"Battlefront acquires Wargames Illustrated and Gale Force 9" Topic

"So what is a NON-GW business model that works in this industry?"

Just take a look at the manufacturer listings here on TMP. I think most if not all of them would be regarded as having a business model "that works" – that is they are trading quite happily.

"I see several manufacturers putting out fine products with decent web pages, but not a single link to a shop where I can actually look at their product and buy it."

I can't speak for other parts of the world, but in the UK, if you really want to see stuff "in the flesh" (so to speak) then that is what the shows are for. Salute must be the wargamer's idea of heaven – a high street filled with nothing but wargaming shops …

You need to remember that even in pre-Internet days most sales of miniatures were by mail order, very few, if any, B&M shops. The only way you got to see what they actually looked like (apart from a grainy photo or two in Wargamer's Newsletter) was if a mate had some of them. Of course now t'Internet is slowly killing off all the B&M shops (lower overheads, you see).

I have no idea how WI will develop with this acquisition but I cannot see any logic in buying an existing magazine changing it's format content etc and alienating the existing readership who will then drop subscriptions. They are not purchasing something with a massive editorial staff and in house writers etc. It's printed by a regular printing company. If BF wanted a magazine to plug FoW they could start a new one and all the FoW players would buy it. If they do turn WI into an in house magazine & turn off existing subscribers that would be very short term thinking and BF may be many things but short term thinkers is not one of them.

I for one will be interested to see how this turns out and will renew my subscription in a few months time. Watch this space maybe our exclusive little hobby will expand in more ways than one.

perhaps they have not intention of changing it, and might even stick to what the release says.

But I would expect a sensible approcah is to change it ver' ver gradually. Slightly more articles each month on their stuff only, hoping to keep a few of the existing customers using their stuff.

In Fairness, I bought into wargaming as a RPG'er that got sick of having nothing to read in my monthly white Dwarf! So I would say it works.

Pat

I note that the Battlefront site declares: "Battlefront Miniatures are the world's leading historical gaming company…" So when did that bold statement become true?

I purchased my first WI in ages last night and regretted wasting my $11 USD about 10 minutes after I started reading it. Sure the pictures were nice but not worth that money (and I spend $15 USD on Arsenal football club magazine regularly and don't feel ripped off so I am easy to please).

I think this will be great for the magazine and the hobby in general – just some WWII painting articles would be great for me.

FOW isn't my favourite ruleset but it is fun, about 15 guys in the club collect it and my FLGS has a pile of it for sale.

I'll admit that I am fighting the temptation to get into it myself (and using IABSM) only because I have a ton of 28mm WWII already and doing the same period in two scales would be lunacy.

Although the soothsayers who predict Flames of Workshop world domination may have another reason to predict the sky is falling down, I'm not so sure.

I'm no fan of FoW, but I have also noticed the way WI has become totally irrelevent to the types of games I play, and seems happy to fill it's pages with soft focus shots of Foundry's latest release or pointless homages to figure painters. End result, I went from an avid buyer to not having picked one up in years (except the one that had nice photo's of our Bovvy display game in, but I'm human).

FoW will of course slowly force a focus on their product, and in a few years will be "the FoW Hobby magazine". Not really sure if this is such a sound move, as magazines seem to me to be last years news, with web and email being more effective.

Will watch with interest

Is there anything more pathetic than the cranky old grognards who come out of the woodwork to protect the "True Faith" (ie their idea of what a "serious wargame) is everytime Battlefront or FOW are mentioned? Your jealousy at the rest of the World passing you by is quite sad.

Why don't you guys go back to your mimeographed rules from the 1980's and leave the rest of us in peace, free from your obnoxious condescension.

"FOW isn't my favourite ruleset but it is fun, about 15 guys in the club collect it and my FLGS has a pile of it for sale. "

I really don't understand this concept. "Flames of War" (FoW) is a set of rules. It recommends the use of 15mm miniatures, but of course that is not mandatory. How can anyone say they "collect" FOW? If they are refering to the BF minis that have "Flames of War" emblazoned all over their boxes, then that suggests a misunderstanding of the difference between a set of rules and the minis used to play them. BF are not the only manufacturers of 15mm WW2 stuff on the planet, and I'm sure many Fow players use Peter Pig models as well as other manufacturers. If you had said:
" about 15 guys in the club collect Battlefront" it would have made more sense.

cosmickanga wrote:

I note that the Battlefront site declares: "Battlefront Miniatures are the world's leading historical gaming company…" So when did that bold statement become true?

