YMMV, but I will score this issue 2.0 out of 5.
You will like this issue if you like new rules and if you like looking at pictures of painted models.
I notice that since the last issue I bought the tag line ‘the ultimate wahammer magazine’ has been removed from the cover. In different forms that tag line has been included for as long as I have been buying the Dwarf and it makes me wonder why it has been removed.
As with every issue since the Dwarf was reimagined the Worlds of Warhammer article leaves me nonplussed and IMO is the weakest article of the mag. For me the base of a model is just that and I doubt very much I will ever look at a base and be able to discern anything about the person that painted it as the article suggests may be the case.
The header for the WoW article states that it is intended to delve into the background of AoS and 40K, but this article is a very personal account of Phil Kelly’s change in attitude towards painting his bases and creating a narrative with them. The article just seems pointless and it tells me nothing about AoS or 40K.
The ‘last of the silent kings’ article, which is what made me but this issue, is also a bit lacklustre. This six page article only has three pages about the Silent King and the other three are just fluff pieces written to look like letters and radio broadcasts.
The theme of lack of detail is continued in the Galactic War Zones article. This month's ‘Zone is about how to paint and build your models to represent the planet they live and fight on. Whilst potentially a good article due to the lack of detail the article ends up just being six pages of painted models.
This month’s Rules of Engagement is all about the three ways to play AoS. The problem with this, IMO, is that the three ways to play have been around since 2016, so it seems far too late to be explaining the differences between the three ways to play. Another problem with this article is that Ben Johnson covered pretty much the same content back in Nov 2016.
Ben talked about playing the different kinds of games in the ‘General’s Almanack’ of Nov 2016 and he covered most of what Jervis covers this month, but he did so in a much more (IMO) informative manner.
A welcome change was that this month’s ‘A Tale of Four Warlords’ wasn’t too bad a read and this was because it wasn’t purely about how the Warlords painted their models. There is information about how the Warlords expect their units to perform and information on games the Warlords have played.
Conversely this month’s Warlords highlights why I don’t normally like this article. I would much rather read about why a Warlord has chosen a particular model and how they think a model will perform than read about which colours they used to paint their models.
I nearly liked the Battle Report, but once again it has been let down by its incoherent layout and the narrative style write up. It gets off to a really good start with the army lists and their general’s thoughts on their game plan. This is followed by a half decent deployment section. All of this good stuff is then followed by what is essentially a story style write up of the game. YMMV, but I do not find this style of battle report to be informative enough.
The normally brilliant Glory Points is a bit of a disappointment this month and somehow reads like a rehash of past articles. This feeling is reinforced by the fact that the article points you in the direction of past article for more information on the subject in hand.
The two fiction pieces are a welcome break from new rules and pictures and they are an enjoyable read.
The terrain showcase is really good and details how to use the Rohan House kit to create different house designs. I particularly like the use of two kits to produce one large house.
31.5% of this magazine is made up of new rules. Whilst I applaud the support for the specialist games I do wonder if this is too much of a good thing all at once.