Switch Theme:

Add a New Article

Recent Changes
Your Watchlist
All Articles

View a Random Article
Upload a File

Images Tutorial
Editing Tutorial
Articles Tutorial

Comparing White Dwarf US 319 and UK 320

Whilst on holiday in the US, I compared a copy of the local US white dwarf (issue 319) and the UK white dwarf (issue 320 - the UK equivalent issue). This comparison is a little outdated now, but is archived here for future comparison and notes as a historical curiosity.

US White Dwarf 319
US White Dwarf 319

General Overview:

Before I get into the content differences, a note on the magazines. Both are the same paper size, but the US one uses cheap, thin, glossy (women's weekly magazine) style paper, whereas the UK one uses a thicker, nicer, satin style paper. The UK issue is higher quality (my US issue is already dog-eared but the UK one still looks fine and both have had similar treatment). The US issue costs $6 (about £3.20) and the UK issue costs £4 (about $7.50).

Content Overview:

I have used the same standards for counting content. I only count actual articles as content. New releases, adverts, ordering information, store lists, etc are not counted as content. I count standard bearer as content even though it is basically an advert this month. Golden demon results (US) count as content. It is worth noting that the font in US studio articles is fractionally smaller than the central studio font (about 1 or 2 points smaller). The editorial is not included as content, neither are the tables of content. News and specific store events are content. Article cover pages are not content unless they have the start of an article's text on them.

UK number of pages: 132 including covers
US number of pages: 156 including covers
UK actual content pages: 71 (61 non-content pages)
US actual content pages: 114 (42 non-content pages)
UK content percentage: 53.7%
US content percentage: 73%
UK price per page of content: £0.055 / $0.100
US price per page of content: £0.027 / $0.052

Now a comparison of the content in each. The format given below is page, system, content title, my personal rating out of 10, and an asterisk is used to mark if the content is the same in the UK and US. Note that I like 40K, blood bowl, necromunda, BFG, epic, warhammer and mordheim in that order. LotR is not really my thing so bear that in mind for my biased ratings.

UK Index:

24: *News
29: *LotR: The Great Battle of our Time 5/10
39: *LOTR: The Domination of Osgiliath 6/10
49: *Toolbox: Water effects (Note, I treated this as non-content as it is an advert with no real content IMHO) 0/10
51: *LOTR: The Two Towers 5/10
62: *Standard Bearer 3/10
66: *Warhammer: Lizardmen 5/10
71: *40K: Death Stalks Machavius 5/10
82: *Warhammer: Eavy Metal: High Elves 6/10
86: Warhammer: Dok Butcha 4/10
88: *40K: Index Xenos - Eldar Rangers 6/10
96: Warhammer: The Art of Games Workshop 3/10
99: 40K: Arming for Medusa Part 5/10
104: 40K: Death from Above 7/10
108: Games Day 2006 Preview 4/10
112: Frontline and Direct
Average Score 5 / 10, 15 distinct sections/articles

US Index:

22: *News
26: *LOTR: The Great Battle of Our Time 5/10
34: *LOTR: The Domination of Osgiliath 6/10
38: Warhammer: Gotrek And Felix (Note, this in the Contents page but not the magazine, page 38 is still the LOTR article)
45: *Toolbox: Water effects (Note, I treated this as non-content as it is an advert with no real content IMHO) 0/10
47: *LOTR: The Two Towers 5/10
56: *Standard Bearer 3/10
60: *Warhammer: Lizardmen 5/10
65: *40K: Death Stalks Machavius 5/10
76: *Warhammer: Eavy Metal: High Elves 6/10
80: *40K: Index Xenos - Eldar Rangers 6/10
84: US Studio Content Index
86: US News
90: Events / Store list (Counted as non-content)
92: 40K: Mercenary Showcase 8/10
98: 40K: From Concept to Reality (Eldar army showcase) 9/10
104: Warhammer: Battle Report: The Debt of Delberz (Dwarfs vs Dogs of war) 7/10
116: Warhammer: Dogs of War Showcase 8/10
122: Golden Demon Baltimore 7/10
141: Echoes from the Warp (Letters) (somewhat interesting but I will not bother rating it)
142: Tau Showcase 9/10
148: Bitz & Pieces (Direct ordering advert but focuses strongly on conversions so counted as content)
Average Score 6 / 10, 20 distinct sections/articles

UK Overall:

Half the magazine was not content, the remaining content was fairly poor. Enough has been said about this issue on this forum that I dont feel the need to comment in detail. My arbitrary score is 3 / 10.

US Overall:

Editing was not as consistent as the UK issue. Page numbers point to articles that are not there in a couple of places. The US studio content, though only 50% of the issue, was very good and took about 90% of the time I spent reading this issue. US content is formatted like the UK WDs of old, with proper 1-turn at-a-time battle reports, small text and long articles. My arbitrary score is 7 / 10.


Well the numbers are obvious, in terms of content, the US white dwarf represents twice the value of the UK white dwarf! The UK studio content is not great and there is not much of it. The central studio content (assumed to be the content which is in both issues), is terrible. The UK white dwarf has a terrible amount of non-content. The US studio content is excellent. Fire the UK studio, make the US studio the White Dwarf overlords!


Got Comments? Discuss This Page in the Forums. Click Here.


Share on Facebook