News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: White Dwarf February 2017  (Read 1676 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alienscar

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1465
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
White Dwarf February 2017
« on: February 20, 2017, 10:55:23 AM »
White Dwarf February 2017

I will give this issue 1.8 out of 5.

TL:DR White Dwarf will only interest you if you like painting and looking at photographs of models.

As I said in my last review of the White Dwarf I am no longer buying it monthly but I was tempted to buy this issue due to the new Aeldari stuff.

On the whole I think I am sorry that I bothered. I have said it more than once but I really think that this version of White Dwarf is dangerously close to being a reimaging of the Visions magazine.

Read on and see what you think.
 
Including the front cover and backside of the back cover the magazine has 156 pages.
 
The magazine is split into nineteen sections and they are:-
Latest News, Contact, Spike Magazine, Temporal Distort (White Dwarf Issue 166), Designer’s Notes (Triumvirate of Ynnead), A Tale of Four Warlords, A New Breed of Eldar (Ynnari background), Battle Report (Stormcast Eternals Vs Tzeentch), Illuminations, Mustering for War (Army painting tips), Paint Splatter, Realms of Battle (containers and trees), Golden Demon (AoS), New Rules (Silver Tower, Lost Patrol, Deathworld Forest, mega-battle scenario), A Tale of One Painter (Chris Stahl spotlight), Eavy Metal (crystal blades and gemstones), Blanchitsu, Reader’s Models & In the Bunker.

One page of meet the team, one editorial page, two contents pages, ten  pages of adverts and twenty two pages of stuff that you can buy or pre-order now. That is 23% of the mag.

Including the adverts and counting two half pages of pictures as one this issue has forty two pages that are nothing but pictures/photographs. That’s 27%.

In my opinion the stand out articles in this issue is the Designer’s Notes, A New Breed of Eldar, Battle Report, Mustering for War and Blanchitsu.

The articles that were the main reason that I bought this month’s White Dwarf, the Aeldari background, turned out to be interesting and, unlike the previous Dark Eldar article, mostly coherent. It is a real shame that these articles only took up ten pages of the magazine as I would have liked the Ynnari article to be a little more in-depth.

It appears that GW are listening and are willing to make changes to the White Dwarf. In Dec’s review I wished for articles covering terrain and lo and behold this month there is a terrain article. Except it isn’t because as usual they have turned what should have been a really interesting article on how to modify Armoured Containers and Citadel Trees into a painting article. There are one and a half pages (out of three) of how to modify an Armoured Container into a narrative piece or base and then the rest of the article is all about paint schemes. Frustratingly they don’t even show the narrative piece finished.

It is similar with the Trees. Two pages (of two) of paint schemes sprinkled with little ideas on how to adapt them. For example:-

Quote from: White Dwarf Feb 2017
Obsidian Boscage: Gareth Williams opted to paint his Citadel Wood with pallid, almost white bark and lush red-brown leaves. As a stark contrast to the foliage, he chose to paint the rocks on the base as glossy chunks of obsidian, with the help of a few coats of ‘Ardcoat. He also cut down one tree, giving the impression that this wood’s close to civilisation or at least a battleground.

In my opinion more about the physical aspects of modifying the Trees would have made for a much better article.

Four Warlords finished in this issue and even though this issue was just before their big battle the Four Warlords content was the same as all the other instalments. That is, it was all about how they painted their final additions. Each Warlord even chose their favourite model painted by one of the other Warlords. I can’t help thinking that this last article should have been about how they expected their army to perform.

The grand battle that is the finale of the Four Warlords is a really strange affair. There are five pages for the four turns of the battle. Each page consists mostly of photographs and only one sixth of the page is taken up by the written account of the battle. The style of the report is an odd one and I can only describe it as chatty. Can you imagine each turn of a game being described in, on average, one hundred and forty words a turn? I guess they were going for a friendly, lightweight and accessible battle report that is easy to read. Strangely I nearly enjoyed it. A bit more depth and tactical knowledge or reasons for some of the moves made by the players and this would have been an okay article.

On the other hand I really enjoyed this month Battle Report. It was written as a commentary on the game from the view point of each of the players and as such I felt that I really learnt something about both the armies being used and on how/why the players made some of their decisions. Each turn was spread over two pages with the written content only taking up one quarter of the available space. Fewer pictures and more words and this article would have been perfect.

Of note (maybe) is that once again I have myself enjoying an AoS Battle Report that Ben Johnson is part of.

