Tale of Painters review February’s White Dwarf (and compare it to a classic 1998 issue)

By Polar_Bear
In Games Workshop
Jan 28th, 2013

Tale of Painters compares the next White Dwarf magazine with an issue from 1998.

From the review:

For this month’s White Dwarf review we thought of something special: Appropiate to the new Warriors of Chaos release, we dug out issue no. 217 from 1998, where Realms of Chaos saw the light of day, and compare it to February’s White Dwarf. Was White Dwarf back then really better or will the new issue beat the old one by a nose?

About "" Has 26103 Posts

I was born at a very young age. I plan on living forever. So far, so good.
  • n815e

    This was honestly an awful article.

    Let me sum it up for you: the models and terrain of today look better than the models and terrain from 1998 and therefore the content of the magazine from 1998 is not as good as the content of of the magazine from today.

    What a useless way to measure actual content.

    • I second that.

      Then again, the article is SO dumb, I wonder if it is actually some wicked form of trolling the new fanbois.

  • keltheos

    What was interesting to me is that I’ve read their previous reviews of the new magazine format and they were far less forgiving. Just a weird read. Also, his ‘hobby content’ breakdown is lacking. Back in the old days the magazine had GAME content and HOBBY content, like stats for that model they included, while these days it’s pretty much just HOBBY content with the very rare GAME content entry.

  • Jammybee

    The advert bit annoyed me. 4 pages showing off their non-core products vs >100 pages hammering home their new releases. 46 pages of new releases is a good thing?
    How is having models next to their prices and release date not an advert in the new version?

    What n815e said.

    I think the reviewers and my idea of a decent mag is pretty different.

  • Jase Scott

    regardless of then and now comment in relation to models, yes they are so much better today than back in the day. but today’s incarnation of WD is purely a sales magazine plain and simple, all it is used for is to sell their product and nothing else, they show the prices in most spaces and when that is not happening they are secretly selling or saying things like “i want these models for my collection and so will you” it is a massive catalogue not a magazine.

  • surprize

    There are point that you can pick up on this review, but I found it a real eye opener. What I take from this is that White Dwarf sucks now and it sucked in the past as well. Just I was younger and didn’t notice and had forgotten in the meantime. I reckon you have to go back to about pre-#180 of WD for a magazine remotely worth buying/reading.

    • Nightbee

      That’s what I was thinking as soon as I saw the “classic” issue they had selected. White Dwarf was certainly better then, but it was hardly at its peak.

      Ridiculous article, regardless.

  • KelRiever

    Reviewing magazines…..:P

    Next up, reviewing catalogues!

  • beardybard

    I took the terrible writing to his facebook, pointing out some of the flaws I found. Basic reply was “I take that on board, but its just a toy soldier magazine.” Followed by comparing me to Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons, then saying “I’d taken it too seriously”.

  • Kroothawk

    You understand the positive bias for the new WD format better, when you know that the reviewer’s models were featured in December WD:
    None of his models were featured in 1998, so new issue wins again 😉