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.

Ok, this is not a question but rather some analysis.

On many boards people claim that White Dwarf is now rubbish and often remember when it so much better, contained less adverts, was kind to its mum and came with a flexidisk every month.

The thing is this "five years" is always stated, it was last year, the year before that and so on. This must mean that this heyday half a decade ago has more to do with nostalgia than the quality of the mag. This kind of subjective memory dressed up a definite fact gets on my nerves so I did some analysis. I took three copies of white dwarf from last year (Oct, Nov & Dec), three from 2010 (366, 365, 364), and three from 2007 (331, 330, 329) and when through them and categorised each page based on a series of criteria.

This should give some substance to the "WD is poo these days" arguments.

Ok here are the categories:
Product Description: Shows a fully painted/complete product with a description of background but no rule details other than names, no stats or points costs
Model Showcase: Shows an example of a product as an example of painting and/or modeling. Includes 'Evay Metal, readers armies, golden demon etc. Does not show step by step guides or paint names. Not enough detail is included to allow a novice modeler/painter to emulate it
[b]Gaming: An article about tactics, a battle report, rules etc. If rules and/or point costs are included it’s a gaming article.
Modelling/Painting: Shows step by step guides and/or paint names. enough detail is included to allow a novice modeler/painter to emulate it, may be a detailed parts listing of a box.
Advert: Has a price or a product code in it.
Opinion: Usually standard bearer or similar. Does not include editorials.
Event: An article about an event, either upcoming or past. It can be very similar to an advert.
Store Listing: The store listing, store openings and other gumph that appears in that section of the mag.
Previews: Shows a green or details about a product without a release date

And the results:



So the new WD has more model show cases, less adverts, less gaming, and more descriptions than 5 years ago and about the same painting and modelling but event coverage has vanished, it costs a quid more in real terms.

WD sucked hard 5 years ago as well.

It's been horrible ever since the giant issue of 314, which is prior to your dataset. Go back to issues 300 and prior if you want examples of a good magazine.

Also you're not taking into account quality. There used to be a *lot* more wordcount and a *lot* less whitespace. Battle reports are prime examples, they used to have a really detailed report with proper unit-by-unit breakdowns and maps for each turns and snippets of background to provide a narrative. These days it's a bunch of 2-page images with a few paragraphs floating around the corners. Massive images everywhere, massively giant fonts, massive amounts of whitespace, complete lack of actual words or any substance to the words that are in there is what has made it low quality, not the relative ratios of "this to that".

The adverts have never been the problem, WD has been loaded with ads for as long as I can remember. The quality of the content is the thing that has gone downhill. I used to be able to spend several evenings reading a WD since it was crammed full of text and really interesting stuff. Now it's barely good for half an hour.

Yeah WD has always had a gak load of adverts (being their hobby and catalogue rolled in one). You could forgive them in the past for having detailed articles about this and that. But WD has always been a glorified catalogue.

 scarletsquig wrote:
WD sucked hard 5 years ago as well.

Go back to issues 300 and prior if you want examples of a good magazine.

I may do what I can find a big bag of round-to-it or fill up my barrel of bother. Any analysis is as good as the dataset.

 scarletsquig wrote:


Also you're not taking into account quality.

That is deliberate as quality is very subjective. Word count could be seen a proxy for quality but requires more effort to collect the data and is, I feel, no better a proxy than page count when the effort required is taken in to account.

 scarletsquig wrote:

The adverts have never been the problem, WD has been loaded with ads for as long as I can remember. The quality of the content is the thing that has gone downhill. I used to be able to spend several evenings reading a WD since it was crammed full of text and really interesting stuff. Now it's barely good for half an hour.

Often it is the perceived increase in adverts that is cited as being an indicator of how rubbish this mag is compared to that which I why I included it in the dataset. As I said in the OP I'm trying to provide some actual data to the arguments.

Personally I agree with you, the quality of the written words has dropped. However people still debate the quality based upon other factors which are usually based on no hard facts.

