# Quality of White Dwarf



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

I promised that I wouldn't pollute the thread on the most current white dwarf any more, so I have started my own thread. Apologies if this is the wrong forum, but there isnt a 'general' GW forum to post it in.


I read all the time that the quality of White Dwarf has been going down, but personally, I dont see it. I find WD to be very different to how it used to be, but, not in anyway more of an 'advert' than it used to be.

To put this into context I have personally collected WD since issue 122(ish) and I own a copy of every issue of WD published in the UK (appart from issue 2 which the cat destroyed...)

To prove my point I have randomly selected 6 WD from my collection (bizarrely enough 3 of them that I selected had big articles on Golden daemon, including one with a photo of me in it!!!).



Ive counted through the pages and put all the articles into categories:

*blurb *- contents pages and random musings at the beginning of the mag.

*Catalog pages* - anything that shows the models being 'pushed' in that issue, but nothing else on the page - basically the front few pages of the current white dwarf, and the last few of the older ones.

*Modeling*, painting and terrain making articles

*Fluff* and full prose sections

*Battle reports *(yawn...) and random army lists

*Product reviews* - information revolving around the 'current release' talking about the latest codex and game releases.

*Rules*, stats and senarios

*'Other'* - this includes very interresting non standard articles like standard bearer.



So, what were the results. Each will be expressed as a percentage of the pages in the issue to account for the fact that the later WDs are about half as long again as the older ones.

*ISSUE 379*
blurb 2%, Ads 19%, Catalog 14%, Modelling 10%, Fluff 0%, Battle Reports 34%, Product Review 11%, Rules 10% and 'other' 2%

*ISSUE 377*
blurb 2%, Ads 17%, Catalog 10%, Modelling 13%, Fluff 11%, Battle Reports 24%, Product Review 15%, Rules 7% and 'other' 4%

*ISSUE 301*
blurb 6%, Ads 19%, Catalog 18%, Modelling 17%, Fluff 10%, Battle Reports 18%, Product Review 7%, Rules 5% and 'other' 6%

*ISSUE 215*
blurb 5%, Ads 10%, Catalog 18%, Modelling 11%, Fluff 0%, Battle Reports 10%, Product Review 27%, Rules 20% and 'other' 8%

*ISSUE 193*
blurb 5%, Ads 27%, Catalog 14%, Modelling 24%, Fluff 1%, Battle Reports 11%, Product Review 4%, Rules 14% and 'other' 11%

*ISSUE 162 *
blurb 3%, Ads 21%, Catalog 23%, Modelling 14%, Fluff 2%, Battle Reports 0%, Product Review 9%, Rules 27% and 'other' 0%





Im not sure that anyone can claim that the current WD are substantially more 'advert' than the older ones. the older ones certainly did have less battle reports, but for me the only thing that has changed is the quality of the magasine, looking back to 162 really did make me feel glad for full colour, proffesional page layouts and models without green bleedin bases.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

That's actually pretty interesting. All the haters they hatin'.

Where were the ads out of interest in the older mags?


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

I don't know if it's more a catalogue today than it was in the old days, but it certainly is a poorer 'hobby' book compared to the older editions, but that might be my perception of it based on that it's not aimed at me anymore...I'm an experienced Vet not a 10 - year old who's just starting out. 

I scan through the WD's and hardly pause at any page for more than a few seconds because it doesn't hold any interest for me, which wasn't the case going back a decade or more. Plus I think that most of us can agree that Forums such as Heresy are a far greater source of information on every facet of the hobby than WD has ever been, especially today. I'm certain that's the reason why out of the 50-odd 40K players I know, only 4-5 have WD Subscriptions, and my regular group of 12/15 all put in $1 each and share one copy between us.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Actually when White Dwarf first started if was dedicated to all ranges of games. Citadel being part of that, but it was not all of it. it wasn't until Citadel eventually bought out White Dwarf that it became a vehicle for Citadel.

Then when another gaming company Games-Workshop and Citadel merged did White Dwarf began carrying Games-Workshop articles, but White Dwarf also through this part of its history also concentrated on the Specialist angle such as Necromunda, Bloodbowl, Epic and BFG etc...

