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.

I noticed that the WD magazine has a new managing editor: Andrew Kenrick. Seems strange to me. What happened to the previous one?

I also realized that the German WD magazine has a complete new editorial staff when compared with that 5 years ago.

What's the reason that the editors change so often?

It was apparently the last one that turned WD from what it was into the over-rated glossy monthly catalog.

Alessio Cavatore mentioned in an interview (after he left) that he had been shown the door and that WD was on the improve and getting back to what it was more like before him.

Hence the new rules and stuff in this edition.

I miss Fat Bloke.

wuestenfux wrote:I noticed that the WD magazine has a new managing editor: Andrew Kendrick. Seems strange to me. What happened to the previous one?

He moved to work in the design studio.

I miss Thrud the Barbarian, Critical Mass and (original) Chapter Approved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
NOW GIMME MA SABBAT MINIFLEXIDISK!!

I miss Gobbledigook. And Nibl.

I loved that spoof 'Dark Future' episode of gobbledigook when Gobbo's car pulls up and instead of the Turner, Harvest and Ramirez motto 'you no longer have a problem', it had 'NO! YOU 'AVE A LONGER PROBLEM' scrawled down the side.

Happy days.

BrookM wrote:I miss Fat Bloke.

+1

CT GAMER wrote:

BrookM wrote:I miss Fat Bloke.

+1

+2

My question about their editors these days is whether they've actually ever had any training as such. I didn't make it through the first article before I had to put it down out of frustration. Breaking up four half-pages of article with over seven pages of "oooh, shiny" is plain ridiculous, not to mention showing a complete lack of regard for decent layout practices. On top of that, there is an astounding number of typos throughout the issue.

Also, what the hell is with every article discussing anything involving GW needing to use the term "bespoke" at least once? I picture their office looking like Pee-Wee's Playhouse, and every five minutes someone jumps up and yells "BESPOKE," eliciting raucous cheers from the entire staff, who then continue as though nothing happened until the next time someone manages to work it into their article and repeats the process.

BrookM wrote:I miss Fat Bloke.

As long as he's not playing in Batreps, as he was the worst offender of not actually knowing the rules.

BrookM wrote:I miss Fat Bloke.

Jesus feth, you're a lousy shot.

Forget Fat Bloke.
He was once asked what do to vs DE and he said that he would bring his Marines. Hah.

I met Paul Sawyer in the studio back in 2000 and although he may have been having a bad day, he was the only person who was a complete tool. Everyone else was uniformly awesome.

Personally I'd like WD to go back to the 140-180 era when the fluff articles were vast walls of awesome text with great artork, eavy metal stuff, coverage of the latest release and a battle report.
The dumbing down of the fluff has been very annoying.

To be frank, WD is a pretty long way down from the pinnacle of the journalistic profession.

It's a house mag.

If GW wanted to they could have it published for them by one of the companies which specialises in the magazines you find in trains and planes.

The reason they don't is because explaining the whole company culture would be a big PITA and they can easily hire enthusiastic students cheaply who already know it.

Needless to say these guys aren't going to be the best writers and sub-editors.

On the plus side they should bring a knowledge and enthusiasm to the magazine so what you trade off in quality of writing you should get back in quality of content.

If management let them.

Kilkrazy wrote:
On the plus side they should bring a knowledge and enthusiasm to the magazine so what you trade off in quality of writing you should get back in quality of content.

That's some pretty big shoulds!