I'd point out that the dataset does actually support a "pics over words" hypothesis when you compare the amount of model showcases vs gaming articles between the 2012 mags and the 2007 mags. Although this does not tell us anything about the quality of the gaming articles it does show a trend towards pics over words. The increase in product descriptions would also be an indicator of a drop in quality, as I perceive quality.

However some people may actually like the show cases and descriptions, leading them to think the quality has risen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Yeah WD has always had a gak load of adverts (being their hobby and catalogue rolled in one). You could forgive them in the past for having detailed articles about this and that. But WD has always been a glorified catalogue.

Yes it has and the data backs this up, although the percentage of page count the figures are (if one takes a product description to be the same as an advert, I certainly do) show the new WDs are particularly "bad" for it:
"Date" "Percentage of page count" "part of cover price"
01/12/2012 40.3% £2.22
01/11/2012 41.9% £2.31
01/10/2012 42.8% £2.35
01/06/2010 26.7% £1.26
01/05/2010 37.5% £1.77
01/04/2010 21.7% £1.02
01/07/2007 27.3% £1.24
01/06/2007 39.8% £1.80
01/05/2007 25.8% £1.17

WD really went down hill after Paul Sawyer left (2005?) but the seeds of rot were already present for quite some time before that.

I would compare modern WDs with those from 10 years ago as the WDs from 5 years ago were awful.

It was rubbish 5 years ago, it's been poor a long time. My dad bought it from around #110-150, and I started buying regularly from #200-260, and even then the quality wasn't the same but was still decent reading. Into the late #200s I only bought occasionally and my last issue was #300 because I'm a sucker for anniversaries. I quit buying when it went up to £4 and I felt it wasn't worth it, flicking through in the newsagents is enough for me to prove this ever since. It's probably the worst of the modelling/wargaming hobby magazines still in print.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's probably the worst of the modelling/wargaming hobby magazines still in print.

Sadly true,its probably the most expensive as well.

WD wasn't better 5 years ago.

I stopped buying before we hit #220.

Palindrome wrote:WD really went down hill after Paul Sawyer left (2005?) but the seeds of rot were already present for quite some time before that.

I would compare modern WDs with those from 10 years ago as the WDs from 5 years ago were awful.

I think I have some from back then. When I can get round to it I'll extend the dataset.

Howard A Treesong wrote:It was rubbish 5 years ago, it's been poor a long time. My dad bought it from around #110-150, and I started buying regularly from #200-260, and even then the quality wasn't the same but was still decent reading. Into the late #200s I only bought occasionally and my last issue was #300 because I'm a sucker for anniversaries. I quit buying when it went up to £4 and I felt it wasn't worth it, flicking through in the newsagents is enough for me to prove this ever since. It's probably the worst of the modelling/wargaming hobby magazines still in print.

This is a comparison between white dwarfs, not an assessment of if they are rubbish or not. Think "this white dwarf is has more adverts than that one, I think that makes it worse". If you think that all white dwarfs since X edition are rubbish, what objectively is it about the mag that got worse/changed?

H.B.M.C. wrote:WD wasn't better 5 years ago.

I stopped buying before we hit #220.

So you think they have stayed the same or got better? If you think that all white dwarfs since 220 edition are rubbish, what objectively is it about the mag that got worse/changed?

A lot more adverts, a lot more articles being bland, devoid of content and mostly an advert anyway with reduced word count. Little in the way of new and alternative rules and scenarios. Less individuality in display articles, for example a painting article now is typically just showing off the 'eavy metal stuff widely seen elsewhere, nothing of individual staff armies or those sent in by readers. No readers letters, no answers to correspondence, no previews of greens and future projects because of their 'secrecy', no articles on terrain and vehicle scratchbuilding with templates and new rules. Older issues had complex scenarios and details for things like Warhammer Roleplay or Space Hulk, which were chock full of text, new rules, pages to photocopy/cut out for new floor plans and counters.