Not only this but as primative as it was the product section was better, more basic, also earlier White Dwarf Magazines did not have a Directory of up to 15 pages.

I have the latest July edition, and compared to ealier editions it is bright, shiney with alook at me approach, it looks modern, but however it substantially lacks personallity


----------



## Kinglopey (Sep 10, 2008)

I think that it has changed, I don't know if it's necessarily the quality as a whole, but the focus of the articles. The terrain articles focus on how to paint their terrain, where I remember older WD had articles on Scratch Building Terrain.

There is occasional Tactica articles, I'm noticing that more lately than maybe a year ago... and the support for anything other than the core 3 is gone, how ever I see that focus going to FW and Black Library.

The other change is the Price... I don't know exactly where or when (I usually buy a WD with a few other things) but it's gone up in price substantially with the no real change to the magazine...


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Im not sure that anyone can claim that the current WD are substantially more 'advert' than the older ones.


You forget the fact that they rig the "battle reports" featuring armies currently being pushed so that they win, or failing to get a win in 3-7 attempts they pick a draw. (Ever wonder why GW staff seems to draw games 2000% more than "normal" players?) That makes the whole battle report an advert in and of itself.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

I think the focus of the mag has changed completely. I will have to admit that i have canned my subscriprion to wd. When i started the hobby again i made a point of subscribing because of the immense value i got from the old white dwarf. The thing is those old white dwarf mags that i enjoyed so much had the new rules for ork armies in 40k in full and other things like that. Along with large fluff pieces to go along side. The thing is now everything has changed. There are few rule sets released and updated through wd like there used to be and that was the main thing i enjoyed. So maybe it is not that the product has gone down hill but rather it has changed.


----------



## Justindkates (Apr 30, 2010)

I just wish they would have more fucking hobby articles. Painting, building terrain, conversions, etc. 

I haven't seen a decent painting article in months.


----------



## Codex Todd (Mar 22, 2009)

WD 162, my first white dwarf, remember seeing the tyranid warrior on the front and think this could be a cool mag grabed it, pursaded my dad to buy and was hooked on the hobby ever since!!


----------



## Shaven_Wookiee (May 3, 2011)

Iv stopped collecting anything games workshop except white dwarf and the codexes cos i can no longer afford it! I remember wen i used to be able to get white dwarf and maybe a paint with my pocket money for only a couple quid! Even now, im tempted to cancel my subscription as i get fed up of seeing the same articles every month! My favourites are always the articles on hobbyists' own armies with pics of conversions, as well as the scratch-built terrain, instead of all the ones of gw tryin to flog their own terrain models! Does anyone remember wen wd used to be only a couple quid? Or am i that old? And what happened to the free models? I also buy the official xbox magazaine, and that thing is huge with free demos, trailers and oher bits and pieces, all for a similar price! Its beyond a joke now...


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

I like White Dwarf. I think it's a good mag. Can't see what the problem is.


----------



## arlins (Sep 8, 2010)

Well the first WD i bought was WD59 in nov 84 
It has 18 full pages of adverts ,
But it also has a very good book review section ( 3 pages ) 
Cartoons , two pages ( thrud the barbarian )
A 4 page short story ( mad gods omellette)
readers letters
small adds ( redundant these days , you go online if you want to sell , or find Groups)
Features for [email protected] , [email protected] .runequest. Travellers
Painting 
OPEN BOX game review by INDEPEDANT reviewers .
Biggest difference was it dealt with more than just WH , had funny stories , cartoons 
It Felt like it was your mates talking about RPG,s and having a larf .
Now its just WH , it can come across as ,... well a sales catalogue , thats not aimed 
at the amount of adverts but the general tone of the mag 
Theres no humour in it anymore and no independant reviews .
It gets pretty boring for me and ill only buy it if theres a painting article or update 
in it .


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

I think WD has gotten much better from when I joined. Back in those days I would read it and all there would be in it was Lord of the Rings and was like only 25 pages long. Now a days, their are far more articles and even rules in it. So I do like the quality of WD now.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Marneus Calgar said:


> That's actually pretty interesting. All the haters they hatin'.
> 
> Where were the ads out of interest in the older mags?


