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.

The 2016 NuGW was depressing because it showed just how little GW had to actually improve before people were acting, and still act, like it was a revolution despite largely being setting up a basic "How do you do fellow kids?" social media presence and starting a few discount boxes.

The bar is set so low for them and they still struggle to grasp it.

 Overread wrote:


I think late stage Kirby was just showing that not only was Kirby more of a numbers guy than anything else (which to be fair he was an accountant); but that he and his management team were far too isolated and separate from the actual hobby, company and customers. It felt very much like they were the "suits" running the show, but didn't really understand what they were running beyond the numerical breakdown of sales figures. As a result you got a lot of strange choices, baffling ideas, short term focus and basically a whole list of things that were very unpopular with the actual customers; and likely also staff under them. Thing is when that happens at the top it spreads through so it takes ages to weed such thinking out of any firm.

Did GW as a whole suffer losses during his tenure? I know that when people chewed over the annual financials, the descriptors for the US were all euphemisms for "not going well," but I got away from the hobby after that and lost track. I don't think they ever had losses in the core UK/European markets.

The shareholder system can work, but you often have to remember that many of the shareholders are only in it for fast gains and that pandering to their desires will often sink your company because fast profits, high rises and constant increase is often totally unsustainable for most firms. You can chase it, but often as not it will break you in the long run. Which some managers are fine with because they've loaded themselves up on stock and can sell out before the crash (and then pray they don't get caught).

You also have problems when the leadership forgets what the company is supposed to be doing. General Motors famously became a benefits plan with a side business of selling cars. Or you get CEOs who want to make the "brand" about trendy causes rather than return on investment.

I think Kirby's exit was an opportunity for the new leadership to make a clean break (always important in a corporate environment) but there's an institutional expectation that GW experience profit growth through price hikes rather than enlarging the customer base.

I use a mix of 3rd party and 1st party minis in my 95th Praetorian Rifles. I don't go to GWs with this army; I play by their rules when I'm in their house. It's only fair. How am I hurting the hobby?

The answer is simple. I'm not.

 Overread wrote:
Eh its just common sense. Any other brand would do the same thing and heck many other brands already DO ban 3rd party or restrict things at their own official events too. The only difference is GW are way more copied than most others and GW have their own stores to enforce policy, whilst the rest is down to purely local events, local stores and local reps (who in most cases outside of the club nearest to the company's factory/home base; is just volunteers from the community).

So yeah there's nothing really all that surprising in that article.
It's sound basic logic that's been said for ages.

Every brand aggressively pursues a 'no model, no rules' policy, shapes their rules to exactly what comes in their kits, and retires model lines that don't lend themselves to tightly-controlled product ecosystems with legally defensible IP?

GW didn't take this tack until after an infamous lawsuit, but once they did, it was sound basic logic that's been said for ages?

I think some people are a little quick to justify GW internal policy. Logical though it may be- at least for the shareholder bottom line- GW's overly zealous attitude towards quashing any possibility of third-party minis isn't a universal thing.

That's the funny thing--whatever logic is used to justify it, the actual reason was GW lost the Chapterhouse lawsuit.

Well they claimed they invented arrows, skulls, Roman numerals and the concept of a "Grenade Launcher", so what did they think was going to happen?

 Arbitrator wrote:
The 2016 NuGW was depressing because it showed just how little GW had to actually improve before people were acting, and still act, like it was a revolution despite largely being setting up a basic "How do you do fellow kids?" social media presence and starting a few discount boxes.

That is a vast understatement of the changes they made. Not because their new state was so awesome, but because the previous state was so poor that going to a decent level of community-friendliness was a dramatic improvement. At the end of the day many people do want to like GW but they are matched if not exceeded by those who want to hate GW, whereas the overwhelming majority simply shrug and adjust purchase practices accordingly.

It is easier to just lay blame around, but it isn't accurate.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
The 2016 NuGW was depressing because it showed just how little GW had to actually improve before people were acting, and still act, like it was a revolution despite largely being setting up a basic "How do you do fellow kids?" social media presence and starting a few discount boxes.

