What would you like to see more of in White Dwarf (POLL)?

[Guest]

Seems to me that WD heavily favours some types of content over others these days, and many types of article that were very popular back in the day are now in short supply or gone entirely for some reason. I'm just wondering what you think WD needs MORE of. Not asking what your favourite type of article is - so for example you may love battle reports, but if you feel that they're already well represented please don't vote for them.

If we get enough responses I may email the results to WD, see if we can wield some democratic influence!

[Charles]

It's a shame you can only vote for one thing ?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Charles said:

It's a shame you can only vote for one thing ?

If I made it multiple choice I suspect that a lot of people people would vote for so many options that it would flatten out the results and not really tell us very much about what people want most. The option to pick 3 choices would have been ideal, but the poll doesn't support that.

[BunkhouseBuster]

I voted Other.

To me, I always think it is cool to read about the designer's thoughts on how they came up with their ideas, whether for rules or model design or fluff.  Everything in it is pretty cool, but hearing about the creator(s)'s inspiration is always cool to me.  Seeing how other ideas get turned into new ones is always cool to me.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

I voted Other.

To me, I always think it is cool to read about the designer's thoughts on how they came up with their ideas, whether for rules or model design or fluff.  Everything in it is pretty cool, but hearing about the creator(s)'s inspiration is always cool to me.  Seeing how other ideas get turned into new ones is always cool to me.

That's weird, I did include that as an option but it's disappeared - must have accidentally deleted it.

[BunkhouseBuster]

1 minute ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

That's weird, I did include that as an option but it's disappeared - must have accidentally deleted it.

That is strange for an option to drop off.  I almost selected "Illuminations / artwork", but figured that wasn't quite what I was wanting (though it would have been my second choice!).

[BrAiKo]

I picked rules supplements... especially for Warhammer Quest adversaries!

[Arkiham]

When describing armies, the "army show cases" that is. I want to see what armies are up to  what they've been doing,  what their likely plans are, where they fit into the world etc

When showing off new units id love to see the concept designs etc added to their current coverage of new armies.

I'm starting to see less and less of a need for battle reports, and I feel they should shift that focus to twitch,  including a tale of 4 warlords, it should be covered at all stages , the concept behind the armies, the lists, the painting etc, make it a journey people can join in with,

They could include kitbashing techniques, ideas etc. Terrain constructing etc like how tbey used to, apparently.  (before my time)

Twitch needs more, it can do so much more, relying entirely on a few people to do it seems a bit silly, YouTube is massively underused also, as is Facebook. If people who run their own channels etc can find sponsors to give stuff away in sure a multi-million pound company can do some give aways

[RuneBrush]

I've gone other too - I'd like to see more musings like we used to have with Jervis' column.  Basically proper articles that I can read - I think Visions proved that people don't want a book full of pictures

Battle reports tend to be the last thing I read in a WD now though I'm not sure if it's because I'm not interested, they're not as appealing to read or the other content is more exciting?

15 hours ago, Arkiham said:

They could include kitbashing techniques, ideas etc. Terrain constructing etc like how tbey used to, apparently.  (before my time)

Kitbashing would be good, but I can't see a return to scratch build/terrain construction as largely whatever WD shows needs to promote GW products.  Controversially, I think this is a good thing! I picked up my old making terrain book the other day and even taking into account modern techniques, a pringle tube water silo just doesn't stand up to scratch any more   I think we've been spoiled over the years!

One thing that would be cool would be AoS/40k building "sections", so basically a box of walls, floors and roofs that WD could feature with lots of ways to assemble (bit like they did when the fortified manor came out).

[someone2040]

The one thing I chose was new allegiance abilities, battle plans, time of war, etc.

I mean, people have been frothing for a while for Ironjawz allegiance abilities, why not in one of the 'off' months just push some Ironjawz content in White Dwarf, and publish some allegiance abilities to go with it. Gives new AoS content while 40k is getting some some time in the light.

