flood

News:

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: White Dwarf February 2019  (Read 487 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alienscar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1237
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
White Dwarf February 2019
« on: February 6, 2019, 10:38:33 AM »
White Dwarf Feb 2019 content

MISCELLANEOUS: 9 pages, 6.16%

1 page of meet the team

1 page of editorial

2 pages detailing the contents

2 pages of letters submitted to White Dwarf.

3 pages of adverts

WARHAMMER 40K: 10 pages 6.85%

40k Section Introduction: 2 pages to introduce the 40k section of the magazine. One photo, spread across two adjacent pages, of models artfully arranged to look as if they are battling each other.

Before the Storm: Fiction –  4 page short story set on Vigilus.

Echoes From the Warp: 4 pages – Robin Cruddace writes about why beta rules are a good thing. This article includes a new beta rule called ‘Bolter Discipline’


AGE OF SIGMAR 24 pages 16.44%:

AOS Section Introduction: 2 pages to introduce the AOS section of the magazine. One photo, spread across two adjacent pages, of models artfully arranged to look as if they are battling each other.

The Thirsting Blade: Fiction  4 page short story featuring the Bloodbound.

The Tome Celestial: The Hammerhands: 12 pages – This aricle is AOS’s version of Index Astartes. This month has details and background for the Hammerhands.

New Rules – Hammers of Sigmar: 2 pages – Four new Warscroll battalions that enable you to field a Hammers of Sigmar army based on the Hamerhands Warrior Chamber.

Rules of Engagement: 4 pages – Jervis Johnson provides the details of a new AoS battleplan.


SPECIALIST GAMES: 46 pages 31.51%

Kill Team Section Introduction: 2 pages to introduce the Kill Team section of the magazine. One piece of artwork, spread across two adjacent pages, depicting  battle.

New Rules – Kill Team: 1 page of new rules to allow you to use Severina Raine in a game of Warhammer 40,000: Kill Team.

Kill Team Weekender: 6 pages describing the goings on at last years inaugural Kill Team event.

Kill Team Battle Report: Vengeance on Golgotha – 19 pages of a Kill Team Battle Report detailing the Astra Militarum attempting to rescue Yarrick from the Ork’s.

Nightvault - Glory Points: 4 pages – A detailed look at Mollog’s Mob.

New Rules - Warhammer AOS: Skirmish Campaign- 4 pages introducing new rules for playing Warhammer AOS: Skirmish campaign – The Tomb of the Arcallurgists.

Mini Battle Report – The Tomb of the Arcallurgists: 4 pages detailing a Warhammer Age of Sigmar: Skirmish campaign using the new rules.

Adeptus Titanicus: 6 pages detailing the history of Vassal Houses and a new maniple.


MODELLING AND PAINTING: 36 pages 24.66%

Reader’s Models: 4 pages of models painted by readers of White Dwarf.

Children of the Stars – Featured Army 8 pages of a Craftworlds Aeldari army painted by Lee Bates.

Fantastical Realms - The Realm of Metal: 8 pages detailing how to paint and model your models to suit a particular Realm.

Army Showcase – Army Showcase 6 pages of a Hammers of Sigmar army painted by Warhammer TV’s Martin Morrin.

Paint Splatter – Painting Hammers of Sigmar: 6 pages of a painting guide for the Hammers of Sigmar.

Inside the Studio: 4 pages detailing what the Design Studio team are currently painting and playing.


OTHER: 21 pages 14.38%

Worlds of Warammer: 4 pages of Phil Kelly writing about how to name your heroes.

The Die is Cast: 6 pages of Jervis Johnson telling you what his favourite Games Workshop games are.

Illuminations – The Mirrored City: 4 pages of the art of Warhammer Underworlds as illustrated by Phil Moss & John Michelbach.

Black Library Interview – Warhammer Adventures: 6 pages of an interview with the writers of the new Black Library books aimed at 8 – 10 year olds.

Temporal Distort: 1 page covering White Dwarf 154 from October 1992.


NEXT MONTH: Index Imperialis: Assassins


Give Away Item: 18 page Temporal Distort booklet that contains a full reprint of a Battle Report, fought between Jervis Johnson and Andy Chamber, that was originally  printed in White Dwarf 154.
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 Alienscar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1237
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: White Dwarf February 2019
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2019, 10:45:01 AM »
I will score this issue 2 out of 5

TL:DR You will like this issue only if you like receiving new rules and looking at painted models. In my opinion this is not the best ever White Dwarf.

Once again Worlds of Warhammer is the weakest article this month, though it is a closer contest this time around. Similar to last month I struggle to see the point of this article.

Also similar to last month Glory Points is a touch of hobby genius and it stands out like a sore thumb amongst all of the other exposition type articles. It is the best article this month.

