1991 and nobody owned smartphones
loki old fart wrote: I think this caters to their market. I can see little boys sitting in the playground at school looking at space marines. ETC Having spent the whole weeks dinner money on it. Why learn to read, when you can have pretty pictures.
'
Sure if this was still 1991 and nobody owned smartphones
The problem with WHV is that I can go to a site like Cool Mini Or Not or one of the numerous blogs around the web and see all of this and... It's free. So why would I ever pay money for one that has inferior paintjobs? GW obviously does not understand anything about there playerbase.
As I see it, apple are just the distributor. Gw took the lions share of the money (60%). They are also the ones who decided to change the product you subscribed to. I'd be gunning for them to refund first. If you paid by credit card, explain to your c/c company you haven't recieved the product you paid for. They'll refund you and go after them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ninja'd
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be honest, if there's a big kerfuffle, chances are, gw will lose their ability to distribute via the iBookstore etc. Apple don't like refunding money, nor bad publicity, nor legal wrangling.
What would be funny is if gw tried to take apple to court.
spaceelf wrote: Just wait until GW gives their rules a similar 'upgrade' There will be a picture of space marines shooting tyranids. Roll dice, remove models. Then there will be a picture with no Tyranids.
I strongly suspect the 'Visions' magazine is part of the luxury-branding plan of the execs, the execs with no idea how the games work or the difference between an ork or a dwarf.
It's likely built around the idea of continuing to shrink the customer base and continue to raise the 'exclusivity' of the product.
I feel they may regret their lack of market-testing in the long run, as treating plastic toy soldiers like faberge eggs is not going to keep GW in a healthy state...
This magazine is worthless to me and, I suspect, most GW customers. It's only potential usefulness is that the pictures may pique some interest from a stranger to the product, in a doctor's waiting room, after the magazine is dumped there along with all the other magazines noone has use for.
spaceelf wrote: Just wait until GW gives their rules a similar 'upgrade' There will be a picture of space marines shooting tyranids. Roll dice, remove models. Then there will be a picture with no Tyranids.
So whats the price tag of the weekly WD?
The same as a paint pot, so that means 3.20€ today, 3.5€ next week and 40€ by the time the shareholders report hits the street.
Wasn't impressed with the content of this new mag - won't be buying it again.
New WD is very streamlined which is good and bad at the same time.
I'll buy the WD again but visions can stay on the shelf for me, give it a year and they will change it over again
PotentiallyLethal wrote: Oh well, for digital subscriptions at least - Apple says GW, GW says Apple - neither will give me a refund :(
Not pleased
I'm sure this was deliberately set up. After Finecast I think GW realizes customers will return their lowest-quality products and wants to try and reverse that.
Haven't been posting in ages but this has generated some serious rage!
1. No artwork? (Almost) no text? Pictures of stuff i already saw last month, including the same paint splatter guides? AND then you want to change my subscription to this instead of WD weekly?
2. Having watched the youtube review, I wanted to think Monty was being harsh, but the layout is terrible and the quality of photos is horrendous, with no zoom or rotation? Is there a point . . . NO
3. Just to make it even worse lets put everything on a pale white photoshopped background, and not even check to see if we cut off an entire section of a model. I'm looking at you Avatar, bottom half is there below the hand but the rest of the spear is missing. How about you go back to proper photography?
4. This is a joke and even worse is that there's no nice version of WD weekly, the ebook one is a poor comparison to the not so bad print copy.
Following everyone else and will cancelling my subscription.
GW, your miniatures are awesome, most of the time, but what did you do to WD? This coming from a long standing GW fan, with WD back to the copy with the battle report where Tycho actually had his face stuffed by an ork weirdboy (for those younger people, this is where the fluff came from!) think it was 1994 or so.
I'll still buy the models but no more WD for me or visions or whatever it's going to be called. I doubt it will last 6 months
PotentiallyLethal wrote: Oh well, for digital subscriptions at least - Apple says GW, GW says Apple - neither will give me a refund :(
Not pleased
Write a polite letter to the head of each company, and send it by registered post to the company's registered office.
Tell them you don't like the new magazine because it is completely different to the magazine for which you bought a subscription. Tell them that you do not consider it an acceptable substitution, so you want a refund of your subscription.
Write also that you already have asked both companies for a refund and in each case you have been referred to the other company, and that is why you are taking the trouble to write to both because there seems to be a mixup in their refund departments.
Ask the CEO if he would kindly make sure your complaint is acted on.
Keep copies of both letters and the registered posting certificates.
Right, following e-mail sent to Apple customer services, beacuse GW's digital refund page is useless:
"Hello,
There has recently been a substantial change to the "White Dwarf" newsstand app that I purchased last September. The magazine has been rebranded as "Warhammer Visions" and the content has significantly changed, such that it no longer resembles the product I originally purchased and does not meet my needs.
As a result of these changes I wish to cancel my subscription to this product and be refunded for the 8-months of the originally advertised product I have not received (7-months still to be issued and this month's issue, which does not in any way resemble the product I purchased).
I have tried to use the distributor's refund process, which advised me to use the "report a problem" function in the iTunes purchase history, however when I have clicked on the button it does not provide me with any of the options to enter the order information or my request for a refund.
I look forward to your help in this matter,
[signature deleted]"
We'll see what comes of it, but I'm not holding much hope. I'd only been subscribing since they introduced the digital version (it was a nice Saturday morning read in bed) and whilst I can't speak from experience of it's heyday, it was still a fairly interesting, if light read. Emphasis on the word READ. Not something you can do with this new...whatever this is.
Also interesting that the sneak peak stuff from Forgeworld now appears to be in their new weekly "blog"; I wonder if they had enough independence to see the writing on the wall and jump ship to do their own thing?
I had a look at White Dwarf 159 today. In it we have:
1. New releases/news. A single page.
2. Five pages in, and we're at a six page article for Eldar rules in Tyranid Attack, including two pages of print-out artefact, psychic power and warrior ability cards.
3. Next up we have an article with the full rules for Marine and Eldar Scouts, which came out that month (these are RT/1st Ed rules).
4. The ever-present store finder. Back 1993 this only took up a page. 5. Several 'Eavy Metal pages, including a few of those "Base Coat/Slight Highlights/Uber-Detail" step-by-step guides that never made any sense. This doubles as a "new release" show case, as it has the a lot of the new models for that month (including the Iron Priest, priced at £3.99 (for reference, it's £12 now, so 300% the cost, and made from a cheaper material to the lead it was originally made out of).
6. Full rules for Gorfang Rotgut, a new Orc character released that month.
7. Pages for the grand openings of the Belfast and Worcester stores, including multiple 10% and 25% off coupons. I almost want to scan them in to prove that they are real. I can attest that GW coupons were real. I used some to get really cheap Chimeras (bought 4 and got 2 free) when the Sydney City store opened.
8. Full rules and fluff for the newly released Tzeentchian Daemon engines (Silver Tower, Doom Wing and Fire Lord). This is for Epic. Includes print out templates and cards.
9. The Petersborough and Cheltnam grand opening pages, again with coupons.
10. A new quest for Advanced Heroquest including background, rules, maps and counters. This is a 12 page article of mostly text.
11. Reminders that Guildford and Thurrock Lakeside are open, but no coupons. One imagines the coupons for them came in an earlier issue.