That is a vast understatement of the changes they made. Not because their new state was so awesome, but because the previous state was so poor that going to a decent level of community-friendliness was a dramatic improvement. At the end of the day many people do want to like GW but they are matched if not exceeded by those who want to hate GW, whereas the overwhelming majority simply shrug and adjust purchase practices accordingly.

It is easier to just lay blame around, but it isn't accurate.

I'm wondering if it's fair to make the assertion that those who might be doing harm to a local community, which is the memey 3d print 'expert' who has entirely printed 1:1 armies and has to tell everyone, constantly, how much better 3d printing is, how cheap per head their army was, how they're 'sticking it to GW' etc are also likely the ones who fall into that hate category?

To be clear I'm referring to one specific stereotype of communally harmful people, I've no issue with people using bits, proxies, units or even armies if they're well tended and importantly actually different to some degree.

3D printing is its own thing and in some ways, it's a threat to traditional miniature sales. I however don't have printer or the space for one. I also don't have the inclination to learn how to operate one. Compared to the prices of 3D printing (once you actually add in the equipment, STLs, and materials, many manufacturers still come out ahead. So it really isn't for everyone. Or even for large groups of people.

There are some evangelists and I can understand them. They set it all up and are proud of what they've done. I however tend to not 'advertise' other products when I'm in a store that doesn't sell them. That's just basic politeness. Are they in my armies? Sure. Why wouldn't they be? That however doesn't mean shouting from the rooftops about them.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
a modern website shouldn't be that drowned in adds

Yep, that's BOLS. It's a clickbait ad farm with just enough "content" to get you to keep scrolling through more ads. Please stop visiting them and rewarding their clickbait.

This first visit in years has certainly encouraged me to follow that recommendation. Because seriously. That was excessive.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Overread wrote:


I think late stage Kirby was just showing that not only was Kirby more of a numbers guy than anything else (which to be fair he was an accountant); but that he and his management team were far too isolated and separate from the actual hobby, company and customers. It felt very much like they were the "suits" running the show, but didn't really understand what they were running beyond the numerical breakdown of sales figures. As a result you got a lot of strange choices, baffling ideas, short term focus and basically a whole list of things that were very unpopular with the actual customers; and likely also staff under them. Thing is when that happens at the top it spreads through so it takes ages to weed such thinking out of any firm.

Did GW as a whole suffer losses during his tenure? I know that when people chewed over the annual financials, the descriptors for the US were all euphemisms for "not going well," but I got away from the hobby after that and lost track. I don't think they ever had losses in the core UK/European markets.

If I recall correctly GW had a loss year or two after the LotR bubble that instigated the first round of sweeping changes for the worse at GW (the second one being the Chapterhouse case). GW returned to a small profit after that and maintained a steadily declining profit until the end of Kirby's tenure, although in the year the first Total Warhammer released profitability was only held up by royalties while the core business was in a bad place.

catbarf wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Eh its just common sense. Any other brand would do the same thing and heck many other brands already DO ban 3rd party or restrict things at their own official events too. The only difference is GW are way more copied than most others and GW have their own stores to enforce policy, whilst the rest is down to purely local events, local stores and local reps (who in most cases outside of the club nearest to the company's factory/home base; is just volunteers from the community).

So yeah there's nothing really all that surprising in that article.
It's sound basic logic that's been said for ages.

Every brand aggressively pursues a 'no model, no rules' policy, shapes their rules to exactly what comes in their kits, and retires model lines that don't lend themselves to tightly-controlled product ecosystems with legally defensible IP?

GW didn't take this tack until after an infamous lawsuit, but once they did, it was sound basic logic that's been said for ages?

I think some people are a little quick to justify GW internal policy. Logical though it may be- at least for the shareholder bottom line- GW's overly zealous attitude towards quashing any possibility of third-party minis isn't a universal thing.

Well the "any other brand would and do do the same thing" was talking about the banning/restrictions on 3rd party models at their organised events. Which is something many others do. Not all, heck some openly embrace anything they can get on the tables so long as their game is being played by as many people as possible.
No models no rules is varied - some firms follow that policy, some don't. Warmachine follows it whilst Infinity most certainly doesn't - and heck Infinity is famous for releasing models and then retiring them and releasing an updated version later which has a different weapon.
I think the no models no rules has more impact for GW because many of their models have alternate weapons and builds whilst many other firms often keep things simple - one model one weapon no options. Of course then you've something like Battletech where the options are way wider but the models don't need to feature changes to the physical appearance; or games like Infinity where proxies are commonplace.


