"Is it "Wargames Illustrated" or "Wargames Infomercial?" Topic

Hi,
I've just bought the November issue of "Wargames Illustrated" and feel so dissapointed by it. I've been a long term buyer and reader of the magazine since 1990 and have stuck by it even after the buy-out by Battlefront. I even buy it blind rather than browse it as I usually always find a good article or two in each issue and I want my collection to remain unbroken.
However, I've noticed a trend which is really making me question continuing to buy the magazine.
This trend is the increasing take-over of the magazine by articles which are overtly linked to shiny and expensive wargames rules and their supplements. Indeed the magazine just seems to have become a series of glossy well produced infomercials rather than a collection of independant and truely innovative articles.
In this month's issue, there is an article on "Last Argument of Kings" for the "Black Powder" rules, written by its author which is really an extended advert for it, another extended advert for the "Bull Run to Gettysburg" rules by its author, a "Flames of War" article linked to the latest "Flames of War" supplement, a report on the "Flames of War" 2011 US nationals, a Vietnam scenario for "Force on Force" linked to its recent Vietnam supplement and co-authored by one of its authors and an Ancients scenario linked to and obviously intended to plug the up-coming "War and Conquest" rules.
A similar picture can be seen in most of the other recent issues. While the articles are often well produced or written and I can understand how commerial wargames operations can easily provide copy I think this trend is killing the magazine and lessening the chances of readers getting truely innovative or interesting articles. As an example the last part of the excellent series on wargaming the Mexican-American War wasn't published in this month's magazine but placed on-line instead with the space it could have had being given to two extended adverts!
I think this month may be the last I buy "Wargames Illustrated" as there is just not enough independant or innovative content to justify the cost. If only "Battlegames or WSS were monthly!
All the best,
George.

In this month's issue, there is an article on "Last Argument of Kings" for the "Black Powder" rules, written by its author which is really an extended advert for it, another extended advert for the "Bull Run to Gettysburg" rules by its author, a "Flames of War" article linked to the latest "Flames of War" supplement, a report on the "Flames of War" 2011 US nationals, a Vietnam scenario for "Force on Force" linked to its recent Vietnam supplement and co-authored by one of its authors

Who should be writing the scenarios, then?

These reasons are essentially the reason I stopped buying White Dwarf about 7 years ago.

I have never purchased Wargames Illustrated so can't comment if its going that way, but if it is, then its a sad day.

Totally agree, I didn't renew my subscription several months ago because of this reason, I just hope the other(s) can remain 'independent'.
Mind you, can't stand FoW anyway!

A large proportion of the articles published in WI for many years have been written by rules authors and related to their particular sets so nothing new there. It does seen to be more prevelant now though. Could be the case that one of articles by 'ordinary gamers' now appear on blogs or similar rather than WI. As long as it continues to interest and be of use to me I will continue to purchase WI which I have done since issue 1. As I have said before if you want 'independant and innovative' then put pen to paper yourself you never know it may just get published.

NVDoyle, right on~! If you want independent articles, write one and you never know it could be published!

The people most motivated to get an article published are the ones with something to sell so it's not surprising they are the ones sending them in.

Hi,
I really don't care who writes scenarios but I'd rather they were kept as generic rules-wise as possible. Table top teasers never specify a particular set of rules but you know each one will give a good game.
Is any scenario published for a set of rules an extended advert? Well perhaps, but definitely when after the scenario there is an extensive battle report featuring the rules in question which is about three times longer than the scenario and that's what I object to most. The rules specific scenarios I can adapt but the endless battle reports which I have been subjected to over the past few issues are becoming a real turn-off.
I would love to be able to write and submitt a really good, innovative wargames article but I'm just not creative enough. That's why I buy wargames magazines – to try and get ideas! It is a sad fact that lately I've seen more creative ideas and more useful informat on various wargamer's blogs than in Wargames Illustrated and I'd love to see more content like that in the blogesphere in the magazine. Is the reason we are seeing more commercial content because bloggers aren't willing to submitt their ideas or is there another reason? I can't help thinking that there is some sort of "
payola" or other deal making going on even if I'm probably wrong.
Wargames Illustrated seems to be less in touch with the "grass roots" of current wargaming, at least compared to its paper competitors and that's a real shame as in amongst the overly commercial stuff there have been some good articles.
All the best,
George

This is one of the reasons I got disillusioned with the computer 'industry' as well.