Actually, very similar to they are now, but just more tacky. Now we seem to get 2 page adverts between articles with full colour armies on display and a forgeworld logo (or black library or latest expansion) in the corner. The older white dwarfs seem to have single page adverts, sometimes in the middle of articles, for a random box of models and the entire advert is a picture of a box. So they were just as frequent, but less 'attractive' and more intrusive.



HOBO said:


> > I don't know if it's more a catalogue today than it was in the old days, but it certainly is a poorer 'hobby' book compared to the older editions, but that might be my perception of it based on that it's not aimed at me anymore...I'm an experienced Vet not a 10 - year old who's just starting out.
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much my point exactly. You 'feel' its a poorer hobby book, but if you actually look at the % of the magasine thats dedicated to 'hobby' then its pretty much the same throughout. I havent done myself any 'favours' by picking GD issues (completely randomly) because I included all the GD pages into the modling section. So you can take about 10% off those editions to find the articles that truely dealt with painting and modling and that means the most current WDs have more of these articles than the old ones did.
> ...


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

I will stick my head out here from where I would normally stand, the last few WDs I have looked at have been an improvement on about a year ago when it was basically a catalogue.

I think the issue with current WD is not that it is crap more that it was excellent, most of the posters so far have talked about the terrain articles - these are one which I miss and not to get on my soapbox about it, but terrain seems to be the bit of GW I have most problems with (yes even more than price rises).

The issue I still have with WD is how it pushes the products of the month soo hard, this all comes back to the way that GW publicises itself, its basically WD and the stores, so the push for new products has to be in WD.
This is a shame because I would imagine they would sell a whole load of older kits if they had more articles totally out of the blue on something like say "painting a rhino using weathering techniqies", they do have the odd article like this but imho no enough.

My advice however (and its massively bias) is to remember that you now have forums such as Heresy for this kind of independant content, I think WD would be hard pushed to contend with that, and lets face it GW new products are paying the bills (it can't possibly be breaking even) so it has to use it hard.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

Peoples usual complaints are the battle reports are rigged so the new army wins there's no new rules content anymore and it costs more.
Well as to costs more anyone who brings that up as a genuine reason shouldn't be on here they need to get out the house and go get a job. This month sees 2 battlereps without the latest armies even in them and the cities of death article brings in rules. 
Me and a mate compared wd to no quarter the other day and found them proportionally very similar regarding article to advert ratio etc 
All of this just cements for me that there are a lot of people that like to complAin and especially when it comes to big bad Gw will find fault with whatever they do


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

While I don't have a problem with the price of WD (because I only pay $1 towards the overall cost), and I agree that No Quarter has similar content ratio, but in Aus WD is $5 dearer than NQ...so cost is a fair enough reason to baulk at it imo.

One thing that does make me laugh though about people who complain about WD content, are the people who are pissed off that it caters to all 3 core GW games, and not solely the one that they play. People moan about there even been LoTR articles in WD all the time, but the people who actually play the game are just as entiltled to getting some content as any other gamer...very selfish and arrogant to think any other way.


----------



## Khargoth (Aug 5, 2010)

I gave up on WD (Australian edition, no idea if it's different to the UK version) two years ago because the magazine was getting smaller and smaller. The ad content had increased by maybe a page or two, but when there's also a 3-page spread of Jervis 'dicky' Johnson's drippings every issue and a wad of LotR clinging on for dear life, there really wasn't much meat left on the bone. I sorely miss the 'Eavy Metal painting masterclass, the army showcases (my two favourites were a fantastic Howling Griffons army, and a heavily converted Nidzilla list) and the battle reports that had capable players!


----------



## High Marshall Mendark (Jan 25, 2009)

I don't have too much of a problem with it, however, I am sick of the wording they use, and I don't think I'm alone, BUT IT'S SO FUCKING REPETITIVE!! Just for example, this month, the words ARCANE FUCKING FULCRUM and MONSTERS AND BLOODY MAGIC were said half a bazzilion times!! 

Anyways, apart from the rant, I'll just say what I'd like to see more of:

-Clever, simple and goodlooking homemade terrain articles
-Less constrictive structure, mix it up a bit
-Fun, hobby related ideas/personal stories maybe?
-Dok Butcha's Convershun Klinik!!!! I freakin' loved that mini article so much!