12. Battle for Iron Peak, a 17-page Orc v Dwarf battle report between Jervis and Bill King, complete with fluff, army selection explanations, detailed turn-by-turn accounts, maps updated by turns, and summations at the end by both players. You tell me what you prefer, that or a 4-page textless photobomb like the one in 'Visions'.
13. More value - the Colchester grand opening with yet more coupons!
14. The mail-order section with the form and the numbers (this is pre-Internet days kids, when to phone someone you had to use a land line).
15. Then a product list including that month's new releases (Fantasy Fighters, High Elf War Griffon, Imperial Hero Riding Pegasus, Orc Chieftain, Orc Command Group, Orc Boyz, Big 'Uns, Tyranid Attack boxed game, Iron Priests, Servitors, Blood Angel Tactical Squad, Fire Lord, Doom Wing, Silver Towers).
16. Included, in a similar style to today, were bundle deals so you could buy either or the armies that were used in that month's battle report. The kicker? Both deals are +/- 15% off retail. It even says what the normal total would be and what the deal's total actually is.
17. It also talks about calling up for 'deals of the week'. Hmm...
18. Twelve pages showing off the raw metal/bitz of most of that month's new releases/featured miniatures, including all their part codes for ordering.
3 pages of index and WD team bios
4 pages of news and new releases (mostly text)
19 pages on collecting a skaven army, including two 2-page army shots, otherwise lots of text and some conversions
10 pages of tactics for and against skaven
3-page comic excerpt from Warhammer Monthly
11 page feature on new CSM releases (with Fabius Bile's entry copy/pasted from the codex)
10 pages of pics of GD winners
2 pages of store locator
3 pages of new store openings, with coupons
2 page skaven army showcase
7 page Chapter Approved: first 3rd edition Necron army list and scenario
1 page 40kFAQ 1 page new rules for CSM Cult Terminators
4 pages on one WHFB regiment of renown, including full rules
2 pages converting a Bloodthirster
2 pages readers' letters
18 pages battlereport of White Scars vs Black Legion with enough text to know where everything is at any point; also includes new rules for White Scars
12 page catalog and order form showcasing all the models from this issue
Oh yeah, it also included a cardboard summary sheet for the 40k 3rd edition rulebook.
Visions was rubbish. I'll keep looking for inspiration in the galleries here.
WD was actually much better than I expected.At the price of a coffee it had some atricles with enough substance to be worth eadind e.g. JJ. on pre-game scouting. I bought this issue, future purchases will be on a per issue basis. Enough good stuff then I'll buy it.
* 4 pages of "News" showing that month's releases: GorkaMorka Rebel Grots, the republishing of Blood Bowl, new Bloodthirster, blisters for Chaos Beastmen and Marauders, Eldar Fire Prism grav-tank and re-released Eldar Guardians plastic (the old monopose plastics I believe) now with Shuriken Catapults versus Lasguns.
* 9 pages showcasing Khornate Daemons, talking about choices for army composition and a sample army list for a small but fearsome 2,770 point Khorne army led by a Daemon Prince and Bloodthirster and consisting of 40 Bloodletters, 10 Flesh hounds and 2 Spawn. This includes one page of rules for the Bloodthirster.
* single page advertisement for Blood Bowl
* 2 pages showing the new Chaos metal blister packs: Warriors, Marauders, Ungor Skirmishers w/Command, Minotaur Standard Bearer
* 4 pages showing the then-new Fire Prism grav-tank, including its datafax sheet and fluff in the form of an Imperial transmission.
* 2 pages showing off the Studio Biel-Tan craftworld Eldar
* 6 pages showing the Rebel Grots for Gorkamorka including how to build an initial Gorkamorka army, how to paint Grots by the big Ork, Adrian "Grand Warlord" Wood, himself, brief tactics and rules for the Red Gobbo special character.
* 10 pages featuring Part 2 of the legendary Tale of Four Gamers (the original), IMO the best article series to ever grace the pages of White Dwarf. Enough said.
* One page advertising Issue #5 of Inferno, which I think was a Warhammer comic? Never bought it.
* One page spread about applying to GW US.
* 4 pages showing the stores in the US, GW and independent retailers, with a full page to dedicated to Challenge Games in Jolie, IL that showcases some amazing looking terrain including a lizardman temple and a several story Necromunda building
* 2 pages for the upcoming Games Day/Golden Daemon of 1998
* 4 pages for the upcoming computer game Shadow of the Horned Rat
* 1 page advertisement for the Digganob expansion to Gorkamorka
* 7 pages of Adrian Wood talking about making terrain for Gorkamorka
* 7 pages of Part 1 of Stillmania: Questing for the Grail, IMO the second greatest series to ever grace the pages of White Dwarf. Nigel talks about the "proper" way to build a Bretonnian army, or any army really.
* 4 pages for the 1998 Canadian Grand Tournament
* 15 pages dedicated to a Blood Angels vs. Eldar battle report with lots of army discussion, strategy, tactical maps and the like. The Eldar win 21 to 16, but whether or not this was to promote the Fire Prism is a mystery to me. To put this into perspective this 2000 point Blood Angels army consists of:
- Two 5-man Assault squads
- Two 5-man Tactical squads
- One 5-man Terminator squad
- One 5-man Scout squad
- One Dreadnought
- One Landspeeder
- One Predator
- Captain, Librarian, Techmarine
which just for laughs I converted to 6th edition and it came to about 1,070 points. Keep in mind during this time the grand tournaments were 1,500 points as well so this was a "large" battle of 40k that you didn't usually play.
* 17 pages of Mail Order, including a special offer for a limited edition Thunderhawk Gunship not meant for the game (it specifically states "We have specifically not produced rules or datafaxes for this set as it is not meant in any way, shape or form to be used in your games of 40k") for $500.
* 2 pages for a subscription to White Dwarf including mail order form, which was $50 for 1 year and you could get a $12.50 boxed set free or get $12.50 off of a larger order. With a 2 year subscription @ $95 you could get any army book or codex free or get $25 off a larger order.
White Dwarf #137 (which arrived in the post this morning)
Rather than a page by page break down, I will focus on actual articles...
Cover - Great painting of a Blood Angels Captain fending off an attack by a Scavvy Gang by shooting them in the face with a bolt gun.
Preview of Golden Demon, which looks like a blast (6 pages)
Liveries for Bretonnian Foot Troops (2 pages) and then a cut out army book section for these troop types (1 page)
A strong contender for greatest WD article ever - Andy Chambers talks through his Skaven army (15 pages including full page colour photos)
Modelling Workshop: Warhammer Town House (8 pages including the templates)
Space Hulk Missions (9 pages)
Rules for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay NPCs based on characters from the Storm Warriors novel (6 pages)
Combat Rules and Trading Charts for Confrontation - the precursor to Necromunda (about 20 odd pages)
I only bought this for the Modelling Workshop, but it is a fantastic read - It shows what can be produced when WD is run by enthusiasts rather than yes men.
Man, I hate you guys, making me all nostalgic. I thought "I'm gonna go and dig out my box of WD's" and then I remembered my mum chucked them out years ago when I moved out of the family home, over 100 issues :*(
Ooh, I think I still have a few SG mags though, I might reread some Town Criers.
It's a bit impotent but after having received the latest newsletter and getting annoyed by them promoting W:Visions I cancelled the newsletter option on my account. I also sent an email to them explaining my annoyance at all of this change.