Mustering for War: well would you believe it a painting article that like. Spread over four pages this article is all about how to organise yourself to get your army painted. So not really a painting article as it doesn’t tell you how to paint as much as it tells you when to paint. For some reason I like hobby articles like this a lot. I might never plan and organise my painting the way it is described in this article but I like learning about possible methods available to me. Of note the pictures and words are just about evenly split on the page so the words aren’t lost and have just as much importance as the pictures for a change.

Blanchitsu continues to impress and just be simply mind-blowing. The conversion work that these people undertake leaves me without words. The only thing that would make this article better is if they listed every component used to make a conversion.

Parade Ground was enjoyable this month which is an unusual thing for me to say. The Parade is all about Christopher Stahl’s (Chris is a founder of the Tale of Painters blog) model collection but thankfully it doesn’t concentrate on how he painted each model. Instead it is an article about his past, his conversions and his painting style.
 
Forty two pages of nothing but pictures, five pages of Reader’s Models, twelve pages of paint splatter, five pages of Golden Demon and four pages of Eavy Metal Masterclass. That’s 43.5% (68 pags) of the magazine given over to painting and/or pictures of models. That is too much in my opinion.

This is a real shame as I always enjoy Eavy Metal and this month’s article on how to paint gemstones and crystal swords was brilliant as usual but because of the other painting articles and model pictures it comes across as just one more painting article.
 
A bit more depth to some of the other articles and fewer pages concentrating on pictures/painting and this issue would have been bordering on good.
Quote from: Starrakatt
"Russ, get your work done or you won't see your damn console for the next month!"
Quote from: Cavalier
Honestly Alienscar, we get it... you dont like painting!

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: White Dwarf February 2017
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2017, 11:21:10 AM »
I like the sound of the player perspectives being reintroduced to the battle report.  I prefer the narrative style for stories, rather than for battle reports, so having the players explaining their decisions and providing an account from their perspective of each turn appears to be a step in the right direction for me.

Temporal Distort also sounds quite interesting.  I think that White Dwarf 166 was when 40K second edition was released.  Considering the complexity of contemporary 40K rivals that of second edition, I'd say they chose very well.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Alienscar

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1465
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: White Dwarf February 2017
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2017, 05:51:32 PM »
I like the sound of the player perspectives being reintroduced to the battle report.  I prefer the narrative style for stories, rather than for battle reports, so having the players explaining their decisions and providing an account from their perspective of each turn appears to be a step in the right direction for me.

The difference between the Battle Reports is remarkable. The "Four Warlords" one barely reads like a Battle Report at all due to its almost chatty like style and the accompanying photo's are just photo's of the players standing around the board. They do not include the normal movement arrows that I would expect of a Battle Report.

The Stormcast versus Tzeentch Report is just brilliant though. Having read it you really want to read it again. I really like the way it informs the reader of the reasons the players are doing what they are doing each turn. I wish every Battle Report could be like this but going on the answer to a letter printed in this issue of the White Dwarf I do not think this will be the case.

Temporal Distort also sounds quite interesting.  I think that White Dwarf 166 was when 40K second edition was released.  Considering the complexity of contemporary 40K rivals that of second edition, I'd say they chose very well.
   

You are spot on Irisado. Issue 166 of the White Dwarf was all about the introduction of second edition.

Quote from: White Dwarf February 2017
Ah 1993, blah blah, and the second edition of Warhammer 40,000 was born. This was a big change for Warhammer 40,0000 as it left behind the skirmish-style game of Rogue Trader for the mass battles of the 41st Millenium.

This is probably the poorest Temporal Distort so far as it was very light on information. This is probably down to the fact that Issue 166 was focused on the new release.

Neil Hodgson (Eavy Metal) showed off his own model collection that included early conversions of Aspect Warriors. There was a bit of information about the old Mail Order service and some about how the Battle Report introduced Erasmus Tycho. This issue also came with a Space Marine model attached to it.

The actual magazine must have been quite good though. According to the very small write up the magazine included a Battle Report to show off the new rules, an article about Space Marine Chapters, new rules and background for Space Marines and an Eavy Metal guide on how to paint the free model.

Quote from: Starrakatt
"Russ, get your work done or you won't see your damn console for the next month!"
Quote from: Cavalier
Honestly Alienscar, we get it... you dont like painting!

