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.

What a ridiculous article. What a skewed view and deliberate exertion you employed to make the older magazine appear worse than the new one.

Perhaps you are a columnist for GW eh....


A FIFTH COLUMNIST!!!!!!


j'accuse!

This is what an article written by a shill looks like, kids.

 scarletsquig wrote:

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

No not really.

I think Gareth's article was at odds with the facts, WD sucks and GW is currently too expensive and ran by clueless suits, but he is entitled to his opinion without being personally attacked by.. you guessed it, angry nerds throwing hissy fits.

I'm one of the people that doesn't take the actions of Kirby et al personally. Its merely suits trying to wring all the money out of a company, it neither perplexes nor enrages me, its just the way of the world, and I have resigned myself to spending next to feth all on their products. No need to throw a wobbler.

Considering an enormous amount of people on the internet ARE angry nerds throwing hissy fits, its not far from reality at all though is it?

xttz wrote:
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.

Exact same story here. 217 was around the time I gave on WD as well.

My WD collection starts at issue 17 and goes on without fail to 199. About half of the 200's are there, and only three of the 300's, so you can see when I started to give up on the magazine.

These new ones are just so shoddy and lacklustre in every way - even the text is slightly larger so that, combined with the larger areas of blank paper, less words can be fitted on any given page. How lazy is that? Where are the interesting articles (Chapter Approved?), the little bits of fiction, the artwork - remember how good some of the artwork was? Kevin Walkers Orcs, or the early Adrian Smith work?

Having been reading WD for over 30 years I can safely say that this is the lowest point in quality and content that it has ever reached....


Shame.

Flicked through it at the station today. Seriously, it gets emptier with every edition.

The one bit I like is army of the month, though I wish they'd devote more than two pages to it.

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.

 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.

 warboss wrote:

 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.

Indeed, but Hall of Fame models have nearly always been for general sale, it's just recently I've noticed that a) the models chosen aren't particularly outstanding and b) aren't "classics" in that they are less than a few years old. I feel sculpts need to time mature so you can appreciate them properly. The one exception being when they selected the new Deathmaster Snikch which while less than a year old at the time, truly was an amazing model and well worthy of inclusion. Sternguard though? I mean come on, they're just Space Marines with funny bolters. I've long suspected that Sternguard don't sell well, because anyone with a brain will just use normal Space Marine models, so this felt like a blatant sales push to me (which as you note, it probably was).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

xttz wrote:
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.

Exact same story here. 217 was around the time I gave on WD as well.

Same here too. 217 was literally the last white dwarf I bought. I only got it because GW were having a sale that day and it was 50p (with the free Necron). For me WD always tended to be better at times when GW had specialist games out. It was always cool to get new scenarios for Space Hulk and Man O'War, Necoromunda etc... 134 is invaluable For Space Crusade and Hero Quest. It has new hive ship board sections for Advanced Space Crusade too. Though if you aren't into those games there isn't much else. They didn't have regular battle reports then (which is actually fine by me). That was the thing about old white dwarfs: the focus moved around. Sometimes there was something awesome that you were really stoked about; other times there might be nothing for you, but maybe something for someone else.

I think a much better comparison would be to compare a year in white dwarfs, like 2012-2013 with 1990-1991. That way you can see the range and diversity of articles over a whole year.

However I don't even know if that would prove much. Sometimes things change in ways that are hard to explain, but we still notice the change. I think it is important to remember that white dwarf might not have changed that much at all. Maybe page for page it's better than ever now. But magazines as a medium have changed. In the 1990s owning the latest magazine meant you were on the leading edge of news etc... That is not the case any more. We can just check the latest on the internet. The old white dwarfs might have adverts, and store maps, and mail order catalogue pages. But you have to bear in mind: those things weren't necessarily the spammy waste of space that we consider them now. It was important information that was only available in that magazine. I remember checking the store map loads of times in backs of magazines. Before the internet and sat-nav it was useful information.

Twenty years later all that stuff is available free on the internet, plus a whole lot more like photos and articles. We can also just come to dakka and see great armies and projects done by other collectors. So, we expect something different from the magazine now. That is why people crave original content like modelling articles, card push outs, official rules etc... They are things we can't find elsewhere. If the magazine just keeps delivering us the same old stuff that it did 20 years ago then it becomes superfluous, even if it does it better.

I still have the articles from my previous White Dwarf (early 2000s) all kept in separate plastic sheets, for both systems (I got rid of LOTR, since I didn'T play and knew no one who did).

The last 2 WD I got was the rules for flyers, and the Daemon update. The rest of the mag went promptly into the recycling bins. I can't follow the Batreps anymore, they are not precise enough, or too "cinematic" for my taste.