Mendark


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

I just had an interesting thought, and Maidel you might like to include this in your random sampling - the number of new releases per month.

It occurs to me that if the number of new releases is much higher then that would mean that the focus would surely have to shift as it has done?

Just a thought though.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I think a lot of my points have been made so all I really got to add is that I believe the quality of the articles is poorer, less imaginative, somewhat aimed at supporting the adverts rather than being entirely separate.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

as long as fatbloke stays away from white dwarf i can sleep at night,magazine was a sham when he was editor,full of people making stupid faces and the shouty Warrrghhh bollocks,dark days indeed! havent read a WD for over a year now, canned my subscription because i can pretty much find anything i need online via forums and i was sick of pages and pages of battle reports, couldnt honestly give two monkey spanks about the out come of a studio battle be it fixed or genuine, some of the high end heavy metal articles were pretty cool, but they tend to end up online or in book form so no need to spend £50 a year for a few decent articles,if they shifted focus to real people more i would be more interested, i quite like reading other peoples take on the models and games, though i suppose that would throw open the doors to people talking sense rather than studio fanboisms and product promotion.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> You forget the fact that they rig the "battle reports" featuring armies currently being pushed so that they win, or failing to get a win in 3-7 attempts they pick a draw. (Ever wonder why GW staff seems to draw games 2000% more than "normal" players?) That makes the whole battle report an advert in and of itself.


^ That, and the fact that they choose completely ridiculous army lists to begin with.

The older battle reports between 2 players using their own armies in themed campaigns were pretty cool. They'd play a mission or two per issue and have a bunch of modeling, painting and fluff subsections written by the players that kept it interesting.

-Tyranids vs Admech
-Vostroyan firstborn vs Plague zombies & Nurgle worshipers
-Tau vs Nurgle CSMs

Those are a few I can remember off the top of my head. 

The army showcases when they'd shown pictures of a player's army with a Q&A answered by the player were also pretty interesting.

Not sure if they still do any of that stuff.


----------



## Majere613 (Oct 14, 2008)

I'll say one thing about the quality of WD- I wish they bound the softback Codexs like they do the magazine. I've had no end of army books disintegrate, but never had so much as a page drop out of a Dwarf!


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Bubblematrix said:


> I just had an interesting thought, and Maidel you might like to include this in your random sampling - the number of new releases per month.
> 
> It occurs to me that if the number of new releases is much higher then that would mean that the focus would surely have to shift as it has done?
> 
> Just a thought though.


I will definately look at that - it was something that was immediately evident when I was looking at the older ones was that the releases were very random (more so than I remembered) and the adverts inside were often for things completely different to the new models - eg one of them had a mass of necomunda or mordenheim new releases, yet the adverts inside were for leman russ demolishers and falcon grav tanks.



Words_of_Truth said:


> I think a lot of my points have been made so all I really got to add is that I believe the quality of the articles is poorer, less imaginative, somewhat aimed at supporting the adverts rather than being entirely separate.


This is something thats really hard to quantify. My opinion of the 'quality' of WD changes from issue to issue, and its normally related to if I actually like whats being discussed. The latest white dwarf got a huge 'meh!' from me, not for the quality of the content, but simply because Im more interrested in the paint on my walls than in the new storm of magic release.

Thats also why Im not going to try and make some sort of distinction of quality, because Im as biased as the next biased person. :biggrin:


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

I've felt for a long time that the quality of publishing with wd was going downhill, i've been collecting them since the end of 2nd edition, i still have the ones with gorkamorka rules published in them but my main gripe with them nowadays is the complete lack of additional rules to add depth to the game. 
Whilst they have indeed published complete codex's in the dwarf, they make these lists obsolete within a year by releasing the new codex, defeating the point a little. How many people still find the blood angels codex published in white dwarf interesting to read through? Not a lot because most will realise that it's a dilluted version of the rules in the codex now. I was recently going through white dwarfs, listing the issues that contained rules and on what pages, for the campaign iam running. I wanted to find rules for swamp fighting and bring them up to speed and decided i might list all the other rules just in case i needed them later in the campaign. 
Of the current edition rules the only issues that had specific new rules in were the ones with full (now obsolete) codexes, the storm raven (which doesn't even say what army it is available for) and additions to cityfight, apocalypse, spearhead ect. 