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: White Dwarf February 2017
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2017, 07:47:50 AM »
White Dwarf 166 was an excellent showcase for second edition 40K.  It featured Orks versus Space Marines, with Jervis Johnson playing the Orks and Andy Chambers taking the Space Marines.  I'll leave you all to guess who won if you don't know ;).  In addition, the battle report write up was riddled with a series of typos of the letter 'o', which resulted in some rather bizarre formatting and spelling errors where multiple instances of the letter were included instead of one.

It sounds as though that the current issue could have made more of that battle report in the Temporal Distort feature, especially given that it was the main focus of the issue.  That said, I guess that they don't devote a huge amount of space to this content, so not getting into that level of detail is not a surprise.  Still, an interesting trip down memory lane :).

The other Age of Sigmar battle report that came up in one of your earlier White Dwarf reviews was also quite positive if I remember correctly.  Maybe they look to be more detailed with those, given that it's a new game that they'll still be marketing heavily?  Either way, that does sound like the best section by far of the current issue.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 07:49:29 AM by Irisado »
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Alienscar

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1465
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: White Dwarf February 2017
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2017, 09:16:22 AM »
It featured Orks versus Space Marines, with Jervis Johnson playing the Orks and Andy Chambers taking the Space Marines.  I'll leave you all to guess who won if you don't know ;).

That's a difficult choice because as we all know Orks never lose  :)

That said, I guess that they don't devote a huge amount of space to this content, so not getting into that level of detail is not a surprise.

Temporal Distort has always had two pages devoted to it in the White Dwarf's that I have read so far.

The other Age of Sigmar battle report that came up in one of your earlier White Dwarf reviews was also quite positive if I remember correctly.  Maybe they look to be more detailed with those, given that it's a new game that they'll still be marketing heavily?  Either way, that does sound like the best section by far of the current issue.


I am not sure if it comes across in my reviews but the common denominator would appear to be Ben Johnson

Of note (maybe) is that once again I have myself enjoying an AoS Battle Report that Ben Johnson is part of.

Every article Ben has been part of has been brilliant. Nov's Battle Report had Ben in it and so did Dec's Army of the Month. Army of the Month is normally an article I consider to be filler material at best but when Ben was the subject of this article it made even this mundane article better.

Maybe they look to be more detailed with those, given that it's a new game that they'll still be marketing heavily?  Either way, that does sound like the best section by far of the current issue.

I think you could be onto something there Irisado. I hadn't really noticed until you pointed it out and I have gone back just to check. The three issues (Nov, Dec & Feb) of White Dwarf that I have bought so far definitely have an AoS bias. Nov & Dec were nothing but AoS and even this months issue, which has the release of the Ynnari, is still mostly AoS in its content. Only ten pages have been dedicated to the new Aeldari release. Back in the day the release of a new faction would have resulted in them being used in a Battle Report.

Note that I do not consider Paint Splatter, Illuminations or Golden Demon to be proper 40K content.
Quote from: Starrakatt
"Russ, get your work done or you won't see your damn console for the next month!"
Quote from: Cavalier
Honestly Alienscar, we get it... you dont like painting!

Offline Sir_Godspeed

  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
  • Country: no
  • "Bees. My God" was an obscure Batman quote.
Re: White Dwarf February 2017
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2017, 10:30:43 AM »
Quote
The articles that were the main reason that I bought this month’s White Dwarf, the Aeldari background, turned out to be interesting and, unlike the previous Dark Eldar article, mostly coherent. It is a real shame that these articles only took up ten pages of the magazine as I would have liked the Ynnari article to be a little more in-depth.

Aeldari si the new, more trademark-friendly version of Eldar, right?

Offline Lorizael

  • GW Shill: Infinity Circuit: Synergistic Spotter of Numpties
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6784
  • Country: 00
Re: White Dwarf February 2017
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2017, 03:20:12 PM »


Aeldari si the new, more trademark-friendly version of Eldar, right?

Nah, it's just an ancient name for the race and is being used to describe them as a whole. They're still Eldar currently.

Offline Alienscar

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1465
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: White Dwarf February 2017
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2017, 11:29:57 AM »
Aeldari is both the ancient name of the Eldar before the Fall and now the name that GW is using to describe Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins and Ynnari collectively.

According to the Fracture book any rule that refers to "any Aeldari model" is referring to any of the Eldar Factions.
Quote from: Starrakatt
"Russ, get your work done or you won't see your damn console for the next month!"
Quote from: Cavalier
Honestly Alienscar, we get it... you dont like painting!

 


Powered by EzPortal