It's kind of sad actually to see so many new white knights of late still trying to defend GW and the Hob-b-b-y.

And they are not even good at it as well.

Dont worry, no one that plays GW stuff can keep back the tide of bitterness forever. One way or the other GW will blacken your joy.

 Flashman wrote:
Flicked through it at the station today. Seriously, it gets emptier with every edition.

The one bit I like is army of the month, though I wish they'd devote more than two pages to it.

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.

Was that before or after you removed the plastic sleeve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:

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

No not really.

I think Gareth's article was at odds with the facts, WD sucks and GW is currently too expensive and ran by clueless suits, but he is entitled to his opinion without being personally attacked by.. you guessed it, angry nerds throwing hissy fits.

I'm one of the people that doesn't take the actions of Kirby et al personally. Its merely suits trying to wring all the money out of a company, it neither perplexes nor enrages me, its just the way of the world, and I have resigned myself to spending next to feth all on their products. No need to throw a wobbler.

Considering an enormous amount of people on the internet ARE angry nerds throwing hissy fits, its not far from reality at all though is it?

The "I'm happy to accept seond best" attitude may have been the norm in the Royal Marines but in the world of nerds and geeks, heaven help the fool who stops your typical GW gamer from getting his night goblins.


Where is this nostalgia for WD 217 coming from? I've got it to hand, and quite frankly it is horse gak! But to be fair, it's a hundred times better than the latest WD, so how bad is that?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
Flicked through it at the station today. Seriously, it gets emptier with every edition.

The one bit I like is army of the month, though I wish they'd devote more than two pages to it.

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.

Was that before or after you removed the plastic sleeve?

No plastic sleeve this month My flicking was totally legitimate

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
It's kind of sad actually to see so many new white knights of late still trying to defend GW and the Hob-b-b-y.

And they are not even good at it as well.

Dude, it's spelled HHHobby!

I've been saying for years here that if you go back and reread old WDs, they aren't as good as you remember them to be. *shrug*

The joke is that someone here will label me a "white knight" for saying it's been a somewhat consistently mediocre games magazine for long stretches of its history.

This site has sure gotten negative and semi-ugly again.

gorgon wrote:
I've been saying for years here that if you go back and reread old WDs, they aren't as good as you remember them to be. *shrug*

The joke is that someone here will label me a "white knight" for saying it's been a somewhat consistently mediocre games magazine for long stretches of its history.

This site has sure gotten negative and semi-ugly again.

I agree with you, WD was never really that good, and I speak as somebody that bought most of them. Sometimes, this misty eyed nostalgia can get out of hand. But, and it's a but of Jennifer Lopez proportions, at least back then WD tried to be a hobby magazine. You may not have liked it, but nobody doubted the sincerity of the likes of Priestly, Chambers, etc etc.

gorgon wrote:
I've been saying for years here that if you go back and reread old WDs, they aren't as good as you remember them to be. *shrug*

The joke is that someone here will label me a "white knight" for saying it's been a somewhat consistently mediocre games magazine for long stretches of its history.

This site has sure gotten negative and semi-ugly again.

Yes you are right - there were periods when the mag was pretty empty (towards the end of 2nd edition 40k, early 3rd I remember particularly). Having said that, there were periods where it was absolutely stonking, and the current recession of quality content without any good periods has been going on for about 5-6 years now.

In fact, I was looking through at what was quite possibly the last decent edition. This back cover will probably be regarded by many as heralding the death of the magazine. Yes it was that issue..

For me at least the old White Dwarfs (160-210ish) had a lot of writing in them and gave more or less in depth tactica's on things, as well as rules, background and army list entries on some new releases - which is pretty major for a games company's magazine. The only magazine I like now is Games tm - which still has well written articles, not only on particular games but even on the nature of games and the industry in general. I'm not saying this is a great comparison, but I know I at least get informative reading out of the magazine, which White Dwarf no longer provides even on a base level.

Yes they've had some rules in them recently, but they are scant compared to the whole codex/army book extracts you used to get - hell they even published rules they were still working on in some cases. The issues where we got to play Battlefleet Gothic and Mordheim before they were complete games says a lot about where GW has gone since. They seem distant and aloof as opposed to friendly and welcoming.

It was reading the background in those WD's as a kid that dragged me into the setting where its lingered like a familiar smell ever since. The newer WD's are a little counter-productive from this point of view. The fact is I don't necessarily believe a picture is worth a thousand words - pictures aren't as necessary as words IMHO. I don't care how pretty something is if it has no substance to it - the new look WD falls into this category. Sure it's nicely designed and looks pretty but it has no depth - at least the old WD's had a kindly sincerity to them.

gorgon wrote:
I've been saying for years here that if you go back and reread old WDs, they aren't as good as you remember them to be. *shrug*

The joke is that someone here will label me a "white knight" for saying it's been a somewhat consistently mediocre games magazine for long stretches of its history.