I honestly like the new format. They never said it wwouldn't be anything unlike what it is. They stated that the weekly Dwarve would more in-depth that the monthly. The only thing I don't like about the monthly was that it doesn't feature many conversions. The new monthly reminds me of the old catalog they used to put out. I never had a subscription to the previous monthly editions, I always bought one's that had articles I was interested in. That's just my opinion.
IMHO Warhammer Visions would be less BS if GW didn't skimp on the studio painters - that way, close ups and multi-views of the studio models would actually reveal technique... not sloppy, indifferent paintwork.
I remember in 3rd and 4th when the 'Eavy Metal paintjobs were a level that I could never hope to achieve. The paint work on the modern studio pieces I could match even if I was painting drunk.
As it stands, I feel that something like Warhammer Visions should have been made into a quarterly hardcover large format publication, which is 75% non-studio work and that the new releases should just be axed from it, or at least, made into 10% of the book.
Lefblade wrote: I honestly like the new format. They never said it wouldn't be anything unlike what it is. They stated that the weekly Dwarve would more in-depth that the monthly. The only thing I don't like about the monthly was that it doesn't feature many conversions. The new monthly reminds me of the old catalog they used to put out. I never had a subscription to the previous monthly editions, I always bought one's that had articles I was interested in. That's just my opinion.
May I ask what age group you fall into. ? As I am trying to understand who GW's aiming for.
Lefblade wrote: I honestly like the new format. They never said it wouldn't be anything unlike what it is. They stated that the weekly Dwarve would more in-depth that the monthly. The only thing I don't like about the monthly was that it doesn't feature many conversions. The new monthly reminds me of the old catalog they used to put out. I never had a subscription to the previous monthly editions, I always bought one's that had articles I was interested in. That's just my opinion.
May I ask what age group you fall into. ? As I am trying to understand who GW's aiming for.
IMO, warhammer visions was actually interesting, but I like pictures; not great but i'm glad I got one. White Dwarf weekly is awful, really makes me miss old white dwarf, even when it turned into a big catalogue saying BUY BUY BUY, it still had some interesting stuff in it.
Only read through the first 2 pages on here so not sure if I'm re posting.
Maybe there are too many people like me who have a lifetime subscription from the old price and they are changing the format so that we cancel subs. Then they change to a better monthly mag and we have to sub at new higher price???
When I was young my dad bought White Dwarf especially for the Space Hulk articles. We started getting White Dwarf primarily for myself to read with issue #213 (Dark Angels campaign and Epic Tyranids). I was about 12 then and read them thoroughly. I just can't imagine my 12 year old self being entertained with Warhammer Visions. I don't think this belief that GW is aiming it at the kids is correct. I don't know who it is aimed at, especially for £7.50. Maybe new customers would buy one once or twice if the red shirt encourages them, but that's not a 'readership' that will support a magazine.
I reckon WDW would be much nearer the mark with 12-year-olds if it was cheap and mostly pictures like a comic book, like WH Vizsh is now. (Except the cheap bit.)
A weekly comic like The Beano or 2000AD only devoted to Warhammer.
McManiak wrote: Only read through the first 2 pages on here so not sure if I'm re posting.
Maybe there are too many people like me who have a lifetime subscription from the old price and they are changing the format so that we cancel subs. Then they change to a better monthly mag and we have to sub at new higher price???
I very much doubt it. I'm sure there are plenty of people with long running subs (my WD sub cost me £3 per issue as opposed to the £7.50 that GW want to charge for the new monthly rag) but changing the magazine to a load of turgid pap to force people to cancel said subs and then hoping to win them back again is not a viable business strategy
My theory, based on what I have read, seen and heard expressed elsewhere, is that GW can easily switch to this weekly + monthly format without changing the staff composition or needing extra staff and effectively they can now charge twice as much as people used to pay for the old monthly mag for the same or less effort (because you don't need much journalistic effort to put together a bunch of photos and minimal text).
I think it is doomed to failure personally, because I can see lots of people cancelling subs over this; I know I have, and I certainly wouldn't go into WH Smiths and pay £7.50 for it either but then again, they raise the prices of their miniatures year on year to cover falling sales so maybe it is the same strategy there - readership of WD has been falling for years now so why bother trying to make it better? Just increase the price and fleece the remaining loyal customers you already have?
I keep flipping through the pages... I just don't understand. It's not engaging, it's not entertaining, it's not even interesting. There is nothing of value in it.
I'm a fanboy, but this... The only words that I can think of to describe it are; sad and pathetic.
Maybe I've missed something... But if the new weekly Dwarf is intended to showcase that week's new releases, and you have to go into the store to get it... Can't you just, I don't know, look at the new releases on the shelf while you're there, without the need for a magazine...?
He replied very quickly with a long email that I can only assume was a copy/paste. It seems he may of had a few of these complaints already today.
Hey Christopher,
Thanks for your email and your feedback. We've worked hard to being a great breadth of features in the new White Dwarf – in a given a week you can expect details on the latest releases, editorial columns, painting guides, modelling features, gaming articles, new rules, interviews with sculptors and writers, and more besides. We'll also be featuring Battle Reports and other things too – in a given month, it all adds up to much, much more content that that touches all aspects of the hobby than we were able to achieve in one issue of the 'old' White Dwarf. I hope you stick with us to see this.
Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you, and that's fine. You don't have to buy it! It's for people that like to drool over high-quality photos of gorgeously-painted miniatures, and it's the result of a lot of hard work by our photographers and design team – we're really pleased with it and from the feedback we've already had, the people that really like it are the people we're aiming it at.
Change is always a tricky thing, especially, when it comes with associated costs. But I hope you'll give both the new White Dwarf and Warhammer: Visions another chance in the future.
All the best and thanks again for your email,
Grimtuff wrote: We've worked hard to being a great breadth of features in the new White Dwarf – in a given a week you can expect details on the latest releases, editorial columns, painting guides, modelling features, gaming articles, new rules, interviews with sculptors and writers, and more besides. We'll also be featuring Battle Reports and other things too – in a given month, it all adds up to much, much more content that that touches all aspects of the hobby than we were able to achieve in one issue of the 'old' White Dwarf.
I'm confused. Isn't that all stuff that used to be in the monthly White Dwarf...?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: "The people who really like it are the people we're aiming at"
I think that's actually just poor phrasing by Jes... I suspect that he actually means that the people they aimed it at are the ones who really like it, (meaning that they hit their target audience) rather than how it more easily reads (we're aiming specifically for people who like it).
And to be fair, I can see how people who don't spend much time online might be interested in a product like this. If I was a current subscriber, though, I would be pretty dirty about the magazine I subscribed to being suddenly swapped for a completely different magazine aimed at a different demographic.
Grimtuff wrote: If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you, and that's fine.
As a modeller and painter this response from GW turns my stomach. Give a secondary school student two hours on InDesign and you will get a better format. I mean honestly place this beside one of the White Dwarf issues from the early 2000's, and consider quality of content and pricing. I'm disappointed in myself for even thinking that GW would do anything other than hammer another nail in the coffin, but this actually disgusts me. It looks like there should be one copy in each store for people to casually browse, not something that is shrink wrapped and flogged to an already abused consumer base. This was actually the most exciting release in a long while, and people (myself included) allowed themselves to hope that someone somewhere had seen the light and decided to bring WD back to the fantastic publication it once was.