There most certainly are different policies with logic behind them.

Geifer wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Overread wrote:


I think late stage Kirby was just showing that not only was Kirby more of a numbers guy than anything else (which to be fair he was an accountant); but that he and his management team were far too isolated and separate from the actual hobby, company and customers. It felt very much like they were the "suits" running the show, but didn't really understand what they were running beyond the numerical breakdown of sales figures. As a result you got a lot of strange choices, baffling ideas, short term focus and basically a whole list of things that were very unpopular with the actual customers; and likely also staff under them. Thing is when that happens at the top it spreads through so it takes ages to weed such thinking out of any firm.

Did GW as a whole suffer losses during his tenure? I know that when people chewed over the annual financials, the descriptors for the US were all euphemisms for "not going well," but I got away from the hobby after that and lost track. I don't think they ever had losses in the core UK/European markets.

If I recall correctly GW had a loss year or two after the LotR bubble that instigated the first round of sweeping changes for the worse at GW (the second one being the Chapterhouse case). GW returned to a small profit after that and maintained a steadily declining profit until the end of Kirby's tenure, although in the year the first Total Warhammer released profitability was only held up by royalties while the core business was in a bad place.

The LotR bubble bursting was more GW's total ignorance of the movie tie-in market since it was something they'd never done before and they were just not prepared nor expecting the massive drop off in sales once the films were done. Companies that typically make movie tie-in toys and merch are very used to that and have their whole production ready to switch over to the next big film and know how to handle the sudden drop off and to anticipate when it will happen. GW were taken by surprise at the scale of the drop.

That said my recollection is that Kirby kept the company healthy and afloat during his tenure. Heck his early days were all about turning around the company finances and improving them. I don't think, outside of the LORT bubble bursting, that GW took serious losses during his time in charge. What I think is key is that GW left money on the table during his time in charge. They took short term choices and made decisions and policies that turned customers away and which reduced their potential to earn money. When Kirby stepped down and GW took some more customer positive choices there was a massive surge in sales and popularity.

Heck during Kirby's time GW was stepping back from running events and the internet at a time when video games and many other geek markets were embracing streaming, paid competitive events and all. It's hard to imagine now with GW doing marketing online every day of the year.

 Overread wrote:
The LotR bubble bursting was more GW's total ignorance of the movie tie-in market since it was something they'd never done before and they were just not prepared nor expecting the massive drop off in sales once the films were done

they were very well aware of the drop that will happen when the hype from the movies is done, but they reacted in the typical GW way and halve the box content while doubling the price to keep the profit up (that joke did not came out of nowhere but GW really did that)
but instead this was the trigger that let the bubble explode instead of just seeing a massive drop in new people

 kodos wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The LotR bubble bursting was more GW's total ignorance of the movie tie-in market since it was something they'd never done before and they were just not prepared nor expecting the massive drop off in sales once the films were done

they were very well aware of the drop that will happen when the hype from the movies is done, but they reacted in the typical GW way and halve the box content while doubling the price to keep the profit up (that joke did not came out of nowhere but GW really did that)
but instead this was the trigger that let the bubble explode instead of just seeing a massive drop in new people

Ahh true we did go through a phase of that with GW. Eldar got it too with at least one set that went from 10 to 5 and increased in price.

I am probably not the only one to remember non GW models in armies showcased in WD, like George Dellapina's Orks based around certainly-non-GW-design monster trucks. All warmachines in my Orcs&Goblins army were scratch-built and my first 40k vehicles were Wave Serpents build according to the conversion article in WD. I remember terrain articles being about building stuff out of raw materials from your trash bin, about being creative and resourceful.

Now they are all about buying, buying, buying. Don't try to be resourceful, just buy more.

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

Cyel wrote:
I am probably not the only one to remember non GW models in armies showcased in WD, like George Dellapina's Orks based around certainly-non-GW-design monster trucks. All warmachines in my Orcs&Goblins army were scratch-built and my first 40k vehicles were Wave Serpents build according to the conversion article in WD. I remember terrain articles being about building stuff out of raw materials from your trash bin, about being creative and resourceful.

