Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When was the last time the WD had a detailed tutorial on how to build terrain?

Thanks.

 Sigvatr wrote:
When was the last time the WD had a detailed tutorial on how to build terrain?

Thanks.

They still have them.

1.Pick up WD.
2. Read advertorial for new wall of martyred skulls defence bastion.
3. .....
4. Profit!

Wd is just a tutorial to buy branded stuff.

OK guys well there we go, we were all wrong!

Hehe, and now I remember why I had the OP on my ignore list.

Yeah pretty poor blog really - you need to do a more thorough comparison with more issues.

I gave the 'New Look' WD a try but wasn't impressed enough to keep buying.

Personally, I much prefer the older WDs, much more interesting content. Having said that, I prefer to read the P&M section on Dakka if I want to see tuorials, kit bashes, conversions, painting guides, etc...

What a laughable review.

I love the "the new one has a higher page count therefore it wins!". You realise that the first 50 pages of each new WD is just endless giant pictures (and fold-outs) of new releases right? It's 50 pages of advertising for the current month's release. The new WD has no worth.

I also love the how the old issues had their photos always on green tables with the same terrain. Look over any issue from that era and you'll see a wide variety of terrain, virtually all of it scratch built. Look at an issue today. Every shot takes place on a Realm of Battle Board. All terrain is available in stores. Nothing scratch built. No variety. Just one stamped out production official piece of terrain after another (and of course this goes back to the "when's the last time we had a terrain building article in WD?" question).

It only gets more laughable when you realise that the issue you're comparing it to came with a free model.

Strange article.

"Models are better now because they are plastic instead of metal, and "so much bigger".
"Terrain is better now because it is plastic instead of cardboard."

What do either of those things have to do with the article quality of the magazine?

Note that the older article gives some basic homebrew terrain advice as well, such as making a gaming board out of chipboard and making buildings from balsa wood and card, it presents both options (homebrew and buying from GW) as equally viable options. The new terrain "article" is just a giant image, nothing else. Boring.


Also, the painting tutorial in the old WD (while being one of the worser ones) is actually quite achievable for beginners painting their first models everything you need from start to finish, with some basics like drybrushing, the new one takes a whole page to focus on forsaken skin.

The old one tells you everything you need to paint a regiment from start to finish, like the guides on your Tale of Painters website do. It wasn't very long ago that GW stopped doing proper painting tutorials in their magazine, I recall an excellent guide to painting orks when Black Reach was released.

Article completely misses the fact that new WD has almost no wordcount at all, there's nothing to read. It's all whitespace, GIANT FONTS and 2-page images. Count the actual words in the magazine, compare them, and see which has the most content. Old one win hands down despite having fewer pages.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
He's got his models appearing in the magazine on a regular basis. I guess he thinks its good press to be praising it in the typical in no way biased GW approach. If he were to offer an opinion otherwise then that'd be counterproductive to this I suspect.

But, if anything, it does provide an insight into what the current WD mindset is, if it is only from the viewpoint of a guy who wrote a short article. =P

Talk to any of their employees these days, its like they have a bomb strapped to their logic and morality centers of their brain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What a laughable review.

I love the "the new one has a higher page count therefore it wins!". You realise that the first 50 pages of each new WD is just endless giant pictures (and fold-outs) of new releases right? It's 50 pages of advertising for the current month's release. The new WD has no worth.

I also love the how the old issues had their photos always on green tables with the same terrain. Look over any issue from that era and you'll see a wide variety of terrain, virtually all of it scratch built. Look at an issue today. Every shot takes place on a Realm of Battle Board. All terrain is available in stores. Nothing scratch built. No variety. Just one stamped out production official piece of terrain after another (and of course this goes back to the "when's the last time we had a terrain building article in WD?" question).

It only gets more laughable when you realise that the issue you're comparing it to came with a free model.

And more laughable when you realize the guy writing the review is published in the new one.

^Hmm, in that case I'm starting to wonder if the OP is intended as a deliberate troll post.

The phrasing of "win over some rage quitters before they leave the hobby for good" is suspect.

"Rage-quitters" implies that everyone losing interest in GW is some kind of angry nerd throwing a hissy fit. Quite far from reality.

"Leave the hobby" implies that no other wargames other than Games Workshop games exist, when the reality is that most people not playing much in the way of GW anymore are instead playing a whole bunch of other stuff.

Couple it with the avatar and it's a little bit suspect.

Another thing I noticed - The article goes to great lengths about "things are so much better now" by highlighting plastic terrain and minis, but then convieniently ignores the fact that a whole 4 different specialist games are either advertised or have articles for them in the old WD.

Terrible biased review. I have never been a WD subscriber, but that's one of the few White Dwarves I own and I've gone back and read parts of it several times over the years. In fact I own 2 of the Necron Warriors that came free with it, it was an excellent model. Things like the more detailed battle reports were why I could spend a lot of time reading it.

 scarletsquig wrote:
The phrasing of "win over some rage quitters before they leave the hobby for good" is suspect.

It's not suspect at all. It's far easier to simply attack your opponent than attack any particular points they raise. "You're just a hater" is the Internet equivalent of "You're a racist!". Once you've said it you don't have to come up with a cogent (or even a coherent) thought. It's a get out of jail free cards for people who cannot think for themselves.

So it's not suspect, it's expected.

The comment section tells you exactly who the 'modern' White Dwarf is aimed at.

Many of the comments on this page reflect what Ihad half typed in my original reply before deleting them as I could not think of how to say them.

So thanks guys

Funny, I post a thread about objectively comparing WDs and then this appears, which attempts to do that but with a bias, I think I may have started something [pumps up ego and feeling of self importance].