In comparison back in third and forth there seemed to be a chapter approved or index astates army list springing up every couple of months. Advertising was placed in sections that were relevent, an article on jungle terrain included an advert for jungle fighters at the end. We still get this but there are also times when they seem to just jam a random apocalypse double spread in for no real reason. There are 6 double spread pictures in this months white dwarf with little or minimal actual information on them. The same thing happened when spearhead and apocalypse were released. 
I buy WD as a way off enriching my games, the painting and modelling are cool but i'm really there for the rules. the fact that WD has thinned out the number of rules articles that are applicable to people who don't play their expansion games is unexceptable for me. So i'll continue to now moderate which wd's i buy depending on what is within them. 
Still at least there is less lotr in then there used to be. 

PS: Bring back fat bloke


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

i dont think GW will ever get a good balance in WD, there are always going to be sections that you are not going to want to read, personally i have never read any of the LOTR articles because i have no interest in that third of the core systems, i dont read battle reports, i reed and re read the paint and modeling articles, i read about new releases and love stuff like standard bearer or interviews with staff and things like heavy metal and golden deamon winners. 
But i imagine if we had the internet 20 years ago, we would have had people bitching about the amount of non GW adverts or the roleplaying sections or the constant focus on non core games like dark future or gorka morka,or maybe the pages that had black and white line sketches of models to be released by marauder miniatures, yeah thats right people back in the day you didnt always have a photopraph of the new release!


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> .
> 
> PS: Bring back fat bloke


so we can hang him for crimes against publishing!


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

I never buy WD ever except when there is something relevent to what I do in 40k.

I have bought the July issue simply because I wanted to see more of the Storm of Magic just because I thoght it would be interesting...

Now I will buy the next 2 issues just so I can actually play my SoB army.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> iBut i imagine if we had the internet 20 years ago, we would have had people bitching about the amount of non GW adverts or the roleplaying sections or the constant focus on non core games like dark future or gorka morka,or maybe the pages that had black and white line sketches of models to be released by marauder miniatures, yeah thats right people back in the day you didnt always have a photopraph of the new release!


 
:goodpost:


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I quite liked Stillmania, but I've never heard so much as a whisper about it in any of these WD threads. Anyone remember it? Entertaining AND useful.

Midnight


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Maidel said:


> Actually, very similar to they are now, but just more tacky. Now we seem to get 2 page adverts between articles with full colour armies on display and a forgeworld logo (or black library or latest expansion) in the corner. The older white dwarfs seem to have single page adverts, sometimes in the middle of articles, for a random box of models and the entire advert is a picture of a box. So they were just as frequent, but less 'attractive' and more intrusive.


So effectively making them less noticeable? If they were terrible adverts, people aren't going to look at them as much, because they're not appealing to the eye.

What with GW having them in the first 2 - 3 pages really nicely laid out, and very visual, means that people notice them more. Making people think there is more of them.

And, yes, the fact they always rig Bat reps.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Marneus Calgar said:


> So effectively making them less noticeable? If they were terrible adverts, people aren't going to look at them as much, because they're not appealing to the eye..


 
I think it was just a sign of the times. Modern desktop publishing has made it easy to have a full colour photo with logos and writing all over it where needed, and text placed with the photo still visable behind.

Go back 15 years and it wasnt that easy, so the adverts are all a single colour, with a box, with a photo in it and writing around it.

Do people think its ok to post up scans of GW adverts?


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Do people think its ok to post up scans of GW adverts?


Probably, you're helping their business by doing so. Don't think there's anything in the forum rules against it either.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> Probably, you're helping their business by doing so. Don't think there's anything in the forum rules against it either.


Ive asked the 'powers that be' what will and what wont get them into trouble - if it all pans out ok, then I will post examples of everything.


----------



## presc1ence (May 23, 2010)

I swaer these threads were why the GW forums wetre shut down............................ but anyways....
There was a period in the last five years where WD dropped to no more than a giant leaflet. 
No real info, just adverts and well adverts. (Oh and BAD english, the standard used to be superb!)There was No FLUFF, no pretty art, not really any focus on painting or modeling. They even stripped out all the luverly little borders around all the articles.:-(

It may still not be up to the pre-2000 standard but it IS better. They at least remember to have all the fluff and art in it now.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

presc1ence said:


> I swaer these threads were why the GW forums wetre shut down............................ but anyways....