Well, given the experience I wrote about earlier in this thread, they're not wrong. It's just a question of what criteria they choose to use. I don't know of any company that doesn't strive to be a "leader", and most seem to include that in their mission statement. If you use the criteria of "visible to the average consumer", at least in the US, they do seem to be the leader in terms of product on shelves, prominent display, etc.

So far as actual production and sales, who knows? I don't think there are any reputable numbers that can be used for comparison.

Who would you consider the leader, and by what criteria?

- Bob

"Is there anything more pathetic than the cranky old grognards who come out of the woodwork to protect the "True Faith" (ie their idea of what a "serious wargame) is everytime Battlefront or FOW are mentioned?"

I think you'll find that most of the respondents to this thread are not knocking FoW as a game (at least not in this thread). The general tenor of opinion seems to be along the lines of:

BF are attempting to emulate GW by acquiring a house magazine.
By buying WI, we foresee that over time WI will become exactly that.
As to whether that will be a good thing or not, the jury is out.

There are people who are easily offended when others say that the WI is going to become BF's mouthpiece. I do not understand why. The perception I have is that WI is not doing that well in terms of the number of subscriptions. We do not know who approached whom regarding the sale/acquisition of WI. I remember looking through the magazine a few times. Lots of pretty color pictures but not a whole lot else to make me want to fork up a chunk of change for an issue. I mentioned about WI being a mouthpiece for BF and my stifle count went up! I was amazed at that and I obviously touched off some folks' nerves. That was never my intention, but oh well…

BF acquires GF9 and WI. If you are in a business, would you do the same? I am curious as to why BF bought an existing magazine line as opposed to building one up from scratch. Yes, there are similarities between BF and GW, but in BF's favor I have to say this: There is no issue regarding exclusivity in using other companies' minis. I would say that is a big thing. Will that change in the future regarding other minis being used at their tournaments? Maybe, but thee are a number of companies that make WW2 minis in 15mm and I think that this would not promote BF to other players whether they are noobs or grognards.

Bottom line: WW2 gaming is being actively promoted. The look of the rules are professional with lots of eye candy (I can say "Eye Candy" can't I?).
Are FOW rules the sliced bread of WW2 gaming? It all depends on how you look at it.
FOW is making inroads in stores and on the web in a way that I have seen only GW doing that.

I've been miniature gaming for about 20 years, and with only a few exceptions FOW/BF is the ONLY range of historical miniatures/rules that I've ever been able to purchase from my FLGS. Ever.

I had the idea, in my mind, of doing this very thing years ago, but in 6mm. When GW came out with their "Epic" boxed sets, I envisioned historical sets based on the same idea. Too bad I never acted on that….. :-)

I like the BF miniatures for the most part, and have a good many of their boxed sets. I hardly, if ever, use the FOW rules when gaming with them. I prefer other sets of rules, but I have nothing against FOW. To each his own.

Like others have said, I'll wait and see what happens to WI. I can't see how this can be a bad thing, but we'll see.

GregS

It seems that there's a real populist sentiment among many (most?) wargamers, or at least those that post on message boards. So many seem to disdain commercially successful companies or any practice by those companies that are designed to broaden their market and make them money.

I've always wondered why wargamers have this reaction. Is it because wargamers are an odd, counter-culture lot to begin with and that's part of the theme?

Capt John Miller wrote:

[…] BF acquires GF9 and WI. If you are in a business, would you do the same? I am curious as to why BF bought an existing magazine line as opposed to building one up from scratch.

Could it be that they are earnest in their stated plans? WI has something of a reputation already, and perhaps they actually mean to encourage growth and promotion of historical gaming as a whole?

We already know that BF would like to expand to "something beyond WWII" -- they've said as much. They've also apparently gotten good at producing a wide range of miniatures and successfully getting them into actual store shelves, filling what seems to me at least to be an unmet demand. Rather than turning WI into a FoW magazine, perhaps they plan to turn BF into a miniatures and rules company unconstrained by any one period? If there's a demand, they seem to want to fill it. What better way to help gauge demand than a magazine?

Yes, there are similarities between BF and GW, but in BF's favor I have to say this: There is no issue regarding exclusivity in using other companies' minis. I would say that is a big thing. Will that change in the future regarding other minis being used at their tournaments? Maybe, but thee are a number of companies that make WW2 minis in 15mm and I think that this would not promote BF to other players whether they are noobs or grognards.