Now they are all about buying, buying, buying. Don't try to be resourceful, just buy more.

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

i miss these tutorials, especially for terrain and vehicles. Both ork armies and terrain quality has regressed due to it.

Cyel wrote:

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

Considering the last AoS To4W contained a fully converted army where even the Battleline units used parts from 2-3 kits, pretty sure they're more concerned with points per month than cost per month these days.

I disagree that 3rd party producers are bad for the game. I also think GW is responsible for most of their own "problems". However, it's useful to remember that some things that seem contradictory at first glance can be true at the same time.

BOLS can be a company almost entirely dependent on the fortunes of Games workshop while producing both syncophantic and genuine writing. Sometimes an article might even be both.(though not in this case)

GW removing units and options without models can be both good for their bottom line and good for game bloat and at the same time bad for some 3rd party companies and some gamers with older figures.

3rd party producers can be bad for GW (though how much is debatable) while also being good for gamers.

3rd party producers can hurt FLGSs, while GW policies also hurt them.

I remember now why I gave up on BOLS

Cyel wrote:


When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

I remember those articles, and it was all about how yes, you CAN build a decent GW army on a tight budget. Some issues one of the group would hold back for a marquee unit the next.

Then again, that hearkens back to an era where $100 was a good starter army. Cost of entry was low and while the bulk kits weren't things of beauty, they could get you by.

The interesting thing is that by now, GW should have the capital investment to allow them to grossly undercut any would-be competitor outside Chinese slave labor (or is that "labour?).

Anyhow, that was the excuse during the otherwise senseless price increases of the early aughts. It was strange to be able to have unopened blisters of metal marines that cost less than plastic sprues, and I recall apologists saying that once the new machinery was in place, and the procedures nailed down, prices would surely fall.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Cyel wrote:


When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

I remember those articles, and it was all about how yes, you CAN build a decent GW army on a tight budget. Some issues one of the group would hold back for a marquee unit the next.

Then again, that hearkens back to an era where $100 was a good starter army. Cost of entry was low and while the bulk kits weren't things of beauty, they could get you by.

The interesting thing is that by now, GW should have the capital investment to allow them to grossly undercut any would-be competitor outside Chinese slave labor (or is that "labour?).

Anyhow, that was the excuse during the otherwise senseless price increases of the early aughts. It was strange to be able to have unopened blisters of metal marines that cost less than plastic sprues, and I recall apologists saying that once the new machinery was in place, and the procedures nailed down, prices would surely fall.

Oh those people didn't get it completely wrong.
Price per model surely fell once the machinery & procedures were in place.
They just naively thought that we, the customers, were going to be the ones bennifitting.

Cyel wrote:
I am probably not the only one to remember non GW models in armies showcased in WD, like George Dellapina's Orks based around certainly-non-GW-design monster trucks. All warmachines in my Orcs&Goblins army were scratch-built and my first 40k vehicles were Wave Serpents build according to the conversion article in WD. I remember terrain articles being about building stuff out of raw materials from your trash bin, about being creative and resourceful.

Now they are all about buying, buying, buying. Don't try to be resourceful, just buy more.

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

I recall but cannot now find where GW put out a blanket statement about 3rd party models being perfectly fine to use as Imperial Guardsmen. This was about the time Warzone 2nd edition dropped with something close to 100 infantry models in it. May have been closer to 60 or 80 models but I remember it being a loads and loads of plastic infantry. I want to say this was published in the White Dwarf at the time in around or between 99' and 00'. Sadly I can't even be sure of the issue number all these years later.

 warhead01 wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I am probably not the only one to remember non GW models in armies showcased in WD, like George Dellapina's Orks based around certainly-non-GW-design monster trucks. All warmachines in my Orcs&Goblins army were scratch-built and my first 40k vehicles were Wave Serpents build according to the conversion article in WD. I remember terrain articles being about building stuff out of raw materials from your trash bin, about being creative and resourceful.

Now they are all about buying, buying, buying. Don't try to be resourceful, just buy more.