Im not really sure I understand your issue - I am investigating the quality of the magasine to see if it has changed from its 'glory days' that people seem to think it had.

How is this 'these threads'?


----------



## presc1ence (May 23, 2010)

Maidel said:


> Im not really sure I understand your issue - I am investigating the quality of the magasine to see if it has changed from its 'glory days' that people seem to think it had.
> 
> How is this 'these threads'?


Not taking issue, just sayin'. 

TBH honest I agree with you, but it has got better than the low point it hit five or so years ago.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Maidel said:


> I think it was just a sign of the times. Modern desktop publishing has made it easy to have a full colour photo with logos and writing all over it where needed, and text placed with the photo still visable behind.
> 
> Go back 15 years and it wasnt that easy, so the adverts are all a single colour, with a box, with a photo in it and writing around it.
> 
> Do people think its ok to post up scans of GW adverts?


That's what I mean, in design we get told make everything look so visually appealing. I reckon that's probably why it's so much more noticeable, It's kind of like newspapers I guess, they're more appealing to read now than they were 30* or so years ago because of the full colours pictures and page 3 :biggrin:

*Probably longer ago than that now I think about it..


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

presc1ence said:


> TBH honest I agree with you, but it has got better than the low point it hit five or so years ago.


Ill be honest, I didnt notice that 'low' point either - ill look for it when I go through some WD from 5 years ago.




> Not taking issue, just sayin'.


Ok, not taking issue, but just 'sayin' what?


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Problem is as due to the fact I don't own all the White Dwarfs I've ever had it's impossible for me to provide the evidence that you have, so it's neither here or there since you can say one thing but I can't provide evidence to support my belief.


----------



## Arias (Jan 8, 2011)

Like Maidel has pointed out the amount of ads and other content seems to be the same through out the years. My beef with WD is just that regardless of how many articles it has in it now days they seem kind of half assed, like next to no thought was put into it. I agree that they are very similar in most areas, the content was just a higher quality.

@Presc1ence: Why is it you think this type of article is anything like ones that were on GW forum? I'm just curious because Heresy-Online is one of the few forums for this hobby these days where most people are civil, there isn't a huge load of whining, and I can have a great conversation with someone without that person acting like a complete idiot. I do not agree with a great deal of what Maidel says and some of the topics he posts but it is most definitely not like the crap that was on the GW forums.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Problem is as due to the fact I don't own all the White Dwarfs I've ever had it's impossible for me to provide the evidence that you have, so it's neither here or there since you can say one thing but I can't provide evidence to support my belief.


Hey, its me, Im not going to squish you simply for having an opinion that you cant support....


Well, maybe I might - but you are still entitled to voice it!

Might I ask how you come to your conclusion if you dont have a wide referance point to start with?



Arias said:


> Like Maidel has pointed out the amount of ads and other content seems to be the same through out the years. My beef with WD is just that regardless of how many articles it has in it now days they seem kind of half assed, like next to no thought was put into it. I agree that they are very similar in most areas, the content was just a higher quality.


Got any ideas how I can assess 'quality'?


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Maidel said:


> Hey, its me, Im not going to squish you simply for having an opinion that you cant support....
> 
> 
> Well, maybe I might - but you are still entitled to voice it!
> ...


Because I moved home and instead of keeping all my White Dwarfs I ended up giving them away to a friend.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Because I moved home and instead of keeping all my White Dwarfs I ended up giving them away to a friend.


Oh right, sorry, misunderstood - I thought you meant you hadnt actually seen that many, as apposed to simply no longer having them.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Nah I had absolutely loads but it's pretty hard to take them all when your dad kicks you out on your ass and you have to get your mum when you live in Blackpool and she lives in Birmingham


----------



## Arias (Jan 8, 2011)

Maidel said:


> Got any ideas how I can assess 'quality'?



Now there lies the big issue, its generally a matter of taste. You can compare that the amount of ads is pretty much the same as well as hobby articles but with actual content its a little harder.