It might not be clear from my initial breakdown, but 7.54% of the magazine is made up of New Rules. That is eleven pages, which might be considered as okay by some, but if you don’t play some of the games that the rules are for you might consider it too many.

Another thing that might not be clear is that the quantity of Painting / Modelling articles is higher than shown in my breakdown. This is because whilst I have listed the Kill Team Event under 'Specialist' it is actually nothing but a display of Kill Team teams and a description of their paint schemes. Also the introductory pages for Kill Team and 40k are nothing but photos of models.

The total number of pages dedicated to painting in one guise or another is 44, or 30.13%. Having so much of the mag dedicated to one aspect of the hobby is a mistake in my opinion.

I am not sure what to make of this month’s Battle Report as it really suffers from comparison to last month’s.

If I hadn’t read last month’s Report I might have enjoyed this Report, but last month’s Report really highlights the paucity of information that a narrative type Report offers a reader. Quite a lot of this Report could be removed and you wouldn’t notice the difference.

The Tome Celestial is the AOS version of Index Astartes and I was looking forward to reading it. Once again though when reading an AOS fluff article I have been left feeling a bit nonplussed. I don’t know if it is the terminology used, or the general lack of depth to the background, but I struggle to find the content of this article meaningful. Don’t take too much heed of this though as I am guessing that if you are into AOS then you will probably understand and like this article.

Additionally this background article on the Hammerhands suffers from something else I have mentioned before, which is that it reminds me of the background for something from 40k.

The whole thing about subdividing Stormhosts into various chambers and conclaves with the chambers focusing together warriors with particular battle field strengths just sounds too much like a Space Marine chapter being divided into companies.

The two short fictional pieces are really worth reading and a welcome inclusion.
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 Blazinghand

  • Aspect Warrior | Master of the Ravenwing
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1159
  • Country: us
  • Die for the Emperor or die trying!
  • Armies: Eldar, Orks
Re: White Dwarf February 2019
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2019, 06:08:30 PM »
Thanks for the review! I don't always reply to these but I do enjoy reading them.
Quote from: Howard Zinn
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.

Offline Alienscar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1237
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: White Dwarf February 2019
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2019, 11:11:29 AM »
I am glad to hear that Blazing hand. To be honest if the White Dwarf carries on in the same vein then March's issue will be the last one that I buy.
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 Looshkin

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 990
  • Country: gb
  • Once held an Utter Fear of Tiny Diamonds
  • Armies: I 'play' Eldar. Or at least horde unpainted models
Re: White Dwarf February 2019
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2019, 01:35:43 PM »
I am glad to hear that Blazing hand. To be honest if the White Dwarf carries on in the same vein then March's issue will be the last one that I buy.

I'm sorry to heat that Alien. I know we disagree regularly about WD, but I wouldn't want to see 1 or 2 poorer issues drive you away.

As far as February is concerned, I largely agree with you. I read the January issue voraciously, whilst this latest issue just didn't hot the right spots. Whilst I somewhat enjoyed the nostalgia of Andy Chambers Vs Jervis Johnson, the narrative style reporting really leaves me cold.

The fiction was again a high point and I'm pleased to see a longer story spread over 2 issues.


It might not be clear from my initial breakdown, but 7.54% of the magazine is made up of New Rules. That is eleven pages, which might be considered as okay by some, but if you don’t play some of the games that the rules are for you might consider it too many.

I get the feeling that GW can't win on this. Either they're not putting out enough new content or if you don't play the system, you won't enjoy it.

I welcome new rules and content. If they can expand the games in any way and allow people more chances to field their armies how they want them, then more power.

The whole thing about subdividing Stormhosts into various chambers and conclaves with the chambers focusing together warriors with particular battle field strengths just sounds too much like a Space Marine chapter being divided into companies.

To be fair, it just sounds like any military organisation. There's no real way to avoid them sounding a little similar.

I loved the addition of the Battle for Golgotha. I played Squats in Epic and loved them. I still hate the ease with which a Gutbuster Belly Gun can take down every single Void Shield with 1 shot though. Grrrrrrrr!

So, for me, I thought that there were some redeeming features, but on the whole, the issue was a massive letdown compared to January. 2 out of 5 for me too.
WD127 - Started a Love Affair my Wallet Just Can't Cope With...

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11179
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Harlequins, Night Lords
Re: White Dwarf February 2019
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2019, 05:31:36 PM »
I'm not one to usually buy White Dwarves. That being said, I bought this one, and I will be buying the next one as well for the simplest of reasons:  rules.  To me, the inclusion of the rules in White Dwarf feels like a throwback to the early days of my 40k career when they would include rule updates in Chapter Approved sections.  Those sections would then be compiled in an annual Chapter Approved book at the end of the year.