When 40K was first growing you'd pick up an issue every month and find new rules for vehicles and modelling articles. Now there's just nothing creative about White Dwarf. The older issues you can read and re-read again and are a mine of useful articles for modelling and gaming scenarios. What exactly is White Dwarf now? It's padded out previews of their new models and some lacklustre battle reports and a huge wodge at the back, very similar each month, devoted to lists of their shops. Not only is the written quality less than it was, there's also a lot more white space last I looked, which is astounding given how padded it is with adverts. The real difference is, in years gone they wanted to support your hobby, now they want you to buy, and the magazine promotes only that.

Koppo wrote:
So you think they have stayed the same or got better? If you think that all white dwarfs since 220 edition are rubbish, what objectively is it about the mag that got worse/changed?

Not every issue since 220 has been rubbish. It would be foolish to claim that every issue since Issue #X has been bad, because not every issue is the same. There are peaks and troughs across every year, but the trend is downwards (ie. the bad issues are worse than the bad issues of a year before, and the good issues aren't as good as the previous good issues). The most recent crop since the "reboot" have been terrible - full of massive dark pictures with little text, and what text is there is just telling you what's in the picture. 50 pages of new releases and then articles talking about those new releases. It's a monstrous waste of money and resources for what essentially a giant catalogue of no real gaming/hobby value.

The reason I liked WD's is because of the Battle Reports. Rigged or not they told a fun story, and it was great seeing these armies fighting over the studio terrain. Around 220 something happened, and rather than turn-by-turn reports with detailed maps and interesting descriptions of what the players did each turn, we got a few iso-metric photographs of the table with a few arrows pointing to events with a line or two about it, a bit of an intro, and then a summation by each of the players. It was a few pages long. No detailed lists and reasons for why the players took what they took, no turn-by-turn information. Just intro, some photos, outtro. It took me a while to see it, but the WD's I was buying weren't the WD's I had started with. Even as far back as the oldest issue I own (100 something, the one with the first ever 40K BatRep, back during 1st Ed 40K, Blood Anges vs Eldar). That had turn-by-turn descriptions and maps and all sorts of things. As soon as that went, I lost interest.

Now that format returned over the years - I remember City Fight gave us a Bat Rep like that, and I think when the Trial Assault Rules in 3rd Ed came out we got a good BatRep between Pete Haine's Iron Warriors and someone else - but it's never been consistent. Now we don't even get the articles we used to get. A terrain building article where they show us a massive crashed shuttle, and what it's made from and so on is replaced by how they kit bashed a bunch of GW plastic terrain kits to make something. Every battle - almost every photograph - takes place on a Realm of Battle Board. Painting guids show pictures of all their Specially™ Branded™ New™ Paints™ And™ The™ Order™ You™ Use™ Them™ In™. It's worthless.

And, worse, it's soulless.

I think the new WD looks great but has no real substance. The painting guides are ok but you need the painting books to understand the terms and really apply it right. I bought every WD they published from the early 90's until a few years ago. The big difference is the lack of fluff and stories. I seem to remember short stories set in WFB and Chapter Approved. This was basically fluff updates and exploring 40k universe. The magazine supported the warhammer world and supplemented the story lines. That's what was cool about it.

Ok, I've added two from back in 2000, 246 and 247 (oldest ones I can put my hands on)

I first started buying at WD256, and I can STILL go back and re-read those first few issues I bought and enjoy them. 12 years later! For me the noticeable drop in quality, was after Paul Sawyer left, it seems a lot more clinical now, less friendly. It used to be real people and contributors sharing their hobby for the fun of it.

Same here; I have a stack of WD's from the low 100's through to late 100's/200's - that was when WD was at it's best I think. Go see some of HBMC/Kid Kyoto's retro WD reviews for evidence of the content.

I think for me the numbers in the dataset sum this up for me, the earliest two mags had 74 and 77 pages of stuff to use in or about gaming,by that I mean playing with toy soldiers, but the newest one have only about 17 pages that are about playing with toy soldiers.

As Howard A Treesong says, the white space difference is striking. Without actually measuring it putting any article side by side it's probably 4 to four times as much back in 2000.