I've noticed that the price-per-vehicle gap has closed at least with several of the manufacturers. BF is competitive, so having competition out there isn't killing them.

Oh, no stifle from me. Always glad to discuss all sides.

- Bob

It is interesting how as soon as a company shows any ambition, drive or genuine desire to expand in this hobby, people get all uppity. Commercialism in wargaming, whatever next? Photos of the models on websites, online ordering, returns policies, some vague attempt at customer service, my god where will it all end.

Ok so BF may very well turn WI into a house magazine – who cares? It could not have gotten any worse than as an advertising pamphlet for Wargames Foundry, sorry I mean serious wargaming magazine. So surely we can only gain, or just or ignore it sa many do?

As for BF as a game – I find it truly amazing that people deride any warGAME with the old chestnut of "my mate is ex army and he says its not realistic". Ok lets have someone shooting at us and play in a muddy field then shall we? Of course its not realistic, but if people enjoy it then why knowck it?

I love this hobby, as my effort at making a website to support people in it totally free of charge testifies, but I truly despair at how people in our hobby so easily lose site of the fact that we are playing with toy soldiers.

David
tabletopreview.com

I second the above. Is there a collective amnesia about the days when there were 8-12 pages of Wargames Foundry ads in every issue?

SMc.

Mike Snorbens wrote:

[…] I really don't understand this concept. "Flames of War" (FoW) is a set of rules. It recommends the use of 15mm miniatures, but of course that is not mandatory. How can anyone say they "collect" FOW? If they are refering to the BF minis that have "Flames of War" emblazoned all over their boxes, then that suggests a misunderstanding of the difference between a set of rules and the minis used to play them.

In TodCreasey's defense, almost any thread on TMP relating to Battlefront and/or FoW, be the topic rules, miniatures or company, tends to yield at least a couple of posts by the usual suspects relating to at least some of the unrelated issues:

1. BF is like GW.
2. There are too many pictures in the books.
3. The heads on the minis are too big.
4. Too many kids play FoW.
5. The rules don't include <whatever>, so aren't realistic.
6. Telescoping ground scale is broken.
7. Tank parks.

Some of these aren't unique to BF or FoW, yet they'll almost invariably pop up in any discussion even tangentially related, as with this thread.

Not to preach though: I am similarly antagonistic to all things Apple Computer. I just have good reasons for being so!

- Bob

I can't see why this won't be a Good Thing. WI was pretty much on life support as far as content goes anyway. Any new breath going in has to help stand it up.

And if it becomes mainly an FoW promotional vehicle it's no worse content wise for people who aren't into FoW.

"1. BF is like GW.
2. There are too many pictures in the books.
3. The heads on the minis are too big.
4. Too many kids play FoW.
5. The rules don't include <whatever>, so aren't realistic.
6. Telescoping ground scale is broken.
7. Tank parks."

You left out:

8. Exaggerated vertical dimensions on vehicles.
9. "Churning" too many supplements.
10. Badly-designed Web site.
11. No Early War (tm).

…to list a few. Feel free to add more!

Allen

I guess I don't see the concern over FLGS carrying historicals. I do both historical gaming and build plastic models. While there were a ton of hobby shops in the 70s, 80s, and 90s that sold models in almost every city, now there are very few. But the hobby hasn't died off, rather there are thousands of products available online that are easily accessible. True, I would rather go through the aisles of a local store fondling and checking out all of the merchandise(part of the fun of the hobby!), but there is a lot of stuff out there and no store can carry the right selection to please everyone.

The move by BF is clearly to set up their own version of White Dwarf for their products and it make sense from a business perspective. They get the magazine production assets, probably keep the staff who know how to produce the product, and a built in pipeline to get their product out to the world. You hit the ground running without having to invest costly time and money learning the business. But anyone who thinks that WI will remain as it is definitely wishful thinking.

"But anyone who thinks that WI will remain as it is definitely wishful thinking."

I wish for it to change. Years ago I bought it fairly regularily, but these days I look it through in the news stand and find out that *yawn* I won't buy that issue either.

If Battlefront just wanted their own White Dwarf they had the beginnings of that – their Art of War magazine. A bit expensive, but with great production value.