I can only hope for GW's sake that this disgrace was as cheap to produce as it looks, because I can see a lot of cancelled subscriptions on the horizon.
azreal13 wrote: "The people who really like it are the people we're aiming at"
I think that's actually just poor phrasing by Jes... I suspect that he actually means that the people they aimed it at are the ones who really like it, (meaning that they hit their target audience) rather than how it more easily reads (we're aiming specifically for people who like it).
And to be fair, I can see how people who don't spend much time online might be interested in a product like this. If I was a current subscriber, though, I would be pretty dirty about the magazine I subscribed to being suddenly swapped for a completely different magazine aimed at a different demographic.
I'll concede that's probably what he meant, but I won't excuse such poor language skills from someone purporting to be the editor of what is now a collection of internationally distributed magazines (even gak ones)
Jes must be smoking some good stuff...
i am exclusively a painter and collector, and after getting my first issue of Visions yesterday, i'm off to cancel my subscription...
i've collected WD from #75, and am sad to say they have finally lost me...
so, that email response is a load of bollocks, as i'm the demographic he is speaking of, and i'm not buying it...
UNBELIEVABLY TERRIBLE £17.10 for 5 magazines a month, which is the same as the old white dwarf for £5.50
THIS SKAVEN IS JUMPING OVERBOARD NOW BECAUSE THIS SHIP IS SINKING !!!!!!
GAMES WORKSHOP have at least proved one thing "you can't polish a turd"
Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you, and that's fine. You don't have to buy it!
Well actually I kinda do have to buy it. Because you swapped my subscription over and won't give me a refund!
Jes Goodwin wrote:
Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you
If you like gaming. Aren't they a game company? It's in their name...
So, if you like gaming and you were happy with the gaming magazine you were subscribed to, then what we've changed your subscription to probably isn't for you.
Jes Goodwin wrote:
Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you
If you like gaming. Aren't they a game company? It's in their name...
So, if you like gaming and you were happy with the gaming magazine you were subscribed to, then what we've changed your subscription to probably isn't for you.
It's another push towards the whole 'we are a model company, not a rules company' thing.
If you look at the Chapterhouse case the people on the stand were only refering to their customers as 'collectors', not gamers or anything. GW's corporate culture is pushing the idea that people who buy GW products are collectors and those of us that play the games are the outliers as opposed to the norm.
If you've ever been to higher end car dealership It reminds me of those stylized magazines they leave out in the waiting area, they are nothing but glossy high priced car photos.
Jes Goodwin wrote:Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you
Who gets out of bed in the morning and thinks, "I know, let's take one of our products and really narrow down the target audience."
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well, turns out Dakka does have someone with enough polished armour to defend Visions.
One born every minute I 'spose.
This seems to imply that any-one not holding your opinion is wrong. I'm sorry to have to disagree with that. I also didn't reach into my pocket to buy visions but I can see that others would spend the money and good luck to them. Not wrong, just different.
Well,I'm a painter, and those are not gorgeously painted. They're bog standard insipid army work. With no write up on the techniques or processes used, the pictures are useless to those who don't already know how to achieve that standard. Those that can achieve it are looking for better work (golden demon finalist level).
Jes Goodwin wrote:Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you
Who gets out of bed in the morning and thinks, "I know, let's take one of our products and really narrow down the target audience."
If it was solely for modellers and painters then it would have more actual modelling articles. I only model GW stuff, I don't play, well none of their current games anyway. But Warhammer Visions holds no interest. It's just a picture book.
If it were for collectors, then there would be more art and design articles with descriptive text. If they opened their bits archive they could offer collectors the opportunity to get all sorts of figures. If the gaming doesn't matter, why wouldn't genestealer cults sell? They change hands for high amounts on eBay. For Warhammer Visions they could cycle through ranges of older figures, offering them for short periods. You'd have to buy the magazine to see what was available. And there would be new product every month with them having to sculpt a thing.
How many people only collect the new releases and have little interest in gaming and would just like lots of photos of those new figures? I'm sure they exist, but GW focusing on this narrow band of the customer base for their high quality magazine, while those strange people who actually play games get a thin magazine each week (which works out double the cost per month of the old white dwarf) is just strange. No wonder so many people complain about the rules, they just aren't a priority for GW other than the opportunity to sell expensive limited editions.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well, turns out Dakka does have someone with enough polished armour to defend Visions.
One born every minute I 'spose.
I've got a horrible feeling you're referring to me as several people have fethed up the quote so it looks like Jes Bickham's copy/paste reply is written by me! A quick glance makes it look that way.
winterdyne wrote: Well,I'm a painter, and those are not gorgeously painted. They're bog standard insipid army work. With no write up on the techniques or processes used, the pictures are useless to those who don't already know how to achieve that standard. Those that can achieve it are looking for better work (golden demon finalist level).
Totally agree Winterdyhne - im in the same bracket - As a repeared finalist level painter i feel confident to say its just eavy metal showcasing which IMO is not finalist Golden Demon level. Its neat and tidy and bright and breezy. The most id look at one of the visions catalogue for is poses of a new kit when preparing to build. And DakkaDakka is probably better for that.
They would have been better to give painters a proper forum to display our works or some half decent articles for those eavy metal aspirees!
Warboss Gubbinz wrote: If you've ever been to higher end car dealership It reminds me of those stylized magazines they leave out in the waiting area, they are nothing but glossy high priced car photos.
BMW this is not.
GW and BMW have a lot in common. They both try to sell their product as a premium product. They both fail. Only BMW dealers treat customers a lot better. In the motor trade where I come from BMW stands for bring more water.
Jes Goodwin wrote:Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you
Who gets out of bed in the morning and thinks, "I know, let's take one of our products and really narrow down the target audience."
I doubt he did that.
I suspect what went on is he woke up one morning, went into work and was informed he now had to produce 4 weekly magazines and 1 monthly with the same team and budget he had to make one monthly magazine before.
And this is the result, and precisely why so much of it is simply recycled from last months white dwarf, as Jake Thornton points out in his blog here
He doesnt have it, but I suspect if you put a tyranid codex next to that Visions mag you will likely double the number of rehashed photographs he already pointed out.
And the blanchitsu is figures that have been shown before. They arent even Blanches models, I'm not sure if that is pointed out at all in the text.
As a product it encompases the utter disdain that GW management have for the customer. Jes Goodwin is in a no win situation, thats probably all he can do with the time and money he's given, but a management team who sign off on that must think their customers are utter morons.
Well I am no Golden Deamon standard painter, but I think I get things done. The pictures in the WD and codices are just medicore. Have seen a lot of better paintjobs here on Dakka and for FREE. However it just shows what GWs target audience is ---> Kids. I remember when I was young I totally loved those paintjobs done by their teams. Nowadays I find them quiet boring cause I ve seen lots of better pics.
Sadly I believe they will sell enough of their magazines to keep thinking they are doing a good Job.
Funny how GW tries to argue that just because the magazine has a different name and different content doen't mean you can easily get out of you WD subscription
H.B.M.C. wrote: Admit it Grim, you've got pictures of Kirby on the inside of your locker. You're a closet White Knight if ever there was one!
Warboss Gubbinz wrote: If you've ever been to higher end car dealership It reminds me of those stylized magazines they leave out in the waiting area, they are nothing but glossy high priced car photos.
BMW this is not.
GW and BMW have a lot in common. They both try to sell their product as a premium product. They both fail. Only BMW dealers treat customers a lot better. In the motor trade where I come from BMW stands for bring more water.