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

I recall but cannot now find where GW put out a blanket statement about 3rd party models being perfectly fine to use as Imperial Guardsmen. This was about the time Warzone 2nd edition dropped with something close to 100 infantry models in it. May have been closer to 60 or 80 models but I remember it being a loads and loads of plastic infantry. I want to say this was published in the White Dwarf at the time in around or between 99' and 00'. Sadly I can't even be sure of the issue number all these years later.

White Dwarf used to be a labour of love, i can only imagine how fun it would have been to semi amateuring that publication in the 90s early 00s. I bet each and every piece is read over a dozen times by corporate these days to ensure nothing slips through.

Dai wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I am probably not the only one to remember non GW models in armies showcased in WD, like George Dellapina's Orks based around certainly-non-GW-design monster trucks. All warmachines in my Orcs&Goblins army were scratch-built and my first 40k vehicles were Wave Serpents build according to the conversion article in WD. I remember terrain articles being about building stuff out of raw materials from your trash bin, about being creative and resourceful.

Now they are all about buying, buying, buying. Don't try to be resourceful, just buy more.

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

I recall but cannot now find where GW put out a blanket statement about 3rd party models being perfectly fine to use as Imperial Guardsmen. This was about the time Warzone 2nd edition dropped with something close to 100 infantry models in it. May have been closer to 60 or 80 models but I remember it being a loads and loads of plastic infantry. I want to say this was published in the White Dwarf at the time in around or between 99' and 00'. Sadly I can't even be sure of the issue number all these years later.

White Dwarf used to be a labour of love, i can only imagine how fun it would have been to semi amateuring that publication in the 90s early 00s. I bet each and every piece is read over a dozen times by corporate these days to ensure nothing slips through.

I agree it was super fun back then.
I still have the issues from the massive 3rd war for Armageddon battle report. I think that turned into two or three issues worth of material for them.
Going so corporate has really sucked the soul out of the hobby. Sure a lot of the new models are super slick but I don't feel much excitement in working on a duplicate of the same kit now. Kits being like they are now. I guess the good times are, for the most part, over. In th e future should I want a new army I will buy it second hand/used and save time and energy.

 warhead01 wrote:

Dai wrote:


White Dwarf used to be a labour of love, i can only imagine how fun it would have been to semi amateuring that publication in the 90s early 00s. I bet each and every piece is read over a dozen times by corporate these days to ensure nothing slips through.

I agree it was super fun back then.
I still have the issues from the massive 3rd war for Armageddon battle report. I think that turned into two or three issues worth of material for them.
Going so corporate has really sucked the soul out of the hobby. Sure a lot of the new models are super slick but I don't feel much excitement in working on a duplicate of the same kit now. Kits being like they are now. I guess the good times are, for the most part, over. In th e future should I want a new army I will buy it second hand/used and save time and energy.

I'm not disagreeing entirely, but it is a bit humorous to see nostalgia for white dwarf of the 00s. Folks always look back to "better days". One wonders what it will be like when players look back with fondness to the early 2020s...

 Eilif wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

Dai wrote:


White Dwarf used to be a labour of love, i can only imagine how fun it would have been to semi amateuring that publication in the 90s early 00s. I bet each and every piece is read over a dozen times by corporate these days to ensure nothing slips through.

I agree it was super fun back then.
I still have the issues from the massive 3rd war for Armageddon battle report. I think that turned into two or three issues worth of material for them.
Going so corporate has really sucked the soul out of the hobby. Sure a lot of the new models are super slick but I don't feel much excitement in working on a duplicate of the same kit now. Kits being like they are now. I guess the good times are, for the most part, over. In th e future should I want a new army I will buy it second hand/used and save time and energy.

I'm not disagreeing entirely, but it is a bit humorous to see nostalgia for white dwarf of the 00s. Folks always look back to "better days". One wonders what it will be like when players look back with fondness to the early 2020s...

This is of course true, the mid 90s represent a time when i was a bright eyed kid filled with wonder regarding the games and hobby and no doubt i have nostalgia tinted glasses. I do think that it was also an objectively superior publication though. It wasnt free of trying to sell you the latest thing of course but it didnt seem that was its main focus.