Judging from some of the comments in this thread, I think there are very few people who would WANT WI to 'stay the way it is', as it seems to be a contributing factor to this whole 'la cosa nostra' mindset that plagues wargaming as a hobby these days…I pretty much threw up my hands as most wargaming press (until Battlegames came along, that is) when I saw an ad in one of the UK magazines advertising an email list for colonial miniatures campaigns: To join it you actually had to send the list moderator mail (not email, but put-a-stamp-on-it snail mail) to join…

I've complained about WI too in the past, but what I meant by my comment about not changing it was to keep it a universal type mag with ancients, ACW, naval, etc. . I'm pretty sure by issue 6 or 7(maybe sooner) the first article will be about converting BF German halftracks, followed by a scenario for the East Front(using FOW), followed by articles on how to paint the BF Rommel fig for various theaters, followed by a discussion on which new period they should do, followed by an article on how to use Gale Force 9(now BF) markers in games, etc.

I am curious as to why BF bought an existing magazine line as opposed to building one up from scratch

I think it makes sense.

With an existing mag you already have product recognition and subscribers, as well as experienced staff, printing and distribution in place. That's much easier than trying to do it starting with nothing.

To echo Nazrat, I don't see a downside here.

I haven't read anything decrying the "demise" of WI. From what I've read on this thread alone, WI was stagnating. The worst-case scenario is "WI becomes White Dwarf for WW2 and you'll be able to get it at more places."

Seriously, that's the worst that can happen.

Short of that "failure"; some people are keeping their jobs, more people will be introduced to the hobby (or at least see the magazine), you might be able to find more players as a result – and, as a result, you might be able to find FoW (and other games) in more places.

As stated in the release, they plan on keeping content on other scales and eras.

As for "biggest historical game company" Hasbro has that title by way of Axis and Allies. Interestingly enough, aside from bad paint schemes and goofy "scale" I don't hear any of the "Evil Empire" wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Wyatt

So (potentially) from Foundry to Battlefront? When's my Old Glory mag going to come out?
The French 'Vae Victus' and the Italian 'Dadi & Piombi' are excellent magazines that others could also subscribe too – The Italian one translated – the French, unfortunately not.
I've (probably irrationally) never much liked WI as the cover picture never matched the content. Despite the trepidation and hand-wringing it's good to see the publication still around as so many go out of business in all fields. We're very lucky to have so many choices -even if they are 'mouthpieces'. Who didn't as a child like the airfix catalog when it came out. Like Christmas all over again.

As long as they still publish my article I dont mind :)

I imagine that they will continue as it is, with a bit more on FOW and anything else they release.

Hopefully the mag will get some more WW2 content in it now!

This could be a positive for the hobby if they push the mag globally.

I used to pick up the occasioal latest WI at conventions. No one locally caried it, which is not all that add. No one has ever called the Greater Scranton/Wilkes Bare Metroplex the Mecca of wargaming.
I did get a bit tired of the "historical scenario" articles that showed a bunch of painted figures, an ambiguous map, an incomplete OOB, and the comment "We played this using ACW house rules, but feel free to adapt any Napoleonic rules you see fit."
WI was all pretty pictures. I stopped buying it.

Maybe now, it will have a rules recommendation for 15mm WWII games. It can't hurt.

I fail to see the downside to a successful company buying a moribund one with hopes of improving it. Nor do I see a downside to them aquiring a company that makes good play aids. Now they can release them with nihil obstats and imprimaturs!

Some like to wring their hands and bemoan. I prefer to move on.

"Allen you forgot, No Pacific theater !!!!!!!"

I'm trying to move on.

"Maybe now, it will have a rules recommendation for 15mm WWII games."

Yep, I bet there will be precisely *one*. Same for sources for 15mm WWII (WW2) vehicles, figures, aircraft, terrain, transfers, and paint.

As it is a business, I would not expect the magazine policy to be much different from that of the FoW forum:

"Rule 1: This Is a Forum Run and Paid by Battlefront.
Battlefront runs and pays for this forum, with the intention of promoting the Flames of War hobby. It is their wish that their competitors brands not be promoted on this site. Please respect their wishes. If you do want to discuss other companies please do it on another forum like, The Miniatures Page, (www.theminiaturespage.com)."

I'm not complaining. It is a legitimate business concern. We shall see.

Allen

"I don't see a down side to this."

As someone who plays games that GF9 has supported that are not FoW, I do see at least one, at least until Litko steps into the gap.