And Ford stands for fethed on Rainy Days
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stompawompa wrote: UNBELIEVABLY TERRIBLE £17.10 for 5 magazines a month, which is the same as the old white dwarf for £5.50
THIS SKAVEN IS JUMPING OVERBOARD NOW BECAUSE THIS SHIP IS SINKING !!!!!!
GAMES WORKSHOP have at least proved one thing "you can't polish a turd"
You can't polish a turd but GW will do its very best to roll that fether in glitter.
insaniak wrote: Maybe I've missed something... But if the new weekly Dwarf is intended to showcase that week's new releases, and you have to go into the store to get it... Can't you just, I don't know, look at the new releases on the shelf while you're there, without the need for a magazine...?
That's the point. GW wants you to go to the store. If you buy just one infantry box, WD weekly has done its job, bought or not.
A lot of the pictures in visions fall flat and are certainly not worth "drooling" over. I really wish we'd get more custom terrain pieces out of the GW team, still use the kits you want to sell but do something interesting with them. I think the reason why a lot of the visions pictures fall flat is due to them being essentially the same things rearranged on a flat surface multiple times.
Interestingly the guy who posted up the Visions review has done a video talking about the old Citadel Journal.
I kind of liked it. The photos were okay, I like looking at GW figures, and only paid £3 for it.
But I don't really see myself wanting to do that every month, so having enjoyed my flick through, I phoned up and cancelled my subscription. My impression, from the tone of the voice at the other end of the phone, was that I wasn't the first person to do so that day.
It's interesting to see how he compares the "Visions" magazine to the "Citadel Journal" yet from the review I posted they seem nothing alike.
I think he might have been caught in an understandable rage.
How many people do you think have cancelled their subscriptions? I think it's very much been a minority that have said they are ok with this replacing WD.
Medium of Death wrote: It's interesting to see how he compares the "Visions" magazine to the "Citadel Journal" yet from the review I posted they seem nothing alike.
I think he might have been caught in an understandable rage.
Yes, not sure what he was on about there. Like you say, I think he was past the point of rational thought at that stage.
Kroothawk wrote: Funny how GW tries to argue that just because the magazine has a different name and different content doen't mean you can easily get out of you WD subscription
H.B.M.C. wrote: Admit it Grim, you've got pictures of Kirby on the inside of your locker. You're a closet White Knight if ever there was one!
Not the locker, the dart board
Yes, that's complete bs. It's a very simple question. Is White Dwarf the same thing as Warhammer Visions?
No.
So you, GW, have violated the terms of the contract to supply White Dwarf. The other party is no longer bound to his side of it, and he is owed his money back if he prefers that to having WH Vizsh.
Howard A Treesong wrote: No wonder so many people complain about the rules, they just aren't a priority for GW other than the opportunity to sell expensive limited editions.
Agreed. And over the past edition and a half this has become painfully obvious. Write rules to sell models. Who cares what the rules do to the game?
Wasn't citadel journal free? I remember being given a couple as a teenager, and I loved looking at the old models (shortly after the first version of Necrons came out) and seeing all the quips and blurbs about the individual units. But again...free. Would I have paid for them? Maybe a buck. Maybe two. $10? Hell no. Got plenty of old white dwarf magazines for free too, but also bought a bunch. When they stopped having content, I stopped bothering. GW, two steps forward, twenty steps back. Your megaforces (like the bugs) are a great idea with a heavy discount. Props for that. You get a big thumbs down for Warhurl Visions.
According to the comments in the youtube video, what he meant by comparing the WD to the Citadel Journal was how the two were both re-imagined poorly. Not that the two mags are necessarily similar.
Despite the length of time I've been in the HHHobby, I've never seen a Citadel Journal with my own eyes. I own every issue of Necromunda Magazine, but I've never seen a Citadel Journal.
Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you, and that's fine. You don't have to buy it!
Actually, kinda yeah, until I got rather uppity on the phone with them, "having to buy it" is precisely how I'd put it.
My 'Direct Debit' for my next 3 issues of 'white dwarf' was charged on the Thursday, with Visions arriving on the Saturday.
Eventually I got told, "you'll need to phone your bank and claim the direct debit back, we won't contest it."
So, they asked for feedback and are giving out mostly cut-n-paste replies?
I'm not surprised, I guess, and I'm not sure what I did expect, but...
Alpharius wrote:
Hello!
I'm writing to you to express my displeasure with the new direction for "White Dwarf".
Now, I know that times change, and things move on, and forward.
But this?
Sadly, it seems as if it just follows the all too familiar trend at GW - Pay More to Get Less.
If you want to get everything you used to get in White Dwarf, the cost has...skyrocketed.
I just wish that GW would lose its irrational fear and hatred of the Internet, embrace their fan-base and get back to what made them the company they are today.
So, I'll remain a fan in the background, hopeful but not expectant, and wondering about what could have been.
Again.
Jes Bickham wrote:
Thanks for your email and your feedback. We've worked hard to being a great breadth of features in the new White Dwarf – in a given a week you can expect details on the latest releases, editorial columns, painting guides, modelling features, gaming articles, new rules, interviews with sculptors and writers, and more besides. We'll also be featuring Battle Reports and other things too – in a given month, it all adds up to much, much more content that that touches all aspects of the hobby than we were able to achieve in one issue of the 'old' White Dwarf. I hope you stick with us to see this.
Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you, and that's fine. You don't have to buy it! It's for people that like to drool over high-quality photos of gorgeously-painted miniatures, and it's the result of a lot of hard work by our photographers and design team – we're really pleased with it and from the feedback we've already had, the people that really like it are the people we're aiming it at.
Change is always a tricky thing, especially, when it comes with associated costs. But I hope you'll give both the new White Dwarf and Warhammer: Visions another chance in the future.
Alpharius wrote: So, they asked for feedback and are giving out mostly cut-n-paste replies?
Jes Bickham wrote:
Thanks for your email and your feedback. We've worked hard to being a great breadth of features in the new White Dwarf – in a given a week you can expect details on the latest releases, editorial columns, painting guides, modelling features, gaming articles, new rules, interviews with sculptors and writers, and more besides. We'll also be featuring Battle Reports and other things too – in a given month, it all adds up to much, much more content that that touches all aspects of the hobby than we were able to achieve in one issue of the 'old' White Dwarf. I hope you stick with us to see this.
Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you, and that's fine. You don't have to buy it! It's for people that like to drool over high-quality photos of gorgeously-painted miniatures, and it's the result of a lot of hard work by our photographers and design team – we're really pleased with it and from the feedback we've already had, the people that really like it are the people we're aiming it at.
Change is always a tricky thing, especially, when it comes with associated costs. But I hope you'll give both the new White Dwarf and Warhammer: Visions another chance in the future.
All the best and thanks again for your email,
Jes
That is the exact email posted previously in this thread isn't it? Could just be set on auto-reply. They might as well just say, "Thank you for your email. We appreciate our customers' feedback. As you can imagine, we get a lot of feedback on a day-to-day basis. So, for improved efficiency, we have forwarded your email directly to the Recycle Bin. All the best!"
They could just be gauging the volume of negative feedback that they are getting. I'd imagine that they are fairly swamped with emails regarding this latest decision.
Not sure why they asked for feedback or what they're getting out of it...
I'm sure they can get all the feedback they want by a cursory glance at the interwebs... but of course they'd never peruse these sites would they
I vaguely recall Dakka Dakka being mentioned in White Dwarf once many years ago as being a great place to discuss and explore the games further. Am I wrong? Other sites like Bolter and Chainsword and Druchii.net have definitely had a name drop in the distant past.