At first publications for enthusiasts gradually devolved into glossy infomercials over the years.

And then the infomercial content turned into outright lies and spin before too long. That was the last straw.

But like everything else, the grass roots movements remain vibrant and healthy, despite the overt commercialism at the top.

WI Illustrated is a commercial magazine. Expect them to make decisions based on commercial reasons. I really don't think the producers BP, or LAK or any other rules author are desperate to get every inch of coverage. I simple think they are enthusiasts, keen to show of their latest venture. Who can blame them, or WI who like everyone in this economy want to keep costs down publish popular articles. I don't actually play any of the games, but still enjoy the articles and the excellent production value/pictures… but if you don't like it then vote with your feet not your mouth and do as the OP suggests, stop buying.

I never buy it any more. Its decline in quality has
been over many years. Juvenile articles with no
real substance for wargamers or history buffs. I
would say its pinnacle was Duncans early days.
Epic pictures of Gilders work set the benchmark
for us all. The great collections such as Bill
Gaskins were a regularly feature which was an inspiration
to many.
I agree its production and design have improved but
any mag should get these right with the advance of
modern technology . Its focus seems to be at
school boy level .

Rick Priestley author of Black Powder and Hail Caesar (plus stuff for some big company or other) has penned articles about Saga and War & Conquest in the last couple of issues. Don't think that can be deemed to be in his commercial interest.

I've been buying and reading the mag from issue 1 and I'm another one who thought it has gone downhill a bit. I was struck by Samulus's comment about White Dwarf. When I was reading (well skimming) the Nov mag on Tuesday it struck me that the writing was becoming very WD'ish especially the article on the FOW nationals. It may be just my interpretation, but the production team seem to be trying to use the GW playbook in how to succeed. After reading this post I stoped and thought about it and it probably takes me about 5 or 10 minutes to go cover to cover these days. Especially having no interest in FOW. So yeah, it's time to vote with feet.

At least you get to see the magazine. We are soooooo far behind here in Australia. So difficult to get a magazine on the shelves here in Oz.

Battlegames is nae more George. See thread further down.

Doesn't really strike me as juvenile – I think most gamers (myself incl at 50) are a bit childish anyway since we are after all playing with toy soldiers rather than engaged in scientific historical simulation of warfare (as some silly billy tried to claim in a WI of a while back!)

I`ve written and have had published (WS&S and MW) maybe 25-30 articles over the last 10yrs; all sorts of subjects – French and Spanish colonial, WW2 to Vietnam. All non-rule specific, history + scenario type things. I submitted a few to WI, but was told my stuff is "too dry and historical for a wargames magazine". :-)

WI Issue 288 (Dark Age theme)
Rick Priestley article on a refight of Maldon – ok you could call it an infomercial but i prefer it to historical pieces when they are are on well known battles that have a 'how to game it' paragraph or two tacked on the end (and it has loads of nice pics of a really big battle). Some people like re-fight reports and others don't of course – the thing about too many historical pieces is that they are merely reproducing what one can find on Wikipaedia anyway
Wargaming the 2nd Afghan War – not a hugely well known period so quite interesting (even notwithstanding my comment on historical pieces above) – linked to BP
Challenges of Dark Age Gaming – interesting piece comparing how different rule sets deal with DA battles
SAGA battle report by Rick P – interesting for those looking at the rules to buy – probably a set that the OBE's of historical simulation would turn their noses up at maybe (OBE – from a college course I was on, where another student was decsribed as that = Old Big Head)
Alternative Worcester ECW – probably one of the nicest looking tables one will see – done by someone I know so maybe I am biased
FOW articles – all of 10 pages out of 114 (along with 4 pages on the club section below) – and whilst mainly a potted history piece, it was quite an interesting one that caused me to go away to read more via Google
Building Anglo-Saxon tents
Greeks v Persians battle report using Clash of Empires
RNAS a/cs in Belgium 1914 – nice modelling tips
Kicking it Old School – well, the club focus articles do seem to be more US orientated and the whole HMGS set up in the USA is, to us Brits, all very different anyway
US Mexican War 1846-48 – covering the much less well known campaign in California
Show reports
A few things that are more noticable now are the greater international (dare i say American) feel of the magazine – one can see where contributors are from which i think makes it very different in feel and tone from the old WI which was in years gone by a very 'British' publication. The articles on uniforms and flags etc have entirely vanished and in recent times with the emergence of so many new rule sets one can see how that infomercial aspect comes up. I'm not interested in FOW so skip those – some editions have more than others – the above was probably one of the least FOW influenced ever.
Whilst as a Dark Ages player (and fan now of SAGA) that issue was one pandering to my tastes more so than say an ACW themed one, the above doesn't strike me focussing the magazine at 'the school boy level'. I think whether you can read it in 5 minutes in Smiths depends on the theme. Its easy too of course for people to tar it as the Penthouse of wargaming in terms of its productuion values (with the implicit issue of form over substance), but personally i'd far rather see out of my league stuff than Readers Wives so to speak! I used to subscribe to MW but too many articles on the Kelpers Revolt or smuggling games etc (and pics where one thinks 'I can do better than that') have meant I haven't bought it in ages. Each to his own I guess.

Btw at £96 for a 2 year sub with 4 free extra months thrown in and £47 (if I was to buy it at 10% of RRP) worth of FOW stuff to paint up to sell on ebay, its not bad value even allowing for the articles I skip – each copy is in reality costing me £1.75 – I reckon most of us spend not much more than that on a w/e paper of which we might only read a smallish portion in terms of the overall volume

I would agree though with the comment above that some of the articles on the online version are better than those that go into the paper magazine – I would definitely far rather see the article say in the current on line version re modelling Spartan figures rather than the club focus reports

Well,
With the collapse of the printed version of "Battlegames" (and I don't think a digital version will either come to pass or survive if it does ever appear) the world of wargames magazines has changed significantly.
I'd like to hope that if it has gone under for good that the people who have written articles for it will submitt these to the other wargames magazines. However, I'm not sure if many will make it past the editorial controls of "Wargames Illustrated" and they won't always meet the themed style of "WSS".
Of the magazines left, the best hope (and strangely the one I now look forward to reading the most) is "Miniature Wargames". It does have regular columnists, which I like, but doesn't have a monthly theme, which I also like. While it does sometimes have articles which are clearly commercially linked, those promoting their old publisher Pireme's "Hammer's Slammers" or their napoleonic rules "Espirit de Corp" (which no one I know owns or plays) it also has plenty of articles which try to stay general or offer up scenario stats for several rule sets. Jim Webster's series of Articles on the Wars of the Successors are a good example of this. It also (unless this month's SF/Fantasy special leads to a separate SF/Fantasy version of the magazine – and I hope it does not) has SF/Fantasy content and so might appeal to a broader base of readers. This also means it might take a wider variety of articles including some which would have been published in "Battlegames".
"WSS" is also excellent and I look forward to getting my copy on Saturday but, it is still themed, and I really don't like themed magazines and it is only bi-monthly (at least just now). The bi-monthly thing I like a lot less than the theming. I think it might have been one of the reasons for Battlegames' demise. A bi-monthly magazine has much less chance of developing a momentum or identity and can also often be left behind by developments or trends in the waragmes world (commercial or otherwise).
Reviews are particularly uselss in a magazine which only appears every other month, but then I don't like them in paper magazines anyway, they are best left to the internet.
Only time will tell which magazines will survive and whether or not their content will change. If "Wargames Illustrated" could tone down the overt commercaility of its content just a bit, and definitely get rid of the juvenile and embarassing battle reports (especially the Flames of War ones) then I might keep buying it. Otherwise I just have to keep my fingers crossed for the continued survival of "Miniature Wargames" and "WSS".
All the best,
George.

I'll have to take a look at MW again. I feel though that the world has turned and that articles such as those in Battlegames (and Practical Wargamer before that and Battle before that) are no longer what most of the remaining magazine buyers are looking for.

Which means that in future I'll just be contributing to LW. maybe I should resub to some other society magazines as well – what's slingshot like these days ?

As a regular contributor to WI under Duncan's ownership and an infrequent contributor under Battlefront's stewardship, I'd say the main difference is that articles are commissioned now rather than just sent in blindly. Most recently I've been asked to submit pieces on the background to my Sudan war rules – in the Sudan themed issue – and to my ACW rules for Foundry,which missed the ACW themed issue due to unforeseen circumstances. Neither piece was "sent in" to advertise the rules, rather Dan, the UK Editor, thought readers might be interested in learning a bit about the rules before deciding whether to buy them. Only naturally I was happy to oblige, but only because I was asked.
David Bickley

I gave up on WI after the FoW connection arrived.

WD for WW2 ….

I think folks are being a bit unkind on the new WI. I feel the balance is right and have to say given its ownership the content on FOW is not as heavy as could be expected. Its a popular rules system and they carry adverts for rival 15mm ranges and rules systems. A wider problem is that the wargames magazines are becoming much of a muchness as a trader remarked to me.

It seems to me the remodelled WI has taken on the better aspects of the other mags – I personally like the theme approach they have.

Personally, while I feel the production values have undoubtedly risen, I'm afraid that all the FoW content has done for me is confirm its being cloned from the Games Workshops laboratory.

I'm looking at it as month by month purchase from now on to try and assess if the seemingly increasing chunk of junk at the front of each edition (which is effectively a waste of my money) outweighs the rest of the content, or not.

I've noticed over the years that a number of military history and modeling magazines I used to buy reached their nadir at a point when they had to resort to publishing material on Armored Trains of WW2.

As WI has just come up with its second one in the Battlefront era maybe I should take this as a sign!

Trajanus – LOL I'm still awaiting an article on the RH&DR armoured train in any mag! Not sure what you have against armoured trains – it is a cunning way to tap into the model railroad market perhaps.

It's true that WI seems to be following the White Dwarf template however it is a successful one.

I think Dan and his fellow editors has done a great job in revitalising the title. As I have said before FOW is a popular rules system so is due its place.

As you'll see from Guy's post he is turning to FOW for future WSS.

You mean we're including a review of Flames of War 3rd Edition in a future WS&S, John? As it happens yes we are.

We'll probably do a comparison with similar rules sets.

UK John,

Not sure what you have against armoured trains

Nothing in particular, in fact I'm a closet 'Steam Freak'!

Its just that in the past various Editors interest in Armored Trains, which tend to be a back water interest of Eastern Front WW2, has always seemed to coincide with running out of ideas on what to publish or original articles drying up.

Obviously where WI is concerned its more reflective of Flames of War starting to run out of ideas for products, having covered large chunks of the various combatants equipment already, but you get the drift?

Come to think of it, the FoW world has or will have a problem eventually. WW2 has limits, whereas their commercial idols at Games Workshop are not troubled by reality.

I quite enjoyed the armoured train article but it was a subject I knew diddly squat about before (not that I know much more now)

As the co-designer of NBs, which sold more than a few copies, I see nothing wrong with articles by designers.

Articles written by rules designers no more promote their rules than the articles in the newspapers and magazines or radio or TV shows promote sports teams or actors or movies or plays or whatever.

I own over 150 musket era rules and Heaven knows how many others, and I am always interested in what other designers have to say about their rules and rules design.

Now that the issue has been raised I would not be surprised if I don't have and article or two in me. Truth be known, I am currently working on one. Whether or not it will be published is yet to be determined.

Bob Coggins  

LOL I'm still awaiting an article on the RH&DR armoured train in any mag!

*start pernickety mode

Surely you mean the RH&DLR?

*send pernickety mode

I have fond memories of childhood summers spent down on the Romney marshes and riding about on those trains. I don't recall from their history books about the trains ever being armoured, but I think they may have been armed during WWII.

One of the locos they added in the 70s/80s was a WWII-vintage German engine, which I think was from a munitions factory.

I did take out a 1 year subscription to WI, but won't be renewing it. I'll probably still buy the odd issue if it has enough of interest in it for me, but from current experience that might be 1 issue a year.

Sadly for me, the days of an inventive, ideas-provoking mag seem to be gone. To me WI reflects the "dumbing-down" of the hobby. WI is probably now more of a trade mag than a hobby mag. If I buy it, it is for the non-trade articles.

great collections such as Bill Gaskin's

I know of a few other horse-and-musket collections that match Bill's – custom-designed figures, high quality hand-made scenery. I don't think these will ever appear in pubic. Paradoxically in the European model railway hobby there are a few magazines intended for "purists". These focus on presenting the best of what the hobby has to offer and the best ideas.

I'm really pleased to see this kind of thing being debated. I agree totally with the original poster, and have recently cancelled my subscription to WI for pretty much the reasons George suggests.

I'm afraid these days there are just too many people trying to make a living out of the hobby. What's wrong with trying to make a profit? Well, look at WI, look at how FoW is run. Some may love it but it's not to my taste. I don't mind losing some of the product variety we currently have – I'll swap it for a more independently-minded hobby where people are more interested in sharing than making money.

@ David Bickley: you say 'Neither piece was "sent in" to advertise the rules, rather Dan, the UK Editor, thought readers might be interested in learning a bit about the rules before deciding whether to buy them'. A pretty fine line between the two reasons you mention, I would say. It still adds up to something not too far from an advertorial.

Personally I hope more people turn away from WI and the trend it represents.

Best wishes, Keith Flint.

Good luck Bob, hope to see it..

I'm afraid these days there are just too many people trying to make a living out of the hobby. What's wrong with trying to make a profit? Well, look at WI, look at how FoW is run. Some may love it but it's not to my taste. I don't mind losing some of the product variety we currently have – I'll swap it for a more independently-minded hobby where people are more interested in sharing than making money.
----------------------
sharing doesn't pay the gas bill though. And you havn't really answered your own question about what is wrong with trying to make a profit. Just as you personally want people to turn away from WI, I personally am a little bit tired of hearing people (who think they occupy some kind of moral high ground – not imputing this to your goodself) complain that those who say buy WF, GW or FOW models (or WI)are some kind of irresponsible spend thrifts (per a recent article by some silly billy in WSS or MW) that undermine it for the rest of us, comrades. I drive a Hyundai Getz, other people drive a BMW 5 series – I see no moral dimension in either choice – neither in that some people choose to spend a fair chunk fo their wages in the pub or on football, when i do neither. If WI goes totally into being a house publication for BF then good luck to them – I won't buy it then but if enough people do then it survives – if they don't it goes to the wall – thats capitalism. At the moment it has enough non FOW content that I enjoy that I continue to buy it.

PS as I not completely a WI/BF fanboi (to use that loathsome phrase), I would acknowledge that it does contain (as in this month's colonial edition) evermore battle reports using different rules – however I prefer these to potted histories of entire wars or even dare I say 4 part series on Dutch flags of the War of the Spanish Succession. The battle reports are well written and contain lots of nice photos fitting in with WI's role of being the wargaming Penthouse – I think the expression that I have seen used in various blogs and even pieces on TMP about photos of large numbers of nicely painted figures on good terrain being 'toy soldier porn' is actually rather honest rather than distasteful.

Stuart (glad to find that GNREP8 isn't your real name!), thanks for your interesting response. You're right – sharing doesn't pay the gas bill. My regret is that people increasingly see our hobby as a way of doing so. Trying to make a profit is creating magazines like WI where articles about how to wargame, how to be creative in our hobby, how our hobby might relate to history (or why it doesn't) etc are increasingly rare. Articles where rules systems are presented and discussed by their creators, not independent reviewers, become more common. Look at the online reviews WI publishes – mostly puff pieces, hardly a critical view in sight. This is what I mean by the fading of the 'independently minded' wargamer. Having wargames magazines that are turning into trade publications (as one poster here so rightly said) is a bad thing. There are still plenty of independently minded wargamers around, of course. I want to make sure they know they are not alone, and encourage others to be the same.

You mention Battlefront/FoW. Personally I think Battlefront produce mainly excellent models at reasonable prices – but the profit motive means FoW have to promote themselves as a 'one stop shop' for all things WW2, exactly the opposite (IMHO) of what wargaming should be about. And as for the endless supplements – don't get me started. Although you politely spare my feelings, I will admit to private feelings of moral superiority when I see some gamers begging for the next supplement or the next product release on wargames forums. It's just unseemly, and a result of excessive commercialism.

So I can't really join you in saying 'good luck to them'. I know some would say it's people's jobs – but if you live by the sword you sometimes die by the sword. As you say, that's capitalism.

Anyway, as I have said, great to have people's views on this aired.

Best wishes, Keith.

GNR is the Guarda Nacional Republicana (in Portugal) – I am a bit of a Lusophile!

Thanks for the explanation Stuart – it's like they say, every day's a school day!

If yo don't like the magazine- publish your own. It's not hard, what with advanced artwork and typesetting programs. You can check out the Gettysburg Wargame Club which publishes an excellent newsletter which goes out world wide.

I was never impressed with the English Magazines, except for Stuart Asquith's one which was around all to briefly. Wargames Illustrated and Miniature Wargames all seemed to me to be "pewter porn" with too many pictures of other peoples figures and not enought content on games, rules, scenarios etc. When "Historical Gamer" and "The Courier" were still publishing I published oh- about a hundred articles on various subjects. I liked those magazines because they were very high on content and input from regular wargamers- not personalities or people who publish rules. I design all my own rules which I think are as glossy or finished as the others but I usually give them away.

But if you don't like the magazine, then start your own. In "The Society of Daisy" we have our own nesletter, which is print only. We don't believe in e-mailing or electronic versions-- tool of Satan you know-- and so we prefer print. It's been published now consistently on a quarterly basis for (ummm… let's see-- 6 years. It's usually full color, very "arted-up" but it caters mostly to the likes and dislikes of the society which is humor and whimsy in games, imagination, and imagi-nations (which you can find out about elsewhere on TMP. We usually have humorous articles about the various imaginary countries the group has and the armies they field, sometime editorials and book reviews, and sometimes a bit of satire. For example last issue started a new theme where we are subjecting the old Game of "Divine Right" to conform with Marxist dogma. That's now Karl, but Groucho, Chico, and Harpo, and we are issuing a gazeteer of the countries. In the past we have done some redesign of old avalon hill games. We gave a supplement to turn "Outdoor Survival" into an ancients campaign, we took "Wizzards Quest" and made it into a game about family and faction in the Renaissance called "Guelphs and Ghibbellines" (it uses Tarot cards for combat resolution) and we took the old Blitzkrieg and gave rules for a Seven Years War Campaign. We took Kriegspiel and called it Kriegschlogg which is a game about politics and foreign military assistance in the Cold War, and Tactics II got a diplomatic, economic and political model, also a naval component featuring, for example the two battlecruisers, Schnorhorst and Gneisenuff.

We also have made totally original games, like one, an outer-space campaign based on the classic Za-Za-Gabor movie "Queen of Outer Space" (called – Space Babes) and we modified that to be another Musket period campaign (called Lace Babes) but one based on court politics, sex, corruption and scandal. You won if you could loot the peasants nine ways to sunday, throw your Queen into a foretress prison, humiliate and cashier all the worthwhile people in your court, promote all the butt-kisers and toadies and galavant around your country with your mistress from gambling dens to Bordellos. (It's good to be da king.) The issue is usually from four to ten 11 x 17 pages both sides. The ten is when we send in game components. You won't find hardly ANY historical stuff, but that's because we're all pretty much a bunch of demented freaks who have as their substance abuse of choice-- lead. We all write our own rules, design our own armies and like the cameraderie.

My point in bringing this up is that you can do a lot on your own, and it's not that hard to write stuff. We all write battle reports and histories of our imaginary countries, and enjoy doing it. Why-- last year -- I even wrote an entire Opera by Mozart for my Imaginary Country (The Princessipate of Saxe Burlap und Schleswig-Beerstein) called "The Abduction of Don-DiDraino." So if you want to have a magazine, start it, run off a few dozen copies, send them to your friends and ask if they would like to continue getting them.

was never impressed with the English Magazines, except for Stuart Asquith's one which was around all to briefly. Wargames Illustrated and Miniature Wargames all seemed to me to be "pewter porn" with too many pictures of other peoples figures and not enought content on games, rules, scenarios etc….
You won't find hardly ANY historical stuff, but that's because we're all pretty much a bunch of demented freaks who have as their substance abuse of choice-- lead. We all write our own rules, design our own armies and like the cameraderie.
My point in bringing this up is that you can do a lot on your own, and it's not that hard to write stuff.

------------
I understand what you are getting at in a way but whimsy and imagi-nations are maybe themselves a bit niche – what you are referring to are fanzines (that will always have a circulation in double or maybe treble figures at most) rather than commercial magazines that employ people etc and are aiming to sell in the thousands. I'd rather see pewter porn than read long articles about imaginary 7YW armies or indeed anything fantasy or sci-fi. Full marks to people who have the time and inclination to write such or write their own rules but most of us i suspect can just about find the time to do a bit of painting and play with our toys once a week

I just gave "Saxe N' Violets" as an example, not a model. If you want a magazine with different content-- make your own.

Don't disparage "fanzines" they made this hobby. Bulletin of New England Wargamers, Pat Condray's Armchair General, Jack Scruby's "Table Top Talk" Featherstone's Wargames Digest, The Courier, and a host of others provided real articles by real gamers about real games that was useful and fun.

Fanzine's built this hobby and I suspect they will continue to sustain it when all the big Brit Glossies have gone to resemble the Harriet Carter Catalog.

Again, if you like the Pewter Porn, then fine-- but why are you commenting here. Obviously other people don't. If you want something different then make your own magazine. That was my point.

Don't disparage "fanzines" they made this hobby
----------------------
I wasn't merely making the point that there's a difference between the 2 and of course one can have both – as a reader of Slingshot etc in the 1970's I'm aware of their role. I'm not sure of their role in the UK scene now – maybe its different in the US

Again, if you like the Pewter Porn, then fine – but why are you commenting here
---------------------------------
as its a thread about what people like or don't like about WI? More generally regardless of whether people like WI or not, as to not liking pewter porn in its broadest sense then I think very few gamers are really into unpainted figures or counters in lieu – all the gamers I know ultimately like playing with pretty toy soldiers. Perhaps we Brits ( per 'the English Magazines', 'big Brit Glossies') are just more into pewter porn! :-)