"So many seem to disdain commercially successful companies or any practice by those companies that are designed to broaden their market and make them money."

I've got nothing against commercially successful companies. It's the ones that try to pretend the rest of the industry somehow doesn't exist that I find ….. odd.

WI owned by BF will inevitably become nothing more than a house journal. Nothing wrong with that, but I think a lot of existing subscribers will vote with their money.

One question – does anyone know if BF intend to keep the editor or replace him?

I have been told that Duncan Macfarlane is taking a phased retirement, helping with the changeover. Daniel Faulconbridge (Mode Graphics) has been retained, though his title will change, I believe, to UK Manager.

I wish him and the new owners the best of luck.

Henry
Battlegames
battlegames.co.uk

My guess is Duncan will take the cash and retire to whatever wargaming paradise he chooses. I wish him well, whatever haappens. He's a nice bloke.

Thrwoing my 2 cents worth in on business models, I don't object to successful companies. however, sharp business practices aren't exactly popular at the moment, at least in Europe, and from what I see on the TV, not in the States either. The money-at-all costs model is fast becoming distasteful to many, if not discredited – after all, greed reall is good for many of us.

Personally I'm with Mike when he finds himself disaffected by companies who call themselves a hobby, as opposed to part of the hobby. Still, I come from a wargaming period that started with people writing articles about converting Airfix Japanese into Arab Berbers and the like, so I guess I'm just an old fart as well.

q/Personally I'm with Mike when he finds himself disaffected by companies who call themselves a hobby, as opposed to part of the hobby. Still, I come from a wargaming period that started with people writing articles about converting Airfix Japanese into Arab Berbers and the like, so I guess I'm just an old fart as well.\q

Come on guys. It's sales puffery. When you go into your local store and see the promos for the "best" ice cream/laundry detergent/name another consumer product do you get this bent out of shape?

I've been gaming for 30 years and I remember the old times too-- photocopied catalogs from Minfigs, ordering blind through the mail and waiting a month to get your order, saving my pennies to go to the Miniature Figure Collectors of America convention to buy the Hinchliffe 25mm's, etc.

It's odd that so many people pine for those "good old days"!

Given FoW has done more to rejuvenate the historical hobby than all the other companies put together, I see this as a positive move.

As mentioned above, other companies sell at shows. Great – but that's preaching to the converted. It won't get a single kid to start historical gaming.

Sticking lots of models on racks next to the Gw stuff stuff will.

I don't share the hatred people seem to exhibit about folks making a living out of the hobby.

Given WI has in effect been a house mag for Foundry for years – and has been virtually exclusively for 28mm figures for a similar time, this can only be an improvement.

I've heard that other historical periods and even WW2 rules will be supported, with a FoW section every month. We shall see.

But given the waste of paper WI is right now, anything has to be an improvement.

Who would you consider the leader, and by what criteria?

The point is that it is hard for a company to back up a statement that it is "the" leading company. The simple response of "says who?" discredits it unless the original statement is qualified.

I note that Slitherine is similarly guilty in FOG when it claims to be "the" leading wargames software company, whereas Osprey in the same books claims to be "a" leading publisher. Osprey is more clued up than Slitherine about what can be substantiated.

A business can, however, more safely claim to be "a" leading company in its field. It means diddly squat.

The difference between writing "the" and "a" leading company is a basic distinction usually drummed into newspaper reporters and sub-editors – a naturally cynical lot who look at any company's claim to be the greatest and question it. If the claim can't be substantiated, "the" becomes "a".

Of course, Battlefront could probably claim to be "the" leading NZ wargames company. Which instead prompts the response of "so what?", if the claim is about being the biggest fish in a very small pond. :-)

Mick

"Given FoW has done more to rejuvenate the historical hobby than all the other companies put together, I see this as a positive move."

I see no evidence of this from where I sit.

I don't even think the "historical hobby" needs "rejuvenating" (whatever that means). AFAIC the wargaming hooby (I'm a wargamer, not a "historical hobbyist") is alive, kicking and to all intents and purposes bucking the economic downturn, probably because most wargaming businesses are NOT the proprietors' sole source of income.

The problem with WI was it's loss of credibility.