I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.
That's the point. GW wants you to go to the store. If you buy just one infantry box, WD weekly has done its job, bought or not.
If you're going into the store and looking at the new releases, the magazine spotlighting those new releases is completely superfluous. It only 'did its job' if you came into the store because of the magazine... which there doesn't appear to be any reason to actually do.
If this was something that they were sending out to customers to encourage them to come into the store, that would be something. But selling something in store that tells people about the other stuff that you are selling right now is pointless.
No, it was sold direct through GW mailorder (to begin with) and then I think Specialist Games took it over. It did appear in GW stores very briefly before the changeover to the individual Specialist magazines.
Wow. They really are sending copypaste replies regardless of what you right. I'd actually reply to their copypaste and ask them for something less generic.
Ugavine wrote: I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.
I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?
Ugavine wrote: I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.
I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?
You know, there is a small part of me that wonders if, in the meeting about Warhammer: Visions, that this was their answer to sites like Cool Mini or Not. A small part of me wonders if they're so deluded to think that "what the customer really wants" is some form of media showing them how the Studio presents models and that that will grab the demographic of modellers and collectors that comprise the traffic to those sites. That there are groups of screaming fans out there yearning for a picture book instead of being forced to visit free sites like Dakka and CMON.
"These people WANT to spend their money on a pictorial!! Just look at how many of them are frequenting these picture-sites!!"
Ugavine wrote: I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.
I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?
Ugavine wrote: I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.
I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?
Ugavine wrote: I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.
I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?
Sad to say it might happen.
Like to see GW try and make that stick!
The sad part is I could see them trying.
Suit: Sir, people hate our new Warhammer Visions magazine.
Kirby: How could they hate it?
Suit: Well, sir... they can see pictures just like it for free on those internet sites we pretend don't exist, and they tend to be better quality. And they can find out how to actually paint like that, versus just looking at the pretty pictures.
Kirby: Curse those internet sites! I know, we'll claim IP infringement for those sites showing our miniatures without our permission! That way the ONLY way anyone can see our miniatures is through publications that we control such as Warhammer Visions, our website and via our stores. That will show them!
Suit: Brilliant, sir! Everyone will have to buy Warhammer Visions now! What alternatives do they have?
Both: *cackling laughter*
Jes Goodwin wrote:
Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you
If you like gaming. Aren't they a game company? It's in their name...
So, if you like gaming and you were happy with the gaming magazine you were subscribed to, then what we've changed your subscription to probably isn't for you.
It's another push towards the whole 'we are a model company, not a rules company' thing.
If you look at the Chapterhouse case the people on the stand were only refering to their customers as 'collectors', not gamers or anything. GW's corporate culture is pushing the idea that people who buy GW products are collectors and those of us that play the games are the outliers as opposed to the norm.
I guess GW is just trying to get back to it roots. It was originally a model company riding TSR's coattails. Now it is riding WoTC's down the tubes.
Isn't the actual law around photographs of other artwork nebulous enough, that GW could get away with doing that, at least enough for websites to have to deal with take-down notices?
What was it the Beasts of War folk said? GW kept on issuing them notices about various rumours and things, each time they'd have to consult a lawyer and, each time, they'd be charged £300-£500 for it.
Truth be told, GW haven't gone that far yet - and, given the Spots the Space Marine debacle, probably will never. Still, it wouldn't surprise me if it was theoretically possible.
Suit: Sir, people hate our new Warhammer Visions magazine.
Kirby: How could they hate it?
Suit: Well, sir... they can see pictures just like it for free on those internet sites we pretend don't exist, and they tend to be better quality. And they can find out how to actually paint like that, versus just looking at the pretty pictures.
Kirby: Curse those internet sites! I know, we'll claim IP infringement for those sites showing our miniatures without our permission! That way the ONLY way anyone can see our miniatures is through publications that we control such as Warhammer Visions, our website and via our stores. That will show them!
Suit: Brilliant, sir! Everyone will have to buy Warhammer Visions now! What alternatives do they have?
Both: *cackling laughter*
Nah, no need to fret over this scenario. It is obvious that no one at GW corporate has any idea what we like and what we don't.
Not sure why they asked for feedback or what they're getting out of it...
I'm sure they can get all the feedback they want by a cursory glance at the interwebs... but of course they'd never peruse these sites would they
I vaguely recall Dakka Dakka being mentioned in White Dwarf once many years ago as being a great place to discuss and explore the games further. Am I wrong? Other sites like Bolter and Chainsword and Druchii.net have definitely had a name drop in the distant past.
In the 300th issue, there was an adeptus custodes pictorial which mentioned fan work, showed it in the mag, and listed the bolter and chains word and dakkadakka as resources. Funny how times change.
Ugavine wrote: I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.
I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?
Sad to say it might happen.
No it won't. They can ask that people don't use their photos from their own website/books, but the public can always take photos of their own models. That's well under fair use.
I don't think it's fair to expect Jes to create a new reply for each person to contact, after all it's basically going to be a variation of the same thing. I remember getting a hand-written letter reply from Gav Thorpe and Jervis Johnson, but that was probably 20 years ago so not really reasonable to expect in the age of the word processor!
Of course the worst thing is that he probably knows the level of the magazine, really agrees with everything that the fans are writing to express, but has his hands tied by the company logo on his shirt. Of such things are moves in the industry (and perhaps even a 'Jes Goodwin kickstarter' ) made..
I can't imagine that they are seriously trying to limit viewing over the internet of their miniatures, considering that they are visible on GW's own website no less?!
I can't imagine that they are seriously trying to limit viewing over the internet of their miniatures, considering that they are visible on GW's own website no less?!
I think the best thing about that is the big 'deal of the day' banner at the side. Mantic Dwarf box for £11.99
Much respect to waylands marketing guy for that one.
Warboss Gubbinz wrote: If you've ever been to higher end car dealership It reminds me of those stylized magazines they leave out in the waiting area, they are nothing but glossy high priced car photos.
BMW this is not.
If only!
Mrs Oblivion designs a customer publication for a car brand that\s much more upmarket than BMW, sends photographers out to Morocco, China, etc on 3 or 4 day shoots that might produce 8 or 10 photos. They climb mountains to get their stories. Not quite the same thing as climbing the stairs to the top floor of Warhammer world, and snapping 40 photos of the same diorama of models.
The most surprising thing about this is that...people are surprised. We all know how badly WD had been declining over the years, we seen how bad the last re-launch was, and now we're disappointed that visions was as about as visionary as sliced bread. Some people on here!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The most surprising thing about this is that...people are surprised. We all know how badly WD had been declining over the years, we seen how bad the last re-launch was, and now we're disappointed that visions was as about as visionary as sliced bread. Some people on here!
I think you're misinterpreting there. People are not surprised it would be crap. That is a given. People are surprised at the sheer level of crap this has sunk to.
Suit: Sir, people hate our new Warhammer Visions magazine.
Kirby: How could they hate it?
Suit: Well, sir... they can see pictures just like it for free on those internet sites we pretend don't exist, and they tend to be better quality. And they can find out how to actually paint like that, versus just looking at the pretty pictures.
Kirby: Curse those internet sites! I know, we'll claim IP infringement for those sites showing our miniatures without our permission! That way the ONLY way anyone can see our miniatures is through publications that we control such as Warhammer Visions, our website and via our stores. That will show them!