For me it would be how in depth some of the articles are, just looking over some of the older ones it would seem to me that they just took there time and more interest in what they were doing instead of just pushing something out. It may be different for others but like I said, it seems to be more a matter of opinion than fact in this case.

I actually don't even hate some of the newer ones, I have found a few with decent bits within several WD from this past year.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

It's not the quantity of articles, it's the quality. We want scrath-built terrain and cool conversions!

Midnight


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Arias said:


> . I do not agree with a great deal of what Maidel says and some of the topics he posts but it is most definitely not like the crap that was on the GW forums.


Im like Marmite - you either love me, or hate me - there is very few people in the middle :grin:



Words_of_Truth said:


> Nah I had absolutely loads but it's pretty hard to take them all when your dad kicks you out on your ass and you have to get your mum when you live in Blackpool and she lives in Birmingham


Id love to post a picture of my loft and just the small fraction of my stuff that I have on shelves up there - and then the 8 moving boxes worth of stuff that I havent got the space to unpack. :biggrin:



Arias said:


> Now there lies the big issue, its generally a matter of taste. You can compare that the amount of ads is pretty much the same as well as hobby articles but with actual content its a little harder.





MidnightSun said:


> It's not the quantity of articles, it's the quality. We want scrath-built terrain and cool conversions!
> 
> Midnight


Both of these go together. The problem like Arias says is that quality is in the eye of the beholder. Some people dont like 40K (like my old man) and thinks that any WD that dedicates a lot of space to that is BORRRING. I think that any WD from about 9 years ago is extremely boring - or at least equally boring in proportion to the amount of LOTRs stuff it had in it. And I loved the films....

Some people like rules, some fluff, some modelling and I cant find a decent way of objectively displaying that 'quality'.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Does anyone else think that maybe a magazine for such a specialised hobby is outdated?

Why not have a WEBSITE, that is regularly updated with Battle Reports, news, painting guides and tips, staff contributions, etc etc.

I think that's much more practical and would save money for GW.

White Dwarf has steadily declined in quality, while increasing in price, which is terrible IMO.

How can I have to pay more, for less?

The Battle Reports aren't exciting, there are few of the cool fluff contributions that were always added, and overall the magazine feels stale.

I haven't bought a WD in over a year, and am not planning on starting anytime soon.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> Does anyone else think that maybe a magazine for such a specialised hobby is outdated?
> 
> Why not have a WEBSITE, that is regularly updated with Battle Reports, news, painting guides and tips, staff contributions, etc etc.
> 
> ...


Can't make money from it unless they make it a pay4access site. Same problem with why newspapers are going under.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Can't make money from it unless they make it a pay4access site. Same problem with why newspapers are going under.


Yeah, but the difference is that GW aren't a paper/magazine, they are a hobby.

They make their money from models, paints, tools (literally and figuratively lol) etc etc.


The fact is, if GW are making money from White Dwarf they should just stick with that and not make many changes regardless of how stale the magazine has become.

IF and I do mean IF, they are losing money, then they should simply stop the magazine and have a website which will cost little to run compared to printing and making a magazine each month.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> How can I have to pay more, for less?


Erm - have you read the news lately? Thats the story of the world at the moment.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> IF and I do mean IF, they are losing money, then they should simply stop the magazine and have a website which will cost little to run compared to printing and making a magazine each month.


Website = one source of advertising


White dwarf = many many sources of advertising because its sold in many many shops.

Even if GW were going to the wall, WD would be the last thing they stopped before they closed the studio gates because its their one and only source of marketing that is available outside of their own shops (and indi retailers).


----------



## Arias (Jan 8, 2011)

Maidel said:


> Im like Marmite - you either love me, or hate me - there is very few people in the middle :grin:



I don't hate you by any means, you can be quite opinionated sometimes but your always respectful and you push the conversation.




D-A-C said:


> Does anyone else think that maybe a magazine for such a specialised hobby is outdated?
> 
> Why not have a WEBSITE, that is regularly updated with Battle Reports, news, painting guides and tips, staff contributions, etc etc.
> 
> ...



Here is the problem with a website, what could they put on there site that you couldn't find anywhere else even if you had to pay for it? I know its essentially the same with a physical copy, you can just copy and post it as you wish. 