So yes, I paid $15 for a single block of text that gave my bolters some much needed umph!  And I will pay $15 next month to get rules for my Assassins that make them actually worth running.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Alienscar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1237
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: White Dwarf February 2019
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2019, 10:32:01 AM »
I'm sorry to heat that Alien. I know we disagree regularly about WD, but I wouldn't want to see 1 or 2 poorer issues drive you away.

One or two poor issues never used to bother me and I never missed an issue in the past. But what I meant to write was that March's issue will be the last one that I buy on a monthly basis and I will start to buy them if I like what I see in the reviews.

I get the feeling that GW can't win on this. Either they're not putting out enough new content or if you don't play the system, you won't enjoy it.

I welcome new rules as well and I hope they continue. The point I was hoping to make was that new rules and forty pages of painted models might not appeal to a wide audience.

To be fair, it just sounds like any military organisation. There's no real way to avoid them sounding a little similar.

Maybe, maybe not. I can't help thinking that an army made up of reanimated warriors that when they die can be magically restored should sound different to what is 'normal'. Also it is 40k that the writing reminds me of and not real life.

So, for me, I thought that there were some redeeming features, but on the whole, the issue was a massive letdown compared to January. 2 out of 5 for me too.

I am glad that your score matches mine. If a hobby orientated person such as you can agree with me then that gives me hope that the White Dwarf might gradually evolve into 'the best ever White Dwarf' again.

I have seen the highlights of March's White Dwarf on Warhammer Community though and it looks pretty much like February.

So yes, I paid $15 for a single block of text that gave my bolters some much needed umph!  And I will pay $15 next month to get rules for my Assassins that make them actually worth running.

I imagine there will be a lot of people doing exactly the same as you, but that doesn't make it the best White Dwarf that they said it was going to be.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2019, 09:46:03 AM by Alienscar »
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 Alienscar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1237
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: White Dwarf February 2019
« Reply #7 on: March 6, 2019, 10:08:35 AM »
White Dwarf February 2019 Temporal Distort Booklet

Feb’s White Dwarf came with an eighteen page booklet that included a full reprint of the Battle for Golgotha Battle Report that was originally published in White Dwarf Feb 1993 (Issue 58).  For the sake of completeness I thought I would review the booklet as part of Feb’s White Dwarf review.

The Battle Report starts off with a one page fictional piece of writing. Not quite a story, but more along the lines of how Wyddr starts some of his Battle Reports.

Next is half a page of background for the game. Essentially this is explaining why the battle is using Squats and Ork’s, and why it is a 4000 point game. This is a Space Marine Battle Report by the way.

So far so good. Of note that over these two opposing pages there is only one picture. This picture takes up slightly less than half a page and is artwork instead of the modern photo of models. The artwork is of Squats and Orks in a battle. It is very green, red and yellow.

The next five pages are of Andy Chambers and Jervis describing which units they have chosen for the battle and why. Of these five pages two of them are taken up by pictures of the assembled armies along with a picture of the cards that go with the chosen units.

The next page is one page of an olde world style map. Layed out in a landscape orientation the map takes up two thirds of the page width and depicts the position and units at the start of the battle. The remaining third of the page is the key for unit icons used on the map. This is clear, concise and easy to understand.

The next six pages detail the battle itself. The whole battle is written as one long story. So a narrative report and to be despised then. Well actually no. Three of the pages are made up of, roughly, one third map, one third unit icons and one third writing. The other three are made up one half photo of the game board and one half text. These three pages also contain little bits of artwork and a large (ish) display of the victory points total.
 
Because the whole Report is laid out in a linear fashion the Report is easy and fairly enjoyable to read. Compared to the current layout, which is one picture of the game board spread across two pages with all of the text spread about in little boxes, the old style Battle Report is more enjoyable an experience. It is helped, I think, by the fact that the game only lasted three turns.

The last two pages of the Report cover is a summary by Andy Chambers and Jervis of how they and their opponent could have played differently. This section is informative, interesting and more detailed than the current Battle Reports.
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
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11071
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Globals do not play 40K
Re: White Dwarf February 2019
« Reply #8 on: March 6, 2019, 04:48:23 PM »
I still have that battle report from the original issue and the Space Marine Battles compendium that also incorporates it.  More battle reports adopted a narrative style back then, but they were well written and easy to follow.  It's good to see them being revisited.  The level of detail and the turn-by-turn approach of the older battle reports is a style that I wish that GW would revert to.
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

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1237
  • Country: 00
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: White Dwarf February 2019
« Reply #9 on: March 7, 2019, 11:18:28 AM »
More battle reports adopted a narrative style back then, but they were well written and easy to follow. The level of detail and the turn-by-turn approach of the older battle reports is a style that I wish that GW would revert to.

I too wish that GW would use a format that is closer to this old standard.

The amount of information provided by this old format is definitely the quality that stands out the most compared to today's WD.

I thought that January's WD came close, but after reading this Temporal Distort I see that there is room for improvement.
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