Remember, the older mags had more words per inch than the new.

Personally the older ones were a better read, as I was collating the numbers I found myself reading and being very intrested in the article in the older mags while so far I have found about 15 mins of reading pleasure in the most recent "new look" mags.

I may do a side by side myself.

I just realised - this issue introduced a whole new race to 40K, and apparently we're nothing but 'haters' looking back at it with rose tinted glasses compared to the 'better' new WD?

Such an amazing disconnect.

Firstly 'I'm getting all glassy-eyed from nostalgia, as the Jan 1998 issue was my first ever WD (and the impetus that got me into wargaming).

It's a shame really, as despite the revamp, I still find myself unable to sit down and actually read a WD, just because the whole thing is a picture-fest that distracts me from reading what little actual text is there. Still, I've decided to cancel my subscription from february, as I'm finding that even as 'on the golden throne' reading it's severely lacking in anything to keep me hooked for longer than 30 seconds...

 scarletsquig wrote:
Another thing I noticed - The article goes to great lengths about "things are so much better now" by highlighting plastic terrain and minis, but then convieniently ignores the fact that a whole 4 different specialist games are either advertised or have articles for them in the old WD.

Hey, the old issue deserves a ton of bonus points for acknowledging that specialist games exist.

I find myself increasingly interested in trying stuff like Gorkamorka and I think it's a shame that they're kept in relative obscurity today (outside of fan communities).

Where exactly is the reviewer featured in the current WD?

I don't know if people remember my review of White Dwarf a few months back, but the OP pretty much posted the same comment attacking anybody that disliked WD as "rage quitters."

There ought to be a picture of his avatar in the dictionary under the word 'bias.'

I remember that issue of WD from 1998 and I didn't think it was up to much at the time, but it was a damn sight better than the fare they serve up these days.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Where exactly is the reviewer featured in the current WD?

I don't think he was in the current WD, I seem to remember his army being featured in the first of the new format WDs.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't know if people remember my review of White Dwarf a few months back, but the OP pretty much posted the same comment attacking anybody that disliked WD as "rage quitters."

There ought to be a picture of his avatar in the dictionary under the word 'bias.'

I remember that issue of WD from 1998 and I didn't think it was up to much at the time, but it was a damn sight better than the fare they serve up these days.

To be exact he said your review was amateurish, then plugged himself by sending you a link to a review on his own site... Afterwards he said that he was justified in that he was defending his own article (I just found his responses to be rude).

 Gareth wrote:
I love a lot of the people in here slating WD haven't even bought it this month.

I for one love it, but then I have 2 whole pages of my models photographed by me in a global magazine bought by thousands.

Head over to Tale of Painters for a proper review by Stahly

Spoiler:

http://taleofpainters.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/review-white-dwarf-december-2012.html

Spoilered because of blatant self advertisement =P

I used to like Gareth's work, and I do visit Tale of Painters now and then, but I don't think I can take that kind of egotistical crap. So a "proper" review is full of pro-GW bias and eventually ends with "New WD is better because new models are better and look prettier in pictures!"? And we can't argue with him on any point because he was featured in the magazine and thousands of people bought it just to see his work? I was happy for the guy when I first found out about him being featured, but he is clearly letting that gak get to his head and needs to come back down a few pegs.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Seems to be a bit of bs written here. He bends over backwards to sing the praises of the new issue having 46 pages of new product reviews whereas the old one has 6, which is then criticised for not having much detail. The new one of course has more detail, well one would hope so given they use nearly eight times as many pages. Then he later criticises the old issue for having more adverts. He jests surely?

I don't think he realizes that the 46 pages of product review he mentions are nothing but an advertisement.

Or that "pretty pictures" is pretty pointless considering I don't need a White Dwarf to see them. By the time the WD hits shelves the models are already up for advance order with clear, high-res pictures and 360 degree views of each to look at. And sometimes the mood-lighting and crap is actually detrimental, makes it harder to see detail that way when every one of the new models is bathed in some god-awful red light because CHAOS.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Or that "pretty pictures" is pretty pointless considering I don't need a White Dwarf to see them. By the time the WD hits shelves the models are already up for advance order with clear, high-res pictures and 360 degree views of each to look at.

You know they're going to start charging for this via a pay wall or some such, right

The new WD is the ultimate in all style no content. Lots of pretty pictures and little else.

My subscription is still coming out at the old rate so im not that bothered at the moment but the second it goes up im jumping ship.

The failure to disclose the OP's relationship to the new WD is an awful ethical breach.

Beyond all the things mentioned, the article shows complete disregard on how technology has progressed between the years, one may freely disregard the bridges of the ancient world as been short and simple in comparison with today's massive steel bridges, but back then it was a pinnacle of technology.

Back then GW models were some of the best you could find, now not really, back then they covered more gaming systems so they needed to devote more pages in their catalog, now just 3, while at it back then the catalog had a use, mail ordering parts was useful, now its just plain advertisement.

For me the WD follows a linear decline the further back you go the better it is, sad but also true.

I just had a quick at issue 17, Feb/Mar 1980......60p for 31 pages of pure nostalgia, and the cover is still better than the new ones.

Funnily enough, WD217 was one of the last ones I bought. Even back then I saw it becoming more catalogue and less hobby. I think a lot of the nostalgia comes from far earlier issues, such as the early late 80's and early 90's where you'd see guides for scratch-building tanks, or support for more than 1 game in each setting.

I'd be interested to see a comparison with an issue from 20 years ago. Although not by the OP of course, that review was terrible. Better quality models count toward the quality of the magazine written to sell them - really?