This site has sure gotten negative and semi-ugly again.

I personally like the older ones. Yes it's a touch of nostalgia (guilty as charged) but it's also that they were honest - they even had a seperate box at the bottom of the contents that listed the actual adverts. The least a magazine of a games company can do is give me rules, scenarios and a bit of fiction as the main content - rather than giant repeated and almost self-indulgent photos of models I've already seen.

YMMV of course

 kronk wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
It's kind of sad actually to see so many new white knights of late still trying to defend GW and the Hob-b-b-y.

And they are not even good at it as well.

Dude, it's spelled HHHobby!

Roger Wilco at that !

gorgon wrote:
I've been saying for years here that if you go back and reread old WDs, they aren't as good as you remember them to be. *shrug*

The joke is that someone here will label me a "white knight" for saying it's been a somewhat consistently mediocre games magazine for long stretches of its history.

This site has sure gotten negative and semi-ugly again.

Fair enough, I've not collected the magazine since the late 100s. It was getting poorer then, but I simply stopped because my flatmates both ordered it and I could read theirs.

Now early (prior to around 120) it was an amazingly good magazine and prior to the 100s, when it could contain book reviews, CoC adventures, a 40k vs Paranoia scenario and Chapter Approved/Stillmania etc, it was mind blowing and I'd pay a king's ransom for a quality magazine like that again.

Hello,
Coming from 2-3rd edition 40k, I miss the old ones, and perhaps for a strange reason compared to most. I likes the fluff that was story like, and more importantly the art (this is owing to my love of Heavy Metal magazine). I would also like to note, the models were very important iin the old ones because of items like DIY kit bashes (the antiperspirant landspeeder) and creative terrain. Is it still a hobby magazine? Yes, if you are in the hobby of buying just GW stuff and for GW the hobby of over charging you for their drivel, and product catalogs. Regards-Carl

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
It's kind of sad actually to see so many new white knights of late still trying to defend GW and the Hob-b-b-y.

And they are not even good at it as well.

Well, I do make a point of playing games systems that i dont enjoy, made by companies that I don't like, so it's no surprise that I don't defend GW.
Waitaminute! I DO enjoy Warhammer, and I DO like GW!
It all makes sense now!

Wow, that sure was a skewed view on the comparison. Right from the start it was pretty easy to see where it was headed.

Meh, ignore the overly negative stuff OP, I thought the idea of comparing the two was pretty cool and well laid out/pictured.
I dont agree fully with your review but do a few more if you can.
Its fun to see the old stuff highlighted again.

Does anyone recall what was in the Space Marine battlefiorce box for £100?
Thats about 120 quid for us € users these days.
Now considering

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440270a&prodId=prod1060108

is €100 today I wonder did the old one give you more in the box?

I enjoyed the review but Im not one to really hate on GW, if I dont like a price of something I dont buy it, and if I flip through a white dwarf and dont enjoy it I dont buy that either.

Im fairly new to the hobby though so it doesnt bother me if someone writes something that ISNT slamming GW,

Well I guess the advantage you have as well is not being able to draw any unfavourable comparisons to anything that has gone before!

It's gone from a magazine that provided good hobby article such as how to make terrain, giving templates for a variet of vehicles (including a baneblade) and conversions to... Well a catalogue really, and not a good one at that.

I think it boils down to GW redefining the Hobby away from actually making anything from scratch or using any non-gw product. Modelmaking has never been an insular activity- materials, techniques, components and inspiration have always been drawn from a huge number of places. Future floor polish as a varnish was discovered like this. That coffee shop stirrers are simply an essential in a bits box. That a broken pull-back toy car is a great source of gears. GW now mention this with decreasing frequency, and god forbid they tell you where you might get any of the non-gw stuff they mention.

Is it just me, or did the OP suddenly get an avatar?

As I am fairly late to the wargaming scene, my experience with White Dwarfs has only been a few years. They're pretty terrible compared to what I got out of my subscriptions to Dungeon and Dragon when Piazo was doing D&D stuff. They're pretty bland when compared to my No Quarter subscription. However, when my friend who has been doing GW stuff for quite some time showed me the issue of Calgar's Land Raider and the one with the Gnoblar army, I was excited and interested. Unique meaningful content is void from White Dwarf. I can think of two articles that was interesting or at least useful to me from the recent WDs. Non-metalic metal back when Blood Angels were released and the flyer update. Everything else is a blur. Do you know what a bad track record that is? 2 articles out of over 50 magazines released! The magazine is utterly forgettable.