Suit: Brilliant, sir! Everyone will have to buy Warhammer Visions now! What alternatives do they have?
Both: *cackling laughter*
Nah, no need to fret over this scenario. It is obvious that no one at GW corporate has any idea what we like and what we don't.
I think its obvious now that GW know exactly what we like and what we don't. The problem is we have no idea what we like and don't like so GW must tell us.
Flicked through White Dwarf today. It was ok for what it was and marginally better than what they've producing since the last re-launch. It's the kind of content they should be putting on their website for free.
Noted several others flicking through it and then putting it back.
Warhammer: Visions is an awesome magazine. Literally awe-inspiring. It's a painting and hobby journal and is damn inspiring. i thought I would not like it. I am old and have memories of White Dwarf being, hands-down, the best thing printed on news stands. I actually like this last year of White Dwarf compared to the 2 or 3 years previous and am extremely sad to see it go. That being said, I like having the option to buy the promo pamphlet that is the new White Dwarf that features only the models I am going to buy to use as a painting/collector guide or not. Visions has excellent production value. I saw a ton of inspiring stuff in Visions. Once I had it in my hands, I knew it was quality. I would love to have a subscription to this monthly tome of inspiration. I hate that the classic beloved White Dwarf is gone. Especially since this last year of it was actually pretty good, from a hobbyist/painter perspective. White Dwarf is dead, long live White Dwarf! The White Dwarf of old has been undead for years. Visions probably wont last for very long, considering all the hatred it's generated. I suggest you get a copy in your hands just before sitting down for a painting session. Then judge it from that POV. It's an excellent magazine.
EYEofTERROR wrote: Warhammer: Visions is an awesome magazine. Literally awe-inspiring. It's a painting and hobby journal and is damn inspiring. i thought I would not like it. I am old and have memories of White Dwarf being, hands-down, the best thing printed on news stands. I actually like this last year of White Dwarf compared to the 2 or 3 years previous and am extremely sad to see it go. That being said, I like having the option to buy the promo pamphlet that is the new White Dwarf that features only the models I am going to buy to use as a painting/collector guide or not. Visions has excellent production value. I saw a ton of inspiring stuff in Visions. Once I had it in my hands, I knew it was quality. I would love to have a subscription to this monthly tome of inspiration. I hate that the classic beloved White Dwarf is gone. Especially since this last year of it was actually pretty good, from a hobbyist/painter perspective. White Dwarf is dead, long live White Dwarf! The White Dwarf of old has been undead for years. Visions probably wont last for very long, considering all the hatred it's generated. I suggest you get a copy in your hands just before sitting down for a painting session. Then judge it from that POV. It's an excellent magazine.
I think a weekly WD, at a reduced price, is something I'd consider buying, so long as I could browse it first. It wouldn't be an every-week purchase though because by default there wouldn't be something for me every week.
I wouldn't buy Warhammer: Visions when I can get much the same quality of pictures on the Internet, with some help on painting to that standard included.
EYEofTERROR wrote: Warhammer: Visions is an awesome magazine. Literally awe-inspiring. It's a painting and hobby journal and is damn inspiring. i thought I would not like it. I am old and have memories of White Dwarf being, hands-down, the best thing printed on news stands. I actually like this last year of White Dwarf compared to the 2 or 3 years previous and am extremely sad to see it go. That being said, I like having the option to buy the promo pamphlet that is the new White Dwarf that features only the models I am going to buy to use as a painting/collector guide or not. Visions has excellent production value. I saw a ton of inspiring stuff in Visions. Once I had it in my hands, I knew it was quality. I would love to have a subscription to this monthly tome of inspiration. I hate that the classic beloved White Dwarf is gone. Especially since this last year of it was actually pretty good, from a hobbyist/painter perspective. White Dwarf is dead, long live White Dwarf! The White Dwarf of old has been undead for years. Visions probably wont last for very long, considering all the hatred it's generated. I suggest you get a copy in your hands just before sitting down for a painting session. Then judge it from that POV. It's an excellent magazine.
LOL! You guys are the punchline! It's funny how cynical everyone is. This magazine delivers what it promises. The only things I see to not like about it is;
-It's not the White Dwarf of 10 years ago
-It marks the end of a more classic format of White Dwarf
-It's not White Dwarf
-It's not free
If it were the magazine I truly wanted, it would be a model masterclass journal from Forge World and 'eavy Metal. It's not that. It's not trying to be that. It's a quality printing. It is page after page of glamour shots of my favorite models painted to a very high standard featuring incredible displays and dioramas. There is even a small amount of kit bashing in there. There are no ads. What's not to love? The real issue here is that most of us want to stab GW in the face for their hubris and while they are wasting time on this inconsequential publication, they could be addressing the real problems with the company. Am I right? Why wouldn't you love this? I can still be found nose deep in the citadel catalog from 1996, so yes, gimme pictures of some of the coolest Sh*t ever made.
Visions vs The Internet? An absolute ridiculous comparison. The internet is a terrible magazine and visions is a terrible internet. If that is your reason for not liking this magazine, then why ever read any magazine if you have the internet?
Anyway, that's my review. I'm not sure why I felt that I had to defend my unbiased opinion, but there you have it.
You don't have to defend your opinion, I'm glad you like it. I think you are very much in the minority however. A minority of one, even. But more power to you.
I can't see WHV lasting long however. I cancelled my long running subscription today and I am sure I am not the only one. For once, people aren't threatening to cancel as an empty gesture; this change has been a tipping point for many.
EYEofTERROR wrote: Warhammer: Visions is an awesome magazine. Literally awe-inspiring. It's a painting and hobby journal and is damn inspiring. i thought I would not like it. I am old and have memories of White Dwarf being, hands-down, the best thing printed on news stands. I actually like this last year of White Dwarf compared to the 2 or 3 years previous and am extremely sad to see it go. That being said, I like having the option to buy the promo pamphlet that is the new White Dwarf that features only the models I am going to buy to use as a painting/collector guide or not. Visions has excellent production value. I saw a ton of inspiring stuff in Visions. Once I had it in my hands, I knew it was quality. I would love to have a subscription to this monthly tome of inspiration. I hate that the classic beloved White Dwarf is gone. Especially since this last year of it was actually pretty good, from a hobbyist/painter perspective. White Dwarf is dead, long live White Dwarf! The White Dwarf of old has been undead for years. Visions probably wont last for very long, considering all the hatred it's generated. I suggest you get a copy in your hands just before sitting down for a painting session. Then judge it from that POV. It's an excellent magazine.
EYEofTERROR wrote: LOL! You guys are the punchline! It's funny how cynical everyone is. This magazine delivers what it promises. The only things I see to not like about it is;
-It's not the White Dwarf of 10 years ago
-It marks the end of a more classic format of White Dwarf
-It's not White Dwarf
-It's not free
We know. Just when we thought GW had managed to hit rock bottom with it, they've gone and found the basement.
Seriously cracking my up. I wish I was joking now. It would make my comment hilarious. Still, it can never be as hilarious as the lynch mob that is Dakka, torches and pitch forks in hand, "KILL THE BEAST!", ready to storm GW to draw and quarter Jack Kirby. (I call him Jack cuz he's an ass. Usually referred to as "Jack F'ing Kirby". No disrespect to the King)
I love Dakka. Mad entertainment for my lunch break. OT - This is some delicious Pho.
EYEofTERROR wrote: It is page after page of glamour shots of my favorite models painted to a very high standard featuring incredible displays and dioramas.