I think the reason they don't know, is they've stayed away from publishing stuff you need to play the games in White Dwarf in more recent years. You can always get optional add on rules, but never a proper part. I think it's a bit of a mistake though, because Allegiance Abilities could easily be published on the App or Black Library as stand alone content as well after the White Dwarf is out, meaning anyone can get access to them even if they didn't get the White Dwarf (But for those that got the WD, they get it for 'free').

 

New warscrolls as well, although that'd likely need a model release in some ways. But I'd like to see more one off micro releases add to factions in the game. Stuff like the Lord Veritant release, just not for Stormcast. 

Again, I get the gut feeling that they don't do this because they like to focus on a particular faction as a whole at once. I don't think they tend to get a brief that says "Go wild, sculpt a model for any faction you like".

 

But yeah, I'd like to see more 'official' content I can use in any of my games that adds something new into the 'meta' so to speak.

[Arkiham]

Even just putting in some custom scenarios would work, some named characters with rules desinged for narrative play, some customer terrain rules etc. 

As currently in not really seeing a point into subscribing to white dwarf and twitch when much of the content is mixed between both  and is better on twitch as i can interact with them.

why care about a white dwarf interview with questions someone else asked when I can ask the guy myself.

why care about reading a battle report when i can watch one.

pretty pictures of armies? Google.

Make each magazine unique and desirable.

Make me want , make me need this months magazine, as currently this year I couldn't care less looking back on them. 

[wayniac]

Honestly I want to see more tactic and list building articles, and articles about collecting a force. My favorite of all time was Stillmania during 5th Edition fantasy when Nigel Stillman had three articles talking about building and painting a bretonnian force. The Articles were amazing insight to how to go about planning collecting and painting a full Army.

 

I also think that they need to publish another article about the spirit of the game as a Counterpoint to all the win at all cost competitive types that in my opinion are ruining the game

 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[Chris Tomlin]

Boobies!!!

[13on2D6]

More around list building for competitive games, why people choose certain units, combinations, and general strategy of certain army lists

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Chris Tomlin said:

Boobies!!!

I agree, WD could benefit from more female contributors.

[VBS]

Been ages since I last picked up a WD, so no idea what it looks like nowadays, but from back in the days I usually liked the monthly detailed battle report and those short stories (2-3 pages) with a nice fluff flavor. Another really really cool thing were those additional rules and army lists like the temporary Bretonnia and Wood Elves, Regiments of Renown, Albion rules, etc... So both experimental and official rules that you could just add! Though I doubt GW still does this, right? 

On a side note, I think that WD suffers a bit of the new technology syndrome. When Internet did not exist, WD was my main source of info for Warhammer. I was so eager every month to grab my copy. Nowadays, you can get most bits of WD content on the internet much quicker for no cost, so the utility of a printed magazin for a wargame seems more limited. Warhammer Community seems like a sort of "replacement", but not quite there. 

[Soulsmith]

Right now, I think WD is doing great. I agree with @VBS, they definitely do need to focus on those things the internet can't provide so well. For me, I would like to see more indepth articles on other's armies. I remember from old WD my favourite article was like an ongoing monthly evolution of a staffers Iron Warriors, with so many conversions and depth on all of them.

[Gotrek]

Battle reports.  And when i say battle reports, i mean battle reports. Not "heres a 2 sentence synopisis of the battle round and a pic of the field " i mean like back in the late 90s battle reports with overhead graphics of who went where, why, and what did each unit do. 

Second to bat reps would be tactics articles/how to collect an army/ fluffy stuff that helps with how to be a better player.

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Gotrek said:

Battle reports.  And when i say battle reports, i mean battle reports. Not "heres a 2 sentence synopisis of the battle round and a pic of the field " i mean like back in the late 90s battle reports with overhead graphics of who went where, why, and what did each unit do. 

Second to bat reps would be tactics articles/how to collect an army/ fluffy stuff that helps with how to be a better player.

Loved those as well! But with the three ways to play articles on being a better player might be tough to balance. Would you expect them to discuss the 'ultimate synergy stacking dropping thunderers for one shot and then retreating' kind of options or how and when you discuss your opponent recycling units without seeming like a d*ck as you would/should in open play to save the match? Or maybe how to create your own flavourful extra rules fitting a narrative campaign?