I beleive in calling a spade a spade, by the way, but that's not to say that there are not genuine writers and painters contributing too. But, there's something wrong. Take this: I saw an article pretending to be about a spontaneous WW2 game between two friends who, as part of the report gushed about the 'Britains' miniatures they were using. Now, I've nothing against Britains Toy Soldiers, but they're primarily toys and to obviously gush about them in a wargaming mag. raises suspicions. Sure enough, there was no action, no rules, no OOB and no one won this 'game'. The whole article was a paid fake. That's wrong: no one minds real product reviews, but fake articles only puts people off the product anyway. So, in this magazine we get:

Total detachment from real gamers and real clubs (no mention mostly):
leading to too many pretend games that were set up for the camera (just turn to the end of the article to find out who won and in most there's a deafening silence).

Product placement manipulatiuon (1):
Games that are set up to surepticiously promote a new range of figures, with dishonest text pretending a different reason ('we've always wanted to do a vietnam game' with ***** Miniatures of course)

Product placement manipulation (2):
I have one copy where every 'game' report in it is there to dishonestly name drop G.W.

When you think how many interesting people there are in the hobby, how many interesting things are going on in clubs and peoples' lofts and basements, or on little websites and the real contacts it's possible to make in the gaming world…….and to have all this reduced to a kind of McDonaldsism, where most everything you look at is a kind of commercial promotion, where most everyone who they interview is selling something, where the real life and activity in this hobby (like in the thousands of free websites and clubs) is mirrored only by the deformed life of product trends, where 'news' is a new range not a new club, where everything free is ignored, in a pretend life where real people no longer have fun with a HOBBY, we're just market-segment prey in a mind-washing commercial……..

Arrgh.

Will Battlefront promote plastic game reports too….or will they write honest reviews mixed with genuine reports about real people playing in this wonderful hobby?

Given FoW has done more to rejuvenate the historical hobby than all the other companies put together, I see this as a positive move.

FoW isn't really a historical game at all, it's more based on WWII as portrayed in the movies- stereotypes rather that actual history.

So we get Maori battalions who always do the Haka before going into battle, steadfast Brits with stiff upper lips and sergeants who "Carry On" when their officer gets killed. Bagpipes have semi-magical properties, Americans do the "Truscott Trot" and can advance quicker than anyone else, Russsins tanks are completely incapable of independent action and move around like a "Hen and Chicks"

etc etc etc.

It's mostly cliched nonsense, a fantasy game played with WWII toys.

It's mostly cliched nonsense, a fantasy game played with WWII toys.

And that's a problem, because?

Got to agree at least about the availability of WI – just spotted a few hours ago that the local sub-urb hypermarket stocks it these days.

To get hold of FoW, I would need to go all the way to downtown…

Griefbringer

It's a problem because Derek H is a serious student of history and a serious wargamer who looks down upon all the peons who are just having fun……

Mike – the hobby doesn't need rejuvenating?

Really?

How many historical gamers are local to you? How many of them are under 30?

Bangor is a small rural town with a population of around 12,000. It has 30 FoW gamers, mostly of secondary school age. Entirely due to the efforts of someone who set up a FLGS , stuck a bunch of product on the shelves and got people playing.

Can anyone else think of a rules system that does that, aside from GW?

If FoW is 'Hollwood history' (and it isn't, because it features Brits…. :) ) then so ar emany other rules sets, like Sword and the Flame.

As it is, you can leave out the frippery, but it does add atmosphere to the game. As does the qality (or not) of general officers pocket watches in General de Brigade, which isn't called a non-serious set of rules.

And FoW, unlike virtually any other main-stream rules set I can think of for WW2 actually gives data for nations other than Germany, the USA, Soviet Union and (if lucky) the UK.

People don't like FoW because it's popular and they didn't think of it.

But, the quality or not of FoW isn't really germaine to this discussion. All we can really do is cross our fingers and hope for the best.

"Given FoW has done more to rejuvenate the historical hobby than all the other companies put together, I see this as a positive move."

"I see no evidence of this from where I sit."

I think I have to agree with Mike on this one. In reality, BF has done a magnificent job of enlarging its slice of the historical wargaming pie. Not growing the pie, but taking a larger slice. They came in with professionally produced products, marketed their products worldwide, set up a good distribution system, and the rest is history.

However, I still have not seen a large crossover/migration to other historical periods. Granted, FOW is popular here too, and I've seen several large games at a few of the local stores. But, let's face it, if there was no FOW then most of these gamers would be spending their money buying four of the latest GW Ork dreadnoughts instead of two! Many of the gamers into FOW are looking for a game and if FOW falls out of favor at some point they will get into Warmachine, AT-43, or whatever else is popular at the moment.