Which is fine... except that those models being available to look at for free on the internet already makes buying the magazine somewhat redundant, surely?
The real issue here is that most of us want to stab GW in the face for their hubris and while they are wasting time on this inconsequential publication, they could be addressing the real problems with the company. Am I right?
No, not really. The issue is GW taking White Dwarf and, instead of fixing the issues with it, swapping it out for an expensive magazine full of images that can be found on the internet for free, and shifting White Dwarf into a weekly format that can only be bought in store alongside the new releases it is supposed to be promoting.
Both of those changes just seem completely ridiculous.
...then why ever read any magazine if you have the internet?
Indeed. The very reason that the printed periodical industry is faltering, and why the logic behind releasing an inferior product at a higher price boggles the mind.
I'm not sure why I felt that I had to defend my unbiased opinion, ...
You didn't have to. You're free to your opinion, just as others are free to disagree with it.
Not sure why they asked for feedback or what they're getting out of it...
I'm sure they can get all the feedback they want by a cursory glance at the interwebs... but of course they'd never peruse these sites would they
I vaguely recall Dakka Dakka being mentioned in White Dwarf once many years ago as being a great place to discuss and explore the games further. Am I wrong? Other sites like Bolter and Chainsword and Druchii.net have definitely had a name drop in the distant past.
Druchii.net helped FAQ and errata the Dark Elf army book (not the previous one, the one before that) once. Happy times...
EYEofTERROR wrote: Warhammer: Visions is an awesome magazine. Literally awe-inspiring. It's a painting and hobby journal and is damn inspiring. i thought I would not like it. I am old and have memories of White Dwarf being, hands-down, the best thing printed on news stands. I actually like this last year of White Dwarf compared to the 2 or 3 years previous and am extremely sad to see it go. That being said, I like having the option to buy the promo pamphlet that is the new White Dwarf that features only the models I am going to buy to use as a painting/collector guide or not. Visions has excellent production value. I saw a ton of inspiring stuff in Visions. Once I had it in my hands, I knew it was quality. I would love to have a subscription to this monthly tome of inspiration. I hate that the classic beloved White Dwarf is gone. Especially since this last year of it was actually pretty good, from a hobbyist/painter perspective. White Dwarf is dead, long live White Dwarf! The White Dwarf of old has been undead for years. Visions probably wont last for very long, considering all the hatred it's generated. I suggest you get a copy in your hands just before sitting down for a painting session. Then judge it from that POV. It's an excellent magazine.
It's good that you enjoyed it. I think a lot of people had expected something vastly different which has lead to the colossal disappointment that you are seeing now.
I don't hate the idea of Visions I just think the execution isn't fully for me. I can imagine Visions working very well if they previewed the following months models in it with some design studio art and descriptions from the team.
EYEofTERROR wrote: LOL! You guys are the punchline! It's funny how cynical everyone is. This magazine delivers what it promises. The only things I see to not like about it is;
-It's not the White Dwarf of 10 years ago
-It marks the end of a more classic format of White Dwarf
-It's not White Dwarf
-It's not free
If it were the magazine I truly wanted, it would be a model masterclass journal from Forge World and 'eavy Metal. It's not that. It's not trying to be that. It's a quality printing. It is page after page of glamour shots of my favorite models painted to a very high standard featuring incredible displays and dioramas. There is even a small amount of kit bashing in there. There are no ads. What's not to love? The real issue here is that most of us want to stab GW in the face for their hubris and while they are wasting time on this inconsequential publication, they could be addressing the real problems with the company. Am I right? Why wouldn't you love this? I can still be found nose deep in the citadel catalog from 1996, so yes, gimme pictures of some of the coolest Sh*t ever made.
Visions vs The Internet? An absolute ridiculous comparison. The internet is a terrible magazine and visions is a terrible internet. If that is your reason for not liking this magazine, then why ever read any magazine if you have the internet?
Anyway, that's my review. I'm not sure why I felt that I had to defend my unbiased opinion, but there you have it.
The magazine format is a very bad one for the presentation of pictorial content.
Visions vs The Internet? An absolute ridiculous comparison. The internet is a terrible magazine and visions is a terrible internet. If that is your reason for not liking this magazine, then why ever read any magazine if you have the internet?
You read a magazine for the quality of its journalism, I think for a lot of people that has to be the deciding factor. That's how a lot of magazines, regardless of the subject material they cover, have managed to persist despite the coming of the internet.
The problem with this is that in this new magazine there is zero journalism - you can find any pictures in this magazine online, and a whole lot more besides, which means that ultimately there is no purpose whatsoever for this new magazine's existence. Actually, I think magazine is the wrong word if one is going by the dictionary definition of the term. Catalogue/photo book(?) would be more appropriate.
EYEofTERROR wrote: Warhammer: Visions is an awesome magazine. Literally awe-inspiring. It's a painting and hobby journal and is damn inspiring. i thought I would not like it. I am old and have memories of White Dwarf being, hands-down, the best thing printed on news stands. I actually like this last year of White Dwarf compared to the 2 or 3 years previous and am extremely sad to see it go. That being said, I like having the option to buy the promo pamphlet that is the new White Dwarf that features only the models I am going to buy to use as a painting/collector guide or not. Visions has excellent production value. I saw a ton of inspiring stuff in Visions. Once I had it in my hands, I knew it was quality. I would love to have a subscription to this monthly tome of inspiration. I hate that the classic beloved White Dwarf is gone. Especially since this last year of it was actually pretty good, from a hobbyist/painter perspective. White Dwarf is dead, long live White Dwarf! The White Dwarf of old has been undead for years. Visions probably wont last for very long, considering all the hatred it's generated. I suggest you get a copy in your hands just before sitting down for a painting session. Then judge it from that POV. It's an excellent magazine.
I think its wonderful you've made so much progress that you're now allowed to communicate with people, even with the physical disconnect that the Internet provides.
You should, perhaps, let your carers know that you're not quite ready to fully integrate with society just yet, as I am concerned that you're not fully reconnected with reality.
I'm sure if you keep persevering you'll soon get there.
EYEofTERROR wrote: It is page after page of glamour shots of my favorite models painted to a very high standard featuring incredible displays and dioramas.
....
I'm not sure why I felt that I had to defend my unbiased opinion, but there you have it.
Sorry but I'd just like to point out that maybe the reason your getting responses that make you feel that way is because your opinions don't read as unbiased in the slightest.
Play nice children.... Grumpy's trying to sleep....
While I do not like what I am hearing about WV... if some folks think that it is worth the money for pretty pictures on a printed page... then more power to 'em.
If nothing else it may be something to hand to folks that want to know what can be done with those oddly shaped bits of metal and plastic that crowd your shelves.
I do expect this new magazine to be short lived, and I very much feel that the decision to convert White Dwarf subscriptions to a completely different freakin' type of magazine! was a terrible choice.
One that means that Warhammer Visions will not be judged on its own merits (or the lack thereof) but instead compared to the magazine that it is replacing.
They really should have just replaced the old White Dwarf with the new White Dwarf Weekly.
As it stands... I think that both magazines may have been doomed.
To be fair, there were some cool ork trukks in there, along with a few very nice golden demon winners. Its just too bad they couldnt write a few columns about how they were done and what inspired them.
. That looks absolutely terrible. It's a copy/paste picture book with almost no formatting and almost no text.
at home! 
Seems to be good now... *touches wood*