If fact, I'll compare a battle report from this month's (Jan) WD with one from WD247 in raw column inches:

July 2000 WD 247 136 vertical column inches of text
Jan 2013 WD XXX 123 vertical column inches of text

But the font is different, you can fit roughly 13% more words in the same same space with the old text so the actual difference is:

July 2000 WD 247 153 vertical column inches of text
Jan 2013 WD XXX 123 vertical column inches of text

So the old bat rep was 25% bigger than the new one. It was also more fun to read, by 124.8% and a sheckel.

I started playing back in 2nd Edition 40K, and I remember the White Dwarf was much better then. Nearly every issue had card inserts that were used to make terrain, or they were extra data cards or counters for their games, and WD even had *gasp* rules in it back then.

 40kFSU wrote:
I think the new WD looks great but has no real substance. The painting guides are ok but you need the painting books to understand the terms and really apply it right. I bought every WD they published from the early 90's until a few years ago. The big difference is the lack of fluff and stories. I seem to remember short stories set in WFB and Chapter Approved. This was basically fluff updates and exploring 40k universe. The magazine supported the warhammer world and supplemented the story lines. That's what was cool about it.

I find myself in agreement with this. SOME of the painting guides are good, but it's nothing that you can't already find online, but other than that I feel like WD doesn't have much "meat" to it anymore. I don't even read the B-reps, because honestly, they don't even put out good b-reps in WD. Ten years ago was around the time I actually stopped subscribing because the quality was decreasing. I really liked the short stories they had too, and the Chapter Approved stuff was really good. They used to put out Chapter Approved compilations too, which were basically thicker-than-codex updates to the game to add more content (like the Vehicle Design Rules, Sisters of Battle I believe?). Those were cool.

The stuff that came with White Dwarf used to be far more interesting too. Codex: Assassins, the very first Necron Warrior, cardstock buildings, I believe there was a cool Wargear supplement that was later expanded on and released as Codex: Wargear too? Nowadays, we get...fold-out posters. Yay.

Well the WD was better summer 2011-summer 2012, when they tried to get actual content back into the magazine. Downside was that essential rules and even a complete WD Codex were made limited edition.

Remember when WD featured cardboard terrain or a multipage background text on Kroot with legal mercenary list? That's what a WD can be in the hands of a capable team.

And I don't believe that the presentation/list of GW stores was always as excessive as now, with 10 pages list plus 2-6 pages store presentation.

White dwarf used to be a great gaming mag back when i used to buy it - some time back in the 80's. It wasn't just wahammer or even just GW stuff. Covered various RPGs as well as other stuff.

I had a look at my new White Dwarf the other day. 4 issues into the new format now and enough time for them to deliver on all their promises.

Now i quite like the new Dwarf, it looks slick and actually like a high quality magazine. However looking at the actual content although the page count has gone up by 40 pages or so its all taken by their lavish promotion of the new releases.

Old WD new Releases: 12 pages
New WD releases: 50! Pages (essentially adverts with quite frankly embarrassing trumpet blowing)

Now some of the other content is quite good and i will actually read it but overall the content quantitiy is far below what i would expect for a 5.50 magazine. This month was slightly better than most with the GD entries but on the whole its all style and little substance. I think my favourite bit of the magazine is actually the bit in the back after the store list.

Im a subscriber (for my sins) so i dont mind at the moments as my subscription hasnt gone up so im not paying anymore, but as soon as it increases i think ill be at the jumping off point.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Fat Bloke Dwarf ruled. 'Nuff said

My first ever WD was issue 120, which was, to my mind, smack in the middle of a golden age. I picked up a lot of back issues, as far back as issue 27, and a few in the 50s. I have a lot from 80-100 and most from 100-120. I would say the golden age was the late 90s to the early 150s. I still read some of those ones every so often as they had some cracking Rogue Trader stuff in, good Epic stuff, cool Space Hulk scenarios, interesting conversions... The battle reports of that era actually made sense and could actually give you ideas of tactics for your own games, especially the WFB battle reports.