Well, all I can say is my local evidence is 30 teenaged gamers.

So it can be done… albeit with a FLGS owner with huge amounts of enthusiasm and a veste ditnerest in growing his market.

But if they stick with WW2, so what? If they like GW, so what?

Once we've got them doing something historical, they need exposing to other rules. They probably won't do it themselves. youngsters have limited cash an d experience, which means they can be quite conservative.

Oh – and I want early war and Pacific too!

(Though I have played early war with FoW, using IABSM Calais scenarios. Works well.)

Scanning through the posts I get the impression that most of the negative posts are coming from people who

1) don't normally buy WI anyway (thanks for your input)

2) don't own / buy or plan to buy FOW stuff (thanks for your input)

I'm glad of anything that adds to my choice of things to buy, particularly if it gets a high street presence (best chance of new blood etc).

I can only admire those with the drive and commitment to actually makes things happen (Henry at battlegames, andrew the new owner of MW and the FOW people for their proliferation etc).

I always suspect that the biggest criticism for commercially succesful complanies comes mainly from the 'want something for nothing' tight wads who would be happy to have a sponge on a matchstick for a tree if it was free !

I would like a vibrant hobby please …. I would see that as including WI remaining on high street shop shelves.

I am more than happy to see the new WI have a go and see what the first few issues look like BEFORE passing judgement.

I would like to thank Duncan for his contribution to the hobby, prior to the widespread adoption of the internet, wargame mags formed an important communications platform and prior to that, Don Featherstones Newsletter,…………….. well, that was just simply superb, ah nostalgia!

Way to go. Always good to see a change, because without change you get stagnation. Me, I play with 1/72 soft plastic figures, but I got the FOW stuff to tempt my kids, just like I get WAB stuff – my kids are the future of gaming, and their view point is different to us old timers. they are weaned on instant access, hi-definition, fast paced, colourful EVERYTHING! They are not going to get excited by a set of zerox'd typed rules. End of!

So why don't we all just sit back and enjoy the ride.

(But my subscription money goes to Henry and Battlegames – WI is a monthly purchase from Smiths at present due to the 7YW articles)

I for one am now VERY excited :-)

Rich J

From my PoV it can't be a bad thing as I have not bought a copy of WI for a looooong time. I have obtained a few copies in the last few years and they to be honest have not interested me at all. In my games library I think I have the first 15 years or so of WI and a bit more in terms of MW. Both were good magazines.

Whatever BF do to WI it can only make me more likely to buy it as at present my purchase likelyhood is roughly zero.

I play FoW (using models from at least four different manufacturers) partly because it is fun, partly because at my club it is easy to get a game of it and partly because I like tournaments and there are a lot of FoW tournaments I can attend where I get to play even more different opponents.

I also play FoG and rather hope (possibly wishfully) that there might be a bit more coverage of ancients and anything that isn't the lates 28mm Foundry/Perry/whatever models.

For me it is a wait and see but it could well be a very good thing.

"Mike – the hobby doesn't need rejuvenating?
Really?
How many historical gamers are local to you? How many of them are under 30?"

Oh, I see. You understand "rejuvenating" to mean "adding younger gamers" to the hooby. I was thinking more of:

"rejuvenation – the phenomenon of vitality and freshness being restored; "the annual rejuvenation of the landscape"

You don't do that by bringing in teenagers who think that FoW is a "realistic" WW2 wargame system. (What do you mean, Shermans DIDN'T Charge into battle wheel sprocket to wheel sprocket???)

"It has 30 FoW gamers, mostly of secondary school age."

I do not know anyone that plays FOW around here. The nearest shop where I have seen BF minis on sale is 15 miles from here – and I'm in the heavily populated southeast of UK.

"Entirely due to the efforts of someone who set up a FLGS , stuck a bunch of product on the shelves and got people playing."

Think yourself lucky you've actually GOT a FLGS, we have nothing here (unless you count Orc's Nest in central London).

"People don't like FoW because it's popular and they didn't think of it. "

Popularity has nothing to do with it. (See above).

"most of the negative posts are coming from people who don't normally buy WI anyway"

I gave up buying WI years ago when it became obvious that it had degenerated to nothing more than a Foundry house journal. Is it surprising that people are sceptical of it being taken over by another company with similar aspirations?