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.

Hey everyone,

I know its hard, but please try to refrain from posting about how you think WD quality sucks now and why would anyone buy it, etc, out of this thread. Just trying to ask an actual question/bring up an interesting point.


I've been keeping up a WD index here on Dakka for a while now. And just recently I noticed something extremely odd. The last issue of WD that actually featured a number on the cover was September (issue 392):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/White_Dwarf_Index_376-400_%28US%29#WD_392


But strangely, the April issue is labeled as being issue #400...but that doesn't work.

September - 392
October - 393
November - 394
December - 395
January - 396
February - 397
March - 398
April - 399
May - 400


As you can see, the May issue (the current one) *should* be issue 400, not the April (Tau) one.

I know in the past there has been some discrepancy between the UK and US issue numbers, is this the cause?

Can someone with the UK version confirm whether September (the Dark Angel issue) was also listed as issue 392 for you guys?



Very odd indeed!

Cue X-Flies theme song

September 2012 was 393 in the UK, you lot must have missed a month somewhere.

 Darkjim wrote:
September 2012 was 393 in the UK, you lot must have missed a month somewhere.

Well, no wonder they nixed the whole numbering system then!


Still, they managed to somehow line up all the previous big issues (like 300, etc) here in the US with the UK version, so I don't know what happened in this case!

That would explain ditching the numbers, if there were discrepancies in issue numbers worldwide. So someone stole an issue number from GW US, I presume the Feds are on it.

May 2006 was issue 317, the first for a long time here with year/month on the spine. Assuming that corresponds with your 317, you must have fallen behind since, and as May 2013 is 401, by my ropey maths (and a quick scan of the spines since) that means we haven't gained an Xmas issue or anything, so one of yours is definitely missing sometime before 392 (at which point you were already out, 392 is August 2012 here).

They billed April's #400 as being a special double issue. With some creative flexing for an attempt at marketing one might consider the double page count as being equal to issue 399 & 400 in one combined issue?

Having a large quad-century mark along with a full army release looks a lot better than 399, and if your measure is based on page count its still technically accurate.

Nope, as above the US were already wrong in 2012. This could go all the way to the top!

There was usually a 1-issue number discrepancy between the UK and US editions of WD (we used to get the same issue numbers as the UK, only a month late).

They probably yoinked the "missing one" from the US edition when they went to the "one release" magazine. So all countries get the same content in the same month.

They've done it before, too.

The editor ordered a Royale with cheese using the metric system.

You know what they call White Dwarf in France? 'Le White Dwarf'.

Actually, given the eye-popping French-painted evidence on here, I suspect they call it 'A mag full of paintjobs we could do with our feet'.

For a reference point much further back, issue 232 in the UK was the BFG release, which I mention just for poignancy, if that corresponds I can help back to about issue 180

 Darkjim wrote:
You know what they call White Dwarf in France? 'Le White Dwarf'.

Well, that's because of the metric system.