Yeah, I second the praise for 2nd Ed era stuff with free buildings, but even older than that was amazing. I picked up a loads of reeeeally old back issues, with Gobsmasha and Baneblade templates in, that kind of thing... proper hobby stuff, not just sales.

Edit: oh, yeah, and Necromunda stuff was drip-fed in WD and was ace. They NEED to bring back Necromunda, it's literally their best game ever. Yes, even better than Space Hulk, I went there...

Did you catch the Confrontation stuff they put in WD?

I remember all those buildings and cards. Does anyone else recall histories of some of the traitor legions? Back when epic was in production? I also remember stories about Felix and Gotreck. Also short stories that coincided with army book and codex releases.

I still have the original metal gargoyle, SoB, and Necron warrior from the WD releases. Yes, they used to include one preview model with your WD.

What issue are we up to now?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
When 40K was first growing you'd pick up an issue every month and find new rules for vehicles and modelling articles. Now there's just nothing creative about White Dwarf. The older issues you can read and re-read again and are a mine of useful articles for modelling and gaming scenarios. What exactly is White Dwarf now? It's padded out previews of their new models and some lacklustre battle reports and a huge wodge at the back, very similar each month, devoted to lists of their shops. Not only is the written quality less than it was, there's also a lot more white space last I looked, which is astounding given how padded it is with adverts. The real difference is, in years gone they wanted to support your hobby, now they want you to buy, and the magazine promotes only that.

This pretty much sums up my position. I'm open to arguments that perhaps I've simply become more cynical in my 30s while simultaneously I was more impressionable as a teenager in the 90s. Perhaps my preference for earlier issues is, boiled down, more nostalgia for the years when all I did was hang out and game with my friends. While all that may be true, I can still definitely say that WD has become so poor that I have no intention of ever buying it in the foreseeable future (especially at current prices). I'll admit that I bought the first 're-vamped' issue out of curiosity but haven't even skimmed through one since.

 scarletsquig wrote:
WD sucked hard 5 years ago as well.

It's been horrible ever since the giant issue of 314, which is prior to your dataset. Go back to issues 300 and prior if you want examples of a good magazine.

Also you're not taking into account quality. There used to be a *lot* more wordcount and a *lot* less whitespace. Battle reports are prime examples, they used to have a really detailed report with proper unit-by-unit breakdowns and maps for each turns and snippets of background to provide a narrative. These days it's a bunch of 2-page images with a few paragraphs floating around the corners. Massive images everywhere, massively giant fonts, massive amounts of whitespace, complete lack of actual words or any substance to the words that are in there is what has made it low quality, not the relative ratios of "this to that".

The adverts have never been the problem, WD has been loaded with ads for as long as I can remember. The quality of the content is the thing that has gone downhill. I used to be able to spend several evenings reading a WD since it was crammed full of text and really interesting stuff. Now it's barely good for half an hour.

Couldn't agree with this more - I think generally around 310 or so is regarded as the benchmark, with the magazine moving downhill fairly rapidly after that.

Certainly, it has been poor for a lot longer than 5 years.

White Dwarf issues up to #300 were far and above better than they are now.

-Full mini-boardgames like Brewhouse Bash and Dark Eldar pit-fighting, and expansions to Warhammer Quest and Blood Bowl being included freely.

-punch-out cardstock terrain

-some rare issues came bagged with promo models. Like the issue about Assault on Black Reach (though that was after issue 300 if I remember right) coming with a free Nob and a Terminator.

-a much more friendly writing style, with Tale of Four gamers, fan-letters, Chapter Approved articles for zany things(Kroot Merc and Feral Ork armies!!), etc.

-Used to be terrain articles didn't just act as sales articles telling you to buy four of a given GW terrain kit. They told you alternate sources to get materials, and how to use such materials. Sometimes even templates to make buildings from.

-Kill Team and the "40K in 40 minutes" rules came from White Dwarf, as well as the VDR rules