[Gotrek]

41 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Loved those as well! But with the three ways to play articles on being a better player might be tough to balance. Would you expect them to discuss the 'ultimate synergy stacking dropping thunderers for one shot and then retreating' kind of options or how and when you discuss your opponent recycling units without seeming like a d*ck as you would/should in open play to save the match? Or maybe how to create your own flavourful extra rules fitting a narrative campaign?

Id expect more of a top down view of the tactics rather than a hyper competitive "spam X unit, win game" style of play. Things like "how to deal with mortal wounds with X army", "why having more drops isnt a death sentence" or "tips and tricks for avoiding hero sniping". Things that would remain valid as the meta changes and possibly anti-meta tactics (ie "how to deal with skyfires" or "how to survive an alpha strike"). It could also include things like taking an underused/overlooked unit and getting more mileage out of it.

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Gotrek said:

Id expect more of a top down view of the tactics rather than a hyper competitive "spam X unit, win game" style of play. Things like "how to deal with mortal wounds with X army", "why having more drops isnt a death sentence" or "tips and tricks for avoiding hero sniping". Things that would remain valid as the meta changes and possibly anti-meta tactics (ie "how to deal with skyfires" or "how to survive an alpha strike"). It could also include things like taking an underused/overlooked unit and getting more mileage out of it.

That would be a good set-up. But I think they are doing real well bringing the battle reports to the Twitch channel. Only watched one game and a interview but seems like a good set up. Easier to demonstrate things and get more in depth without filling pages. 

[KnightFire]

4 hours ago, Gotrek said:

Battle reports.  And when i say battle reports, i mean battle reports. Not "heres a 2 sentence synopisis of the battle round and a pic of the field " i mean like back in the late 90s battle reports with overhead graphics of who went where, why, and what did each unit do. 

Second to bat reps would be tactics articles/how to collect an army/ fluffy stuff that helps with how to be a better player.

Interestingly that is the opposite of what I would like to see in battle reports. I like the new style reports that are much more about the narrative and coming up with a story about what happened, rather than "Matt needed an 8 to make the charge, and he rolled a 7, so didn't make it. In the shooting phase Ben rolled 240 attacks with his kunnin ruk, getting 120 hits, and 80 wounds, Matt saved 60 of them and took 20 wounds"

zzzzzz

[Toddy]

+1 to articles on tactics and battle reports with a little more emphasis on tactical thought.

I think actually, what I would really like is the '3 ways to play' more equally represented in the magazine. At the moment it feels like they are pushing Narrative pretty hard, and a more competitive style is almost ignored entirely. While I enjoy the narrative element, I think they are underselling a really enjoyable element of the game in talking about tactics, and the strategic use of different units/approaches. As already mentioned, tactical discussion need not extend to 'win-at-all-cost' spamming of the most efficient units. Something like 'How to use Cavalry', or a breakdown of how each Khorne unit is best suited to the battlefield can be interesting without being cut-throat competitive.

I think there is room for a blend of both  there certainly seems to be appetite for it on here.

[KnightFire]

42 minutes ago, Toddy said:

+1 to articles on tactics and battle reports with a little more emphasis on tactical thought.

I think actually, what I would really like is the '3 ways to play' more equally represented in the magazine. At the moment it feels like they are pushing Narrative pretty hard, and a more competitive style is almost ignored entirely. While I enjoy the narrative element, I think they are underselling a really enjoyable element of the game in talking about tactics, and the strategic use of different units/approaches. As already mentioned, tactical discussion need not extend to 'win-at-all-cost' spamming of the most efficient units. Something like 'How to use Cavalry', or a breakdown of how each Khorne unit is best suited to the battlefield can be interesting without being cut-throat competitive.

 

Personally I think they lean a little too hard towards matched play gaming, which probably means they have the mix about right (we are all reading it after all).

BTW - spamming the most efficient units is not "win-at-all-costs". Win at all costs refers explicitly to things that are considered cheating (nudging models, weighted dice, stretched measures etc). The "at all costs" refers to the cost of doing morally unacceptable things. Spamming the most efficient units is just competitive play, and there's nothing wrong with that.