I think the style of writing was different, however its also possibly because back then everything was new to us as well.

So every article, every paint job and photo was poured over way more because it was fresh and new and exciting.


Today the internet utterly spoils us - you can in seconds look at thousands of top pro painted work from around the world in a vast array of skills and styles and finishes and all.
Couple to that the fact that a lot of the casual lore and the technical articles are stuff we already know. We've read them from GW 1000 times before so its repeat information not fresh and new.






Now granted some other parts have changed, GW used to do more crafts stuff which they don't now. However at the same time GW also offers us way way more stuff than they used too. Plus back then the craft articles were still selling GW stuff - GW PVA glue, GW flock, GW hobby tools etc... We just perhaps didn't see it because we weren't looking for it, we just remember that they used a cheap coke can.



Getting adult means that sometimes you see the article for what it is in terms of marketing. We can see the company pushing us to buy their product. I don't feel bad about that, but it clearly annoys some when the wool is pulled away and they can see marketing for marketing.
Of course there's also styles of writing, engagement and such which can make this more "on the nose" than not. Sometimes you really do get an article that feels so much "this is our new thing we want you to buy, buy it" that you can't ignore it. A child or teen might not see it, an adult might just through experience and having seen it so many times.



So the WD has changed, but so too has GW as a company and what they offer and so too have we the readers.
The complaint that the magazine isn't as good for long term fans is pretty common in magazine circles though. Pick up a photography magazine for a year and the next year you'll see a LOT of the same article themes. Hit winter and you get a bunch of "how to take photos in the snow" and "creative macro with snow flakes" just like "last year". Get to easter and its all eggs and bunnies and a cute one on how to take a photo of your pet

I agree that the lack of crafting is a real difference. GW published two different "How to make Wargaming Terrain": books that were quite brilliant. I have both and still read them occasionally. It's been nearly 20 years since the last one was released.

That does say something about the company, though it also says something about their customers. Would GW's core customer base be satisfied with home-made terrain in a world filled with GW kits and 3d printed terrain?

In terms of repetitiveness, maybe those of us who are still into crafting aren't that different in our own way. WD and photography magazines may repeat themselves, but I keep going back to the same old Necromundicon web pages for inspiration.

There are still conversion articles and the such, it's just based on GW products rather than recycling cans and straws.
Could it be better? Yeah, it definitely could but at the same time, there is a limit to the number of conversion articles that could be done without it becoming repetitive and boring. How much could WD do that hasn't already been done to death? A million articles on converting Space Marines aren't going to go down well and a lot of other concepts like making Feral Orks using AoS/Fantasy parts have been done for years. The huge model range has also done wonders for the ease of access to concepts that in the past were just kitbashed and converted such as Traitor Guard, Skitarii, or even Squats.
It's the double-edged sword of there being more model kits than ever before giving people easy ways of building armies that used to be in the niche of Forge World, second-hand markets, or heavy conversions and that previous core of heavy duty kitbashing and converting slowly dying out.

Also lets not forget whilst GW is focusing on their thing and their products, there are LOADS of tutorials and guides out there now. From youtube videos, to twitch streams to websites, to forums to books covering a whole wealth of topics.

So yes its a shame GW isn't doing some things, but at the same time they are covering their corner and anyone with a passing interest has a huge wealth of potential informatoin they can easily tap into. Heck last time I was at the supermarket there were 5 or 6 hobby railway magazines on sale so even if you just take a tiny step outside of wargames you can find other resources other than WD on the highstreet.



So yeah GW have changed and they've focused more on the diverse product line that they sell; but other areas have come up in a big way so you're not without resources.

While I wasn't playing 40K back in those days and didn't see WDs from that time I collected some Codizes and campaign books from 3rd-5th edition. They are different in that they feature painting and terrain guides right in the codex and that they use a lot of Designer's Commentary. While it breaks the "4th wall" every time it also "connects" you with GW as fellow hobbyists if you know what I mean. You aren't just a consumer of their IP but they talk to you (which today they do through WarCom of course) even in their rulebooks.

Btw. they still do this in Lotr books, where they explain their thoughts behind scenarios and how to adjust them to book/ movie versions.