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 suspect that the decision on which magazine would be best was predetermined long before the article was started. OP needs to take his own advice and remove the rose colored goggles that praise battle reports with minimal text and filler pics showing templates held over units while downplaying things like free models and rules to a single by the way mention. The new white dwarf is pretty but has less meaningful content despite the added pagecount.

You seem to be intent on comparing the two directly together with zero regard for the technology and hobby practices that were available during the time the earlier magazine came out. Dinging the old magazine pics for not having fancy digitally added and modified backgrounds whereas the new one does? They didn't simply decide not to use them but rather that the technology didn't exist in a usable form. Terrain in the old magazine downgraded because it was mainly scratch built and not from CAD design plastic kits? Every piece of terrain back then except for the occasional minimal detail cloned ruin wall was scratch built. Any comparison of the two issue should take into account the relative quality that the issue had compared with the available magazines/competition at the time as well. Do the pictures and printing look better in the new ones? Sure, but the technology has improved in the intervening 15 years to allow it. You might as well compare a 67 mustang to the 2013 model and ding the old one for not having air conditioning, power seats, and GPS as available options.Then you poo poo the importance of the things that haven't changed or don't mention them at all like meaningful content in the battle report or a free figure with the issue. Can you imagine how happy people would be if they got a finecast figure with the chaos issue? I'm sure if that were the case for the RECENT magazine and the metal fig wasn't in the old one that you would have put that front and center in the blog article. There is probably double or more wordcount on the old battlereport compared with the new one and you don't seem to mention that despite dinging the old magazine for having less articles.

 Flashman wrote:

Hall of Fame has also started to promote suspiciously recent models of late. This month was Sternguard which are hardly standouts across the entire range.

Since every article on every page is geared towards selling you models via the White Dwarf catalog, it behooves them (with that motivation in mind) to highlight models that they still actually sell as opposed to plugging stuff they don't anymore despite that route being the more common sense approach to a "hall of fame" series of articles.