Myself and other people also like the physical copies, its why I haven't switched to a Kindle or a Nook for my reading. I like having the actual book, the feel of it as well as the experience for me is just different.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Arias said:


> I don't hate you by any means, you can be quite opinionated sometimes but your always respectful and you push the conversation.


You see - that is just plain wrong.





Im ALWAYS opinionated. :grin:


But the rest of it ill take as a compliment.


----------



## presc1ence (May 23, 2010)

@Presc1ence: Why is it you think this type of article is anything like ones that were on GW forum?
Did I even mention the whinging? 
Noting to do with civility, just the title of the post. WD critiques were THE most popular title of thread before I remember the site vanishing.(or I got bored and didn't visit again, one of the two).

Anyways back on topic it’s been better since that young(ish) guy left. Will check me WD's when I get in and give you numbers of the worst ones. 
I have unbroken run from issue 70 or 80 and if you jump from one of these to say summin around 300/350(??) it is just crap.

TBH all I want is the pretty pretty borders actually making a full comeback (they reappear sporadically but only on things that are obviously fluff).
they made it feel like you were reading a product of love, rather than a corporate catalogue.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Maidel said:


> Im not sure that anyone can claim that the current WD are substantially more 'advert' than the older ones. the older ones certainly did have less battle reports, but for me the only thing that has changed is the quality of the magasine,


That right there is enough to justify "hating on" White Dwarf.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

presc1ence said:


> Anyways back on topic it’s been better since that young(ish) guy left. Will check me WD's when I get in and give you numbers of the worst ones.
> I have unbroken run from issue 70 or 80 and if you jump from one of these to say summin around 300/350(??) it is just crap.


If we are going to be honest, you cant compare the current WD to anything before about issue 100 because prior to that it was just a 'general' hobby magasine aimed at selling ANYTHING, rather than just GW stuff.

Im going through all the stack, every 5 or so issues (Wont be exact because I cant always find the ones I want.) Up to issue 50 an the worse so far was issue 35 which was FOURTY SIX PERCENT (46%) adverts. Now when I say adverts Im not talking about articles like 'open box' where they review the latest releases - Im simply talking about pages that are full of nothing by adverts.

Makes me wonder how they managed to sell a 39 Page magsine where 18 pages were just adverts - that means you were paying for 21 pages of actual stuff.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

right. Ive drunk too much to carry on doing this accurately.

Using roughly every 5th WD as a good guide, with the last issue being 97 these are the stats:

'Magasine Pages' (14%)
Contents pages: 2%
News and letters pages: 3%
'Other' Articles and comments: 5%
Artwork and cartoons: 4%



'Gaming pages' (39%)
Painting: 1% (only started in issue 55)
Painted armies and Eavy metal pages: 2% (only started in issue 55)
Fluff Pages and prose: 2%
Rules and senarios: 34%

'Advertising' (48%)
Catalog Pages: 3%
Product Reviews: 6%
Adverts: 39%


I will go on and do the rest of them, when I have a clear head - but compare that to the latest edition:

Magasine -4%

Gaming - 54% (includes the battle reports)

Advertising - 44%


----------



## Arias (Jan 8, 2011)

presc1ence said:


> Noting to do with civility, just the title of the post. WD critiques were THE most popular title of thread before I remember the site vanishing.(or I got bored and didn't visit again, one of the two).


Gotcha, thanks for the clarification, didn't get what you were saying.

Regardless of whats currently in them we can only hope GW keeps there word and does exactly what they said they would, make the magazine better. Even if they throw in a few more pages of ads I would be fine with that as long as the quality increased and it was actually worth the price.


----------



## daubers (Apr 28, 2011)

What honestly surprises me is the lack of any decent Podcasts, Vidcasts or the like of any wargaming hobby. Given the current weaknesses in WD I'd have thought they would be cropping up all over the place.


----------



## Wingman (Jun 27, 2011)

I think doing an online magazine similiar to how WotC does it would be nice. This would of course go along with the WD magazine in paper format but would allow for those that would rather read it online read the articles as they are published throughout the month until the release date when the entire magazine is done. 

I would rather listen to a player made podcast though rather than a GW one where a couple of guys are absolutely gushing about how awesome finecast, Fulcrums and Ultramarines are.


----------

