Review. February White Dwarf 2013 VS January White Dwarf 1998. - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
Wargaming News and 40k Rumors Discuss and share wargaming news, new releases, warhammer and 40k rumors here.

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-27-13, 04:16 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
Gareth's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 453
Reputation: 24
Default Review. February White Dwarf 2013 VS January White Dwarf 1998.

I wrote this over on Tale of Painters, it's quite interesting. It might just win over some rage-quitters before they leave the hobby, or it might push them further over the edge.

Check it out and let me know if you prefer old or new.

Gareth is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-27-13, 04:41 PM
Like a Bawss
Boc's Avatar
Boc's Flag is: USA
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 4,111
Reputation: 47

A good write up, cheers for it. As said recently in another thread, I do enjoy the occasional positive spin in the ocean of whining.

Heresy-Online's Expeditious Stories Challenge 13-06: "Serenity" has started, get your stories in by July 11th!

Originally Posted by spanner94ezekiel View Post
3. Nothing Boc said should ever be taken seriously. Unless he's talking about being behind you. Then you run like fuck.
Boc is offline  
post #3 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-27-13, 05:29 PM
Senior Member
Sethis's Avatar
Sethis's Flag is: United Kingdom
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alston, Cumbria
Posts: 4,190
Reputation: 58

It's all very subjective, but I'll make the following points:

- You criticise the old WD more than once for the models contained within it. The advances in sculpting, molding, casting and CAD have nothing to do with the quality of WD. Barely anyone complains about how new models are worse than old models, because the new models are simply better. More dynamic, more parts, more 3D, more detail. However this has nothing to do with the monthly magazine.

- Scenery. You call it crap, but don't give any reasons why. Some of us preferred using buildings like the Firebase that were impossible to knock over, had surfaces that you could fit an exact number of models on with no risk of falling, became flatpacked when you put them away, were impossible to stab yourself on because they had no spikes lining the tops, didn't break when you dropped them, completely blocked line of sight (as opposed to CoD stuff which is full of windows) and could be repaired on the spot with sellotape instead of glue. There is a lot to recommend them which you just ignore.

- You didn't mention that you used to get vouchers in WD such as "Buy three blisters, get the cheapest free" or "Buy one, get one free on plastic box sets". When was the last time a WD gave you money off something?

- You don't look at the ratio of pages within the issue. 46 pages out of a 150 page magazine is 33% of the entire thing spent entirely on pictures of new models which you can easily see in store for yourself. As compared to 6 out of 100 pages, which is... 6%. Even if you add in a dozen pages at the back with catalogue pieces in (which you don't mention as a plus, the ability to order specific parts of models was much mourned when it went away) you only get ~20%.

- In your price comparison, you compare a plastic box to metal blisters, which is misleading at best, idiotic at worst. Try comparing them to the very first plastic Chaos Warriors box, which retailed at, what, 16 models for £12? 80p per model?

- You don't cover the fact that WD used to give you great ideas about how to use everyday items and bits from all over to make cool models and scenery. They showed you how to make stuff from pipe cleaners or giant pieces of foam. Anyone else remember that 16-storey Necromunda board? Or the Chaos Marines with long necked lizard heads by Andy Chambers? Now it's "Buy this GW product to change this other GW product, to get a slightly different looking GW product".

Like you say, the new WD does have some good things to recommend it, and the old one did have problems. However your writeup makes me question as to whether you actually were a long term player during the 90s, or if you're looking back without having experienced it. That's how it reads to me, but like I said, all subjective.

90% of people think they are above average.

Statistically Improbable. Psychologically Inevitable.

Last edited by Sethis; 01-27-13 at 05:31 PM.
Sethis is offline  
post #4 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-27-13, 05:36 PM
Senior Member
Dragblud da scrunka's Avatar
Dragblud da scrunka's Flag is: United Kingdom
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern wastes UK
Posts: 1,135
Reputation: 19

Wow this has made my view of White dwarf change hugely. Yes its still £5.50 for a magazine but magazines now are around that anyway! Subscriptions make them more acceptable price. The main dig was cost but seeing the improvements and some not so much I may actually resubscribe again. Thanks for the post

WAAAAGH Dragblud
W: 22 D: 6 L: 13

Space marines: Krakens Fury! (TBF)
W: 0 D: 0 L: 0
Dragblud da scrunka is offline  
post #5 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-27-13, 06:13 PM
Senior Member
GrizBe's Flag is: England
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,232
Reputation: 10

I'm with Sethis on this... you missed out alot of great points that the old issues had over the new, and just made a bunch of bad comparrisons.

Heck.. I remember back when WD used to give you free models on the front cover that were usually from the new army released at the time. Certainly don't get that with the new ones.

Now i agree.. new WD does have advatages over the old.. but these days, its pretty much just a glammed up sales mag, compared to the hobby magazine that it used to be.
GrizBe is offline  
post #6 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-27-13, 08:03 PM
nice boy, daft though !
bitsandkits's Avatar
bitsandkits's Flag is: United Kingdom
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 10,212
Reputation: 58

Times have changed, fifteen years have passed between issues, the world is a different place and GW is not the same company it was back then, now we have tje internet and GW faces much stiffer competition for your hobby pound while singlehandedly promoting a niche hobby during a world wide recession,i dont think you can really say one magazine is a winner over the other, they served very different customers with very different expectations from the game and the hobby

Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

bitsandkits is offline  
post #7 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-28-13, 02:21 AM
Junior Member
Djinn24's Avatar
Djinn24's Flag is: USA
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 0

The best White Dwarfs were early 2000s issues when Fat Bloke was there. Then they would include army lists, additional units. Etc. The new one is an improvement over the post LotR WD but has nothing on the 00-05 era.
Djinn24 is offline  
post #8 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-28-13, 03:59 AM
Senior Member
Meldon's Avatar
Meldon's Flag is: Sweden
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Borås
Posts: 302
Reputation: 1

I´m with Djinn24 on this, best run of the magazine was with Fat Bloke. Just look at the brilliant Index Astartes series, I miss those.....

There are no friends in the real world, just less hostile enemies
Meldon is offline  
post #9 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-28-13, 05:01 AM
Senior Member
Adramalech's Avatar
Adramalech's Flag is: USA
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 633
Reputation: 7

the old ones had free miniatures? new WD aint got shit on old WD, on those grounds ALONE.

boobs. that is all.
Adramalech is offline  
post #10 of 12 (permalink) Old 01-28-13, 05:05 AM
Senior Member
Rems's Avatar
Rems's Flag is: Australia
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,717
Reputation: 19

I agree, the Fat Bloke era and directly after it was the best. The past few years has been rubbish but it does seem to have picked up in quality with the new revamp.

I the major difference between the old and new White Dwarf is the tone of it all. Previously is was always a hobby magazine, you were a hobbyist first and a GW customer second, now you're a GW customer first. For example the old white dwarf heavily encouraged scratch building of terrain, and showed you how. The battle reports used scratch built terrain (anyone remember those fantastic Armageddon ones?). When was the last time they used a non realm of battle table for the battle reports in recent years?

Last edited by Rems; 01-28-13 at 05:09 AM.
Rems is offline  

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Wargaming News, New Releases and Information > Wargaming News and